Right, I checked Ladbrokes (as I've mentioned, my accounts are really lopsided so I often bet with Ladbrokes rather than Betfair now) and have made small bets as follows: To lose the first set and win the match, Sharapova 5.5 Halep win 2-1, 4.5
You git, you're backing them both to win, which makes it impossible to lay them both.
After your preposterous prediction that the Greek economy would outperform the UK's in 2013 , I don't think we have to take your opinions very seriously, do we ?
Mark's continued and lengthy denial of the looming largest economic crash since the creation of bronze was also a highpoint!
OK - I'm going to be somewhat controversial here. I think that this result was good for the Lib Dems. (Not actually good, but good for MP incumbency).
If the LD vote in a no-hope seat is as low as 2.5% (and that in a seat which, whilst they were third was by no means a low vote share for them), but they are still polling 10% nationally - then they must be polling reasonably well in there incumbent seats (those voters have to be somewhere...).
Actually, I think it was something simpler. LibDems voters are now - above all - else, anti-UKIPpers.
(By this, I mean the remaining LibDem voters. The NOTA LibDem voters are already Kippers.)
I think their vote in Thurrock (11%), South Thanet (15%), North Thanet (19%) and other 'Kipper strongholds' is going to collapse to 2-3% levels. And a large chunk of this will seek out that party (Labour or Conservative) that is seen as most likely to stop the Kipper surge.
This is likely to make UKIP's job of securing an MP incrementally harder.
If Lib Dem voters are really anti-UKIP voters then surely they are not Lib Dem voters. They may make it harder for UKIP to win a seat but waht does that say about the LIB Dems as a party?
As an aside, I think a great many Conservatives in Eastleigh will vote LibDem to stop UKIP.
The Survation Eastleigh poll does not support that theory.
I think there are a number of Conservative voters on this board - like JackW and Charles, for example - who have said they would vote LibDem in the event of a UKIP/Con alliance. I do not believe they are alone, and I would be very surprised if the LibDems did not see their vote share increase in Eastleigh from the by-election level.
You know your spinning is a stretch when you have to use lines like "they didn't even beat their all time best ever result!"
Over 8,000 votes more than 2010 and 18% better share can hardly be called a disaster. Its about par, almost exactly in line with the polls/expectations. Only Eastleigh was better for UKIP
John Curtice is being spoke very highly of today. He said on this week that if UKIP got 30% it would be a "remarkable result". Now the spinners are saying that was the benchmark and failure to get it was a poor show!
Wouldnt think anything has changed for next year on the back of this. A hung parliament with UKIP getting no more than 4-5 seats. Diane JAmes looked a bit foolish when she said up to 60 was possible
OK - I'm going to be somewhat controversial here. I think that this result was good for the Lib Dems. (Not actually good, but good for MP incumbency).
If the LD vote in a no-hope seat is as low as 2.5% (and that in a seat which, whilst they were third was by no means a low vote share for them), but they are still polling 10% nationally - then they must be polling reasonably well in there incumbent seats (those voters have to be somewhere...).
Actually, I think it was something simpler. LibDems voters are now - above all - else, anti-UKIPpers.
(By this, I mean the remaining LibDem voters. The NOTA LibDem voters are already Kippers.)
I think their vote in Thurrock (11%), South Thanet (15%), North Thanet (19%) and other 'Kipper strongholds' is going to collapse to 2-3% levels. And a large chunk of this will seek out that party (Labour or Conservative) that is seen as most likely to stop the Kipper surge.
This is likely to make UKIP's job of securing an MP incrementally harder.
If Lib Dem voters are really anti-UKIP voters then surely they are not Lib Dem voters. They may make it harder for UKIP to win a seat but waht does that say about the LIB Dems as a party?
As an aside, I think a great many Conservatives in Eastleigh will vote LibDem to stop UKIP.
The Survation Eastleigh poll does not support that theory.
I think there are a number of Conservative voters on this board - like JackW and Charles, for example - who have said they would vote LibDem in the event of a UKIP/Con alliance. I do not believe they are alone, and I would be very surprised if the LibDems did not see their vote share increase in Eastleigh from the by-election level.
I would vote actively against a candidate who enjoyed a Conservative/UKIP coupon. It's like going backward to Michael Howard with knobs on.
OK - I'm going to be somewhat controversial here. I think that this result was good for the Lib Dems. (Not actually good, but good for MP incumbency).
If the LD vote in a no-hope seat is as low as 2.5% (and that in a seat which, whilst they were third was by no means a low vote share for them), but they are still polling 10% nationally - then they must be polling reasonably well in there incumbent seats (those voters have to be somewhere...).
Actually, I think it was something simpler. LibDems voters are now - above all - else, anti-UKIPpers.
(By this, I mean the remaining LibDem voters. The NOTA LibDem voters are already Kippers.)
I think their vote in Thurrock (11%), South Thanet (15%), North Thanet (19%) and other 'Kipper strongholds' is going to collapse to 2-3% levels. And a large chunk of this will seek out that party (Labour or Conservative) that is seen as most likely to stop the Kipper surge.
This is likely to make UKIP's job of securing an MP incrementally harder.
If Lib Dem voters are really anti-UKIP voters then surely they are not Lib Dem voters. They may make it harder for UKIP to win a seat but waht does that say about the LIB Dems as a party?
As an aside, I think a great many Conservatives in Eastleigh will vote LibDem to stop UKIP.
The Survation Eastleigh poll does not support that theory.
I think there are a number of Conservative voters on this board - like JackW and Charles, for example - who have said they would vote LibDem in the event of a UKIP/Con alliance. I do not believe they are alone, and I would be very surprised if the LibDems did not see their vote share increase in Eastleigh from the by-election level.
Survation did not find any 2013-Con>LD switchers.
(I thought JackW was a LD!)
That is not correct , the Survation poll found 3 Conservatives out of 87 who voted in the by election changing their vote to Lib Dem at a G .E
OK - I'm going to be somewhat controversial here. I think that this result was good for the Lib Dems. (Not actually good, but good for MP incumbency).
If the LD vote in a no-hope seat is as low as 2.5% (and that in a seat which, whilst they were third was by no means a low vote share for them), but they are still polling 10% nationally - then they must be polling reasonably well in there incumbent seats (those voters have to be somewhere...).
Actually, I think it was something simpler. LibDems voters are now - above all - else, anti-UKIPpers.
(By this, I mean the remaining LibDem voters. The NOTA LibDem voters are already Kippers.)
I think their vote in Thurrock (11%), South Thanet (15%), North Thanet (19%) and other 'Kipper strongholds' is going to collapse to 2-3% levels. And a large chunk of this will seek out that party (Labour or Conservative) that is seen as most likely to stop the Kipper surge.
This is likely to make UKIP's job of securing an MP incrementally harder.
If Lib Dem voters are really anti-UKIP voters then surely they are not Lib Dem voters. They may make it harder for UKIP to win a seat but waht does that say about the LIB Dems as a party?
I don't think it says anything about the LibDems as a party. It says something about the remaining LibDem supporters.
As an aside, I think a great many Conservatives in Eastleigh will vote LibDem to stop UKIP.
Anti-UKIP tactical voting is going to be an absolute disaster for the party.
Given UKIP's apparent transfer-unfriendliness you'd think Con-Lib-Lab would be up for an evil conspiracy to change the Euro voting system to STV. They should throw that in there with the recall vote thing and present it as another way for the voters to kick out bad individual representatives. (Which it genuinely does provide, although the voters probably wouldn't use it that way.)
You know your spinning is a stretch when you have to use lines like "they didn't even beat their all time best ever result!"
However, it is a reasonable observation to apply to a party that wishes to thrust forward with the argument that we are a rapidly growing popular movement with tremendous momentum behind us.
By implication the expectation should be for advancement in reasonable sized steps in these early stages.
Well they increased their vote share by almost 600%!
Newark, and the multitude of excuses, shows us that Labour's 'One Nation' tag is complete bollocks.
What it's shown is that you haven't understood it. It's code for being against inequality, draped in a Union Jack. But then we know the PB Golden Rule don't we
OK - I'm going to be somewhat controversial here. I think that this result was good for the Lib Dems. (Not actually good, but good for MP incumbency).
If the LD vote in a no-hope seat is as low as 2.5% (and that in a seat which, whilst they were third was by no means a low vote share for them), but they are still polling 10% nationally - then they must be polling reasonably well in there incumbent seats (those voters have to be somewhere...).
Actually, I think it was something simpler. LibDems voters are now - above all - else, anti-UKIPpers.
(By this, I mean the remaining LibDem voters. The NOTA LibDem voters are already Kippers.)
I think their vote in Thurrock (11%), South Thanet (15%), North Thanet (19%) and other 'Kipper strongholds' is going to collapse to 2-3% levels. And a large chunk of this will seek out that party (Labour or Conservative) that is seen as most likely to stop the Kipper surge.
This is likely to make UKIP's job of securing an MP incrementally harder.
If Lib Dem voters are really anti-UKIP voters then surely they are not Lib Dem voters. They may make it harder for UKIP to win a seat but waht does that say about the LIB Dems as a party?
As an aside, I think a great many Conservatives in Eastleigh will vote LibDem to stop UKIP.
The Survation Eastleigh poll does not support that theory.
I think there are a number of Conservative voters on this board - like JackW and Charles, for example - who have said they would vote LibDem in the event of a UKIP/Con alliance. I do not believe they are alone, and I would be very surprised if the LibDems did not see their vote share increase in Eastleigh from the by-election level.
You know your spinning is a stretch when you have to use lines like "they didn't even beat their all time best ever result!"
Over 8,000 votes more than 2010 and 18% better share can hardly be called a disaster. Its about par, almost exactly in line with the polls/expectations. Only Eastleigh was better for UKIP
John Curtice is being spoke very highly of today. He said on this week that if UKIP got 30% it would be a "remarkable result". Now the spinners are saying that was the benchmark and failure to get it was a poor show!
Wouldnt think anything has changed for next year on the back of this. A hung parliament with UKIP getting no more than 4-5 seats. Diane JAmes looked a bit foolish when she said up to 60 was possible
OT EU Lagarde seems to be ruling herself out of the Commission job on the grounds that she already has a job, but a lot of anti-Juncker people seem to want a woman, which they presumably think would be harder for the parliament to block.
So they need a woman with experience in a high-powered international job, familiar with the EU, with a low-key style so she doesn't eclipse the heads of government, good at communicating in English to handle the UK's various issues, yet somehow not doing anything important for the next four years.
OK - I'm going to be somewhat controversial here. I think that this result was good for the Lib Dems. (Not actually good, but good for MP incumbency).
If the LD vote in a no-hope seat is as low as 2.5% (and that in a seat which, whilst they were third was by no means a low vote share for them), but they are still polling 10% nationally - then they must be polling reasonably well in there incumbent seats (those voters have to be somewhere...).
Actually, I think it was something simpler. LibDems voters are now - above all - else, anti-UKIPpers.
(By this, I mean the remaining LibDem voters. The NOTA LibDem voters are already Kippers.)
I think their vote in Thurrock (11%), South Thanet (15%), North Thanet (19%) and other 'Kipper strongholds' is going to collapse to 2-3% levels. And a large chunk of this will seek out that party (Labour or Conservative) that is seen as most likely to stop the Kipper surge.
This is likely to make UKIP's job of securing an MP incrementally harder.
If Lib Dem voters are really anti-UKIP voters then surely they are not Lib Dem voters. They may make it harder for UKIP to win a seat but waht does that say about the LIB Dems as a party?
As an aside, I think a great many Conservatives in Eastleigh will vote LibDem to stop UKIP.
The Survation Eastleigh poll does not support that theory.
I think there are a number of Conservative voters on this board - like JackW and Charles, for example - who have said they would vote LibDem in the event of a UKIP/Con alliance. I do not believe they are alone, and I would be very surprised if the LibDems did not see their vote share increase in Eastleigh from the by-election level.
Survation did not find any 2013-Con>LD switchers.
(I thought JackW was a LD!)
That is not correct , the Survation poll found 3 Conservatives out of 87 who voted in the by election changing their vote to Lib Dem at a G .E
OK - I'm going to be somewhat controversial here. I think that this result was good for the Lib Dems. (Not actually good, but good for MP incumbency).
If the LD vote in a no-hope seat is as low as 2.5% (and that in a seat which, whilst they were third was by no means a low vote share for them), but they are still polling 10% nationally - then they must be polling reasonably well in there incumbent seats (those voters have to be somewhere...).
Actually, I think it was something simpler. LibDems voters are now - above all - else, anti-UKIPpers.
(By this, I mean the remaining LibDem voters. The NOTA LibDem voters are already Kippers.)
I think their vote in Thurrock (11%), South Thanet (15%), North Thanet (19%) and other 'Kipper strongholds' is going to collapse to 2-3% levels. And a large chunk of this will seek out that party (Labour or Conservative) that is seen as most likely to stop the Kipper surge.
This is likely to make UKIP's job of securing an MP incrementally harder.
I agree - making those 5/6 odds from Paddy Power on UKIP winning <1.5 seats (i.e. either zero seats or one seat) look even tastier.
You know your spinning is a stretch when you have to use lines like "they didn't even beat their all time best ever result!"
Over 8,000 votes more than 2010 and 18% better share can hardly be called a disaster. Its about par, almost exactly in line with the polls/expectations. Only Eastleigh was better for UKIP
John Curtice is being spoke very highly of today. He said on this week that if UKIP got 30% it would be a "remarkable result". Now the spinners are saying that was the benchmark and failure to get it was a poor show!
Wouldnt think anything has changed for next year on the back of this. A hung parliament with UKIP getting no more than 4-5 seats. Diane JAmes looked a bit foolish when she said up to 60 was possible
Which 4 to 5 seats will UKIP win?
The greats - Grimsby and Yarmouth, Castle Point, Thurrock and Thanet South perhaps
Newark, and the multitude of excuses, shows us that Labour's 'One Nation' tag is complete bollocks.
What it's shown is that you haven't understood it. It's code for being against inequality, draped in a Union Jack. But then we know the PB Golden Rule don't we
A tag line so good, it requires a long winded and condescending explanation.
OK - I'm going to be somewhat controversial here. I think that this result was good for the Lib Dems. (Not actually good, but good for MP incumbency).
If the LD vote in a no-hope seat is as low as 2.5% (and that in a seat which, whilst they were third was by no means a low vote share for them), but they are still polling 10% nationally - then they must be polling reasonably well in there incumbent seats (those voters have to be somewhere...).
Actually, I think it was something simpler. LibDems voters are now - above all - else, anti-UKIPpers.
(By this, I mean the remaining LibDem voters. The NOTA LibDem voters are already Kippers.)
I think their vote in Thurrock (11%), South Thanet (15%), North Thanet (19%) and other 'Kipper strongholds' is going to collapse to 2-3% levels. And a large chunk of this will seek out that party (Labour or Conservative) that is seen as most likely to stop the Kipper surge.
This is likely to make UKIP's job of securing an MP incrementally harder.
If Lib Dem voters are really anti-UKIP voters then surely they are not Lib Dem voters. They may make it harder for UKIP to win a seat but waht does that say about the LIB Dems as a party?
As an aside, I think a great many Conservatives in Eastleigh will vote LibDem to stop UKIP.
The Survation Eastleigh poll does not support that theory.
I think there are a number of Conservative voters on this board - like JackW and Charles, for example - who have said they would vote LibDem in the event of a UKIP/Con alliance. I do not believe they are alone, and I would be very surprised if the LibDems did not see their vote share increase in Eastleigh from the by-election level.
OK - I'm going to be somewhat controversial here. I think that this result was good for the Lib Dems. (Not actually good, but good for MP incumbency).
If the LD vote in a no-hope seat is as low as 2.5% (and that in a seat which, whilst they were third was by no means a low vote share for them), but they are still polling 10% nationally - then they must be polling reasonably well in there incumbent seats (those voters have to be somewhere...).
Actually, I think it was something simpler. LibDems voters are now - above all - else, anti-UKIPpers.
(By this, I mean the remaining LibDem voters. The NOTA LibDem voters are already Kippers.)
I think their vote in Thurrock (11%), South Thanet (15%), North Thanet (19%) and other 'Kipper strongholds' is going to collapse to 2-3% levels. And a large chunk of this will seek out that party (Labour or Conservative) that is seen as most likely to stop the Kipper surge.
This is likely to make UKIP's job of securing an MP incrementally harder.
If Lib Dem voters are really anti-UKIP voters then surely they are not Lib Dem voters. They may make it harder for UKIP to win a seat but waht does that say about the LIB Dems as a party?
As an aside, I think a great many Conservatives in Eastleigh will vote LibDem to stop UKIP.
The Survation Eastleigh poll does not support that theory.
I think there are a number of Conservative voters on this board - like JackW and Charles, for example - who have said they would vote LibDem in the event of a UKIP/Con alliance. I do not believe they are alone, and I would be very surprised if the LibDems did not see their vote share increase in Eastleigh from the by-election level.
Survation did not find any 2013-Con>LD switchers.
(I thought JackW was a LD!)
That is not correct , the Survation poll found 3 Conservatives out of 87 who voted in the by election changing their vote to Lib Dem at a G .E
You know your spinning is a stretch when you have to use lines like "they didn't even beat their all time best ever result!"
Over 8,000 votes more than 2010 and 18% better share can hardly be called a disaster. Its about par, almost exactly in line with the polls/expectations. Only Eastleigh was better for UKIP
John Curtice is being spoke very highly of today. He said on this week that if UKIP got 30% it would be a "remarkable result". Now the spinners are saying that was the benchmark and failure to get it was a poor show!
Wouldnt think anything has changed for next year on the back of this. A hung parliament with UKIP getting no more than 4-5 seats. Diane JAmes looked a bit foolish when she said up to 60 was possible
Which 4 to 5 seats will UKIP win?
The greats - Grimsby and Yarmouth, Castle Point, Thurrock and Thanet South perhaps
So you think Mr Miliband will scrape thru in Doncaster?
You know your spinning is a stretch when you have to use lines like "they didn't even beat their all time best ever result!"
Over 8,000 votes more than 2010 and 18% better share can hardly be called a disaster. Its about par, almost exactly in line with the polls/expectations. Only Eastleigh was better for UKIP
John Curtice is being spoke very highly of today. He said on this week that if UKIP got 30% it would be a "remarkable result". Now the spinners are saying that was the benchmark and failure to get it was a poor show!
Wouldnt think anything has changed for next year on the back of this. A hung parliament with UKIP getting no more than 4-5 seats. Diane JAmes looked a bit foolish when she said up to 60 was possible
Which 4 to 5 seats will UKIP win?
The greats - Grimsby and Yarmouth, Castle Point, Thurrock and Thanet South perhaps
So you think Mr Miliband will scrape thru in Doncaster?
OT EU Lagarde seems to be ruling herself out of the Commission job on the grounds that she already has a job, but a lot of anti-Juncker people seem to want a woman, which they presumably think would be harder for the parliament to block.
So they need a woman with experience in a high-powered international job, familiar with the EU, with a low-key style so she doesn't eclipse the heads of government, good at communicating in English to handle the UK's various issues, yet somehow not doing anything important for the next four years.
Catherine Ashton, please call your office.
Another triumph for the former chair of Hertfordshire Health Authority? *basks in reflected glory*
No one (no one sensible, at least) thinks this is anything other than a very good result for UKIP. It demonstrates there is probably 20-25% of the country who identify actively with UKIP and that number may grow.
Unfortunately for UKIP, I think it also demonstrated the beginning of the rise of anti-UKIP tactical voting.
If UKIP is topping out at 30% constituency vote share, and are 'transfer unfriendly', then they will really struggle to win seats.
I think there will be some element of pro-UKIP anti-Labour tactical voting. In northern seats where the Tories struggle many natural Tories may feel they can stop Labour by voting UKIP. We may find a UKIP gain emerging 'unexpectedly' from a Lab/Con marginal where both parties lose support to UKIP for different reasons and from different demographics.
OK - I'm going to be somewhat controversial here. I think that this result was good for the Lib Dems. (Not actually good, but good for MP incumbency).
If the LD vote in a no-hope seat is as low as 2.5% (and that in a seat which, whilst they were third was by no means a low vote share for them), but they are still polling 10% nationally - then they must be polling reasonably well in there incumbent seats (those voters have to be somewhere...).
Actually, I think it was something simpler. LibDems voters are now - above all - else, anti-UKIPpers.
(By this, I mean the remaining LibDem voters. The NOTA LibDem voters are already Kippers.)
I think their vote in Thurrock (11%), South Thanet (15%), North Thanet (19%) and other 'Kipper strongholds' is going to collapse to 2-3% levels. And a large chunk of this will seek out that party (Labour or Conservative) that is seen as most likely to stop the Kipper surge.
This is likely to make UKIP's job of securing an MP incrementally harder.
If Lib Dem voters are really anti-UKIP voters then surely they are not Lib Dem voters. They may make it harder for UKIP to win a seat but waht does that say about the LIB Dems as a party?
As an aside, I think a great many Conservatives in Eastleigh will vote LibDem to stop UKIP.
The Survation Eastleigh poll does not support that theory.
I think there are a number of Conservative voters on this board - like JackW and Charles, for example - who have said they would vote LibDem in the event of a UKIP/Con alliance. I do not believe they are alone, and I would be very surprised if the LibDems did not see their vote share increase in Eastleigh from the by-election level.
Survation did not find any 2013-Con>LD switchers.
(I thought JackW was a LD!)
That is not correct , the Survation poll found 3 Conservatives out of 87 who voted in the by election changing their vote to Lib Dem at a G .E
OK - I'm going to be somewhat controversial here. I think that this result was good for the Lib Dems. (Not actually good, but good for MP incumbency).
If the LD vote in a no-hope seat is as low as 2.5% (and that in a seat which, whilst they were third was by no means a low vote share for them), but they are still polling 10% nationally - then they must be polling reasonably well in there incumbent seats (those voters have to be somewhere...).
Actually, I think it was something simpler. LibDems voters are now - above all - else, anti-UKIPpers.
(By this, I mean the remaining LibDem voters. The NOTA LibDem voters are already Kippers.)
I think their vote in Thurrock (11%), South Thanet (15%), North Thanet (19%) and other 'Kipper strongholds' is going to collapse to 2-3% levels. And a large chunk of this will seek out that party (Labour or Conservative) that is seen as most likely to stop the Kipper surge.
This is likely to make UKIP's job of securing an MP incrementally harder.
If Lib Dem voters are really anti-UKIP voters then surely they are not Lib Dem voters. They may make it harder for UKIP to win a seat but waht does that say about the LIB Dems as a party?
As an aside, I think a great many Conservatives in Eastleigh will vote LibDem to stop UKIP.
The Survation Eastleigh poll does not support that theory.
I think there are a number of Conservative voters on this board - like JackW and Charles, for example - who have said they would vote LibDem in the event of a UKIP/Con alliance. I do not believe they are alone, and I would be very surprised if the LibDems did not see their vote share increase in Eastleigh from the by-election level.
Survation did not find any 2013-Con>LD switchers.
(I thought JackW was a LD!)
That is not correct , the Survation poll found 3 Conservatives out of 87 who voted in the by election changing their vote to Lib Dem at a G .E
IMF forecast UK to be the fastest growing major advanced economy in the world this year. Shows our #LongTermEconomicPlan is working
Is it ever wise to agree with the IMF?
yes, they kept on warning Gordon Brown about his spending.
I will genuflect in the prescience of the IMF from now onwards.
From 2005
Gordon Brown launched a furious assault on the International Monetary Fund at the weekend after the Washington-based organisation threatened to dent Labour's election campaign by insisting spending cuts or tax rises were needed to cut Britain's budget deficit.
I haven't watched Channel 4 News since the clown Snow claimed not being able to report when and where Harry was in the frontlines amounted to Soviet-style censorship.
I haven't watched Channel 4 News since the clown Snow claimed not being able to report when and where Harry was in the frontlines amounted to Soviet-style censorship.
Please use his full name. 'Left-leaning and about to topple over' Snow
OK - I'm going to be somewhat controversial here. I think that this result was good for the Lib Dems. (Not actually good, but good for MP incumbency).
If the LD vote in a no-hope seat is as low as 2.5% (and that in a seat which, whilst they were third was by no means a low vote share for them), but they are still polling 10% nationally - then they must be polling reasonably well in there incumbent seats (those voters have to be somewhere...).
Actually, I think it was something simpler. LibDems voters are now - above all - else, anti-UKIPpers.
(By this, I mean the remaining LibDem voters. The NOTA LibDem voters are already Kippers.)
I think their vote in Thurrock (11%), South Thanet (15%), North Thanet (19%) and other 'Kipper strongholds' is going to collapse to 2-3% levels. And a large chunk of this will seek out that party (Labour or Conservative) that is seen as most likely to stop the Kipper surge.
This is likely to make UKIP's job of securing an MP incrementally harder.
I agree - making those 5/6 odds from Paddy Power on UKIP winning
I've just stuck £30 on that. Its a nice counterpart to the £20 @ 8-1 I've got on UKIP 2 or more seats.
Newark, and the multitude of excuses, shows us that Labour's 'One Nation' tag is complete bollocks.
What it's shown is that you haven't understood it. It's code for being against inequality, draped in a Union Jack. But then we know the PB Golden Rule don't we
A tag line so good, it requires a long winded and condescending explanation.
What a winner!
It's good to be all things to all men, unless you're Lib Dems
OK - I'm going to be somewhat controversial here. I think that this result was good for the Lib Dems. (Not actually good, but good for MP incumbency).
If the LD vote in a no-hope seat is as low as 2.5% (and that in a seat which, whilst they were third was by no means a low vote share for them), but they are still polling 10% nationally - then they must be polling reasonably well in there incumbent seats (those voters have to be somewhere...).
Actually, I think it was something simpler. LibDems voters are now - above all - else, anti-UKIPpers.
(By this, I mean the remaining LibDem voters. The NOTA LibDem voters are already Kippers.)
I think their vote in Thurrock (11%), South Thanet (15%), North Thanet (19%) and other 'Kipper strongholds' is going to collapse to 2-3% levels. And a large chunk of this will seek out that party (Labour or Conservative) that is seen as most likely to stop the Kipper surge.
This is likely to make UKIP's job of securing an MP incrementally harder.
I agree - making those 5/6 odds from Paddy Power on UKIP winning
Having looked at these prices this morning the 6/4 on 0 UKIP seats with Ladbrokes looks vaguely tempting, with the option to possibly hedge on Thanet if required. My reservations would be, firstly that the Newark electorate are very different to that of some of the seaside constituencies where the kippers are strong and may not have been subject to the the same degree of immigration. Secondly, it was immediately obvious who the best party in Newark was to stop the purple peril. In seats where it is closer between the blues and reds 30 percent may be enough to win for Ukip if the collapsing Lib Dem vote is shared out equally..
You know your spinning is a stretch when you have to use lines like "they didn't even beat their all time best ever result!"
Over 8,000 votes more than 2010 and 18% better share can hardly be called a disaster. Its about par, almost exactly in line with the polls/expectations. Only Eastleigh was better for UKIP
John Curtice is being spoke very highly of today. He said on this week that if UKIP got 30% it would be a "remarkable result". Now the spinners are saying that was the benchmark and failure to get it was a poor show!
Wouldnt think anything has changed for next year on the back of this. A hung parliament with UKIP getting no more than 4-5 seats. Diane JAmes looked a bit foolish when she said up to 60 was possible
Which 4 to 5 seats will UKIP win?
Im not saying they will win 4-5, i am saying thats the most they will win
These are their best shots IMO
Boston & Skegness Bromsgrove Castle Point Dag & Rain Dudley North Great Grimsby Halesown & Rowley Regis Morley & Outwood Newcastle Under Lyme Plymouth Moor View S Bas & E Thurrock Staffordshire Moorlands Stoke on Trent South Telford Thanet North Thanet South Thurrock Walsall North Lads Walsall South West Bromwich West Wolverhampton NE
You know your spinning is a stretch when you have to use lines like "they didn't even beat their all time best ever result!"
Over 8,000 votes more than 2010 and 18% better share can hardly be called a disaster. Its about par, almost exactly in line with the polls/expectations. Only Eastleigh was better for UKIP
John Curtice is being spoke very highly of today. He said on this week that if UKIP got 30% it would be a "remarkable result". Now the spinners are saying that was the benchmark and failure to get it was a poor show!
Wouldnt think anything has changed for next year on the back of this. A hung parliament with UKIP getting no more than 4-5 seats. Diane JAmes looked a bit foolish when she said up to 60 was possible
Which 4 to 5 seats will UKIP win?
The greats - Grimsby and Yarmouth, Castle Point, Thurrock and Thanet South perhaps
In Great Grimsby in 2010 UKIP polled 2,043 votes, over 8,000 votes behind the winner.
In Great Yarmouth in 2010, UKIP polled 2,066 votes, over 16,000 votes behind the winner.
UKIP did not fight Castle Point in 2010.
In Thurrock UKIP polled 3,390, over 13,000 votes behind the winner.
In Thanet South UKIP polled 2,529, over 19,000 votes behind the winner.
Great Yarmouth was part of the constituency that elected UKIP's Tom Wise in 2004. Wise was jailed for expenses fraud in 2009. I'm not sure why UKIP would be popular enough there to overturn a 16,000 vote lead.
In Thurrock the Tory majority is only 92. UKIP could possibly gift this to Labour, bringing its desire for Brexit closer by securing the election of an MP bitterly opposed to it. In some way that only UKIPpers understand.
I'm struggling to understand why any of these would be a target. Your best result by poll share last time was the 6% or so in Christchurch. Although that's scant comfort, because the winner's lead over UKIP was also huge - more than 23,000 votes ahead.
You know your spinning is a stretch when you have to use lines like "they didn't even beat their all time best ever result!"
Over 8,000 votes more than 2010 and 18% better share can hardly be called a disaster. Its about par, almost exactly in line with the polls/expectations. Only Eastleigh was better for UKIP
John Curtice is being spoke very highly of today. He said on this week that if UKIP got 30% it would be a "remarkable result". Now the spinners are saying that was the benchmark and failure to get it was a poor show!
Wouldnt think anything has changed for next year on the back of this. A hung parliament with UKIP getting no more than 4-5 seats. Diane JAmes looked a bit foolish when she said up to 60 was possible
Which 4 to 5 seats will UKIP win?
Im not saying they will win 4-5, i am saying thats the most they will win
These are their best shots IMO
Boston & Skegness Bromsgrove Castle Point Dag & Rain Dudley North Great Grimsby Halesown & Rowley Regis Morley & Outwood Newcastle Under Lyme Plymouth Moor View S Bas & E Thurrock Staffordshire Moorlands Stoke on Trent South Telford Thanet North Thanet South Thurrock Walsall North Lads Walsall South West Bromwich West Wolverhampton NE
Morley and Outwood? No, there will be a mix of UKIP leaning Tories and anti UKIP Tories there. Labour could improve their share of the vote.
You know your spinning is a stretch when you have to use lines like "they didn't even beat their all time best ever result!"
Over 8,000 votes more than 2010 and 18% better share can hardly be called a disaster. Its about par, almost exactly in line with the polls/expectations. Only Eastleigh was better for UKIP
John Curtice is being spoke very highly of today. He said on this week that if UKIP got 30% it would be a "remarkable result". Now the spinners are saying that was the benchmark and failure to get it was a poor show!
Wouldnt think anything has changed for next year on the back of this. A hung parliament with UKIP getting no more than 4-5 seats. Diane JAmes looked a bit foolish when she said up to 60 was possible
Which 4 to 5 seats will UKIP win?
Im not saying they will win 4-5, i am saying thats the most they will win
These are their best shots IMO
Boston & Skegness Bromsgrove Castle Point Dag & Rain Dudley North Great Grimsby Halesown & Rowley Regis Morley & Outwood Newcastle Under Lyme Plymouth Moor View S Bas & E Thurrock Staffordshire Moorlands Stoke on Trent South Telford Thanet North Thanet South Thurrock Walsall North Lads Walsall South West Bromwich West Wolverhampton NE
The Great Yarmouth seat not on your list, Mr. Sam? An oversight surely.
< Annecdote Alert >
I spoke to my bother last evening. He is not a natural Conservative voter being a retired London Underground train driver and, in his day, a fiery trade unionist. He now lives near Great Yarmouth. From what he told me, I should imagine that the UKIP message will go down very well indeed in that part of the world.
Im not saying they will win 4-5, i am saying thats the most they will win
These are their best shots IMO
Boston & Skegness Bromsgrove Castle Point Dag & Rain Dudley North Great Grimsby Halesown & Rowley Regis Morley & Outwood Newcastle Under Lyme Plymouth Moor View S Bas & E Thurrock Staffordshire Moorlands Stoke on Trent South Telford Thanet North Thanet South Thurrock Walsall North Lads Walsall South West Bromwich West Wolverhampton NE
Oh, OK - sorry for the confusion.
As in my previous post though I'm still a bit bemused as to why any of these could be considered best shots except in a least-worst sense.
The number after each are how many votes behind the winners UKIP were in 2010.
Boston & Skegness - 17,244 Bromsgrove - 19,608 Castle Point - 19,806 (although elec calc says 0 votes, so I assume not fought) Dag & Rain - 13,614 Dudley North - 11,007 Great Grimsby - 8,020 Halesown & Rowley Regis - 15,291 Morley & Outwood - 15,758; Ed Balls' seat saved from him by UKIP Newcastle Under Lyme - 11,350 Plymouth Moor View - 10,657 S Bas & E Thurrock - 16,985 Staffordshire Moorlands - 16,213 Stoke on Trent South - 9,953 Telford - 12,568 Thanet North - 20,007 Thanet South - 19,514 Thurrock - 13,479 Walsall North Lads - 10,658 Walsall South - 11,007 West Bromwich West - 9,046 Wolverhampton NE - 10,826
One way in which UKIP are clearly differentiated from the others is by the fact that their "best shots" list looks a lot like a LibLabCon "no hopers" list!
Watching the very emotional D-Day anniversary coverage from Normandy today, I was struck that it would have been an odd day indeed to be commenting upon a UKIP win at Newark...
If ever there is a day to feel European, today is it.
Peter Allen on Radio5 in France this morning, was excellent, really from the heart. It sounded as uncomposed as I have heard him: "the boys...they were just boys...we should look at our own children and then think of them with rifles thrust into their hands...just boys..."
very moving.
Peter Allen is great.
One of the VETs on R4 this morning was pointing out that man of those boys in the graveyards of France were even younger than they are declared because they had lied about their age to sign up a year early, as he had done himself. Many would have been as young as my daughter. A really different world and a different generation.
OK - I'm going to be somewhat controversial here. I think that this result was good for the Lib Dems. (Not actually good, but good for MP incumbency).
If the LD vote in a no-hope seat is as low as 2.5% (and that in a seat which, whilst they were third was by no means a low vote share for them), but they are still polling 10% nationally - then they must be polling reasonably well in there incumbent seats (those voters have to be somewhere...).
Actually, I think it was something simpler. LibDems voters are now - above all - else, anti-UKIPpers.
(By this, I mean the remaining LibDem voters. The NOTA LibDem voters are already Kippers.)
I think their vote in Thurrock (11%), South Thanet (15%), North Thanet (19%) and other 'Kipper strongholds' is going to collapse to 2-3% levels. And a large chunk of this will seek out that party (Labour or Conservative) that is seen as most likely to stop the Kipper surge.
This is likely to make UKIP's job of securing an MP incrementally harder.
If Lib Dem voters are really anti-UKIP voters then surely they are not Lib Dem voters. They may make it harder for UKIP to win a seat but waht does that say about the LIB Dems as a party?
As an aside, I think a great many Conservatives in Eastleigh will vote LibDem to stop UKIP.
The Survation Eastleigh poll does not support that theory.
I think there are a number of Conservative voters on this board - like JackW and Charles, for example - who have said they would vote LibDem in the event of a UKIP/Con alliance. I do not believe they are alone, and I would be very surprised if the LibDems did not see their vote share increase in Eastleigh from the by-election level.
I would vote actively against a candidate who enjoyed a Conservative/UKIP coupon. It's like going backward to Michael Howard with knobs on.
And what knobs they are.
Likewise. It would be back to the unhappy days when you agreed the economics but were frankly embarrassed about the social policies and the attitudes to those less successful than themselves.
Oh, I remembered while I was sleeping - the help the LibDem campaign got from outside was some phone canvassing. But with so many people having 'free' minutes, that's effectively free now.
Comments
Although with my chat up lines...
Huzzah in moderation TSE
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27731567
Con .......... 307 seats (unchanged)
Lab .......... 286 seats ( + 1 seat)
LibDem .......29 seats ( - 1 seat)
Others ........28 seats (unchanged)
Total .........650
(I thought JackW was a LD!)
Sunil Prasannan @Sunil_P2 · 2m
Bar chart of all Great Britain by-election results since GE2010, updated for #Newark
http://t.co/CYFD8A4Zv3
John Curtice is being spoke very highly of today. He said on this week that if UKIP got 30% it would be a "remarkable result". Now the spinners are saying that was the benchmark and failure to get it was a poor show!
Wouldnt think anything has changed for next year on the back of this. A hung parliament with UKIP getting no more than 4-5 seats. Diane JAmes looked a bit foolish when she said up to 60 was possible
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/10880015/Sword-fight-at-Indias-Golden-Temple-on-raid-anniversary.html
And what knobs they are.
http://blogs.cardiff.ac.uk/electionsinwales/2014/05/22/the-fabulous-mr-dhondt/
It's code for being against inequality, draped in a Union Jack.
But then we know the PB Golden Rule don't we
Huzzah !!
So they need a woman with experience in a high-powered international job, familiar with the EU, with a low-key style so she doesn't eclipse the heads of government, good at communicating in English to handle the UK's various issues, yet somehow not doing anything important for the next four years.
Catherine Ashton, please call your office.
http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Eastleigh-constituency-poll.pdf
What a winner!
Table 3
*basks in reflected glory*
Unfortunately for UKIP, I think it also demonstrated the beginning of the rise of anti-UKIP tactical voting.
If UKIP is topping out at 30% constituency vote share, and are 'transfer unfriendly', then they will really struggle to win seats.
That's 3 2013-LDs switching to Con for the general election, not 3 2013-Cons switching to LD.
"Tory majority slashed in Newark"
How po faced!
Gordon Brown launched a furious assault on the International Monetary Fund at the weekend after the Washington-based organisation threatened to dent Labour's election campaign by insisting spending cuts or tax rises were needed to cut Britain's budget deficit.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2005/apr/18/politics.ukgeneralelection20051
From 2002
IMF warns Brown over spending
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/2760297/IMF-warns-Brown-over-spending.html
From 2003
Chancellor Gordon Brown has been warned by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) that he risks breaking his own rules on government borrowing.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3333125.stm
There are many more but those three give you a flavour.
I haven't watched Channel 4 News since the clown Snow claimed not being able to report when and where Harry was in the frontlines amounted to Soviet-style censorship.
Lab 35 Con 34 UKIP 14 LD 9
'Left-leaning and about to topple over' Snow
% of aggregate vote at GB by-elections since GE 2010 (update for #Newark): Lab 44%, Con 18%, UKIP 13%, LD 11%
http://t.co/svsOGLOnjQ
"I come not to annex but to praise ...."
Having looked at these prices this morning the 6/4 on 0 UKIP seats with Ladbrokes looks vaguely tempting, with the option to possibly hedge on Thanet if required. My reservations would be, firstly that the Newark electorate are very different to that of some of the seaside constituencies where the kippers are strong and may not have been subject to the the same degree of immigration. Secondly, it was immediately obvious who the best party in Newark was to stop the purple peril. In seats where it is closer between the blues and reds 30 percent may be enough to win for Ukip if the collapsing Lib Dem vote is shared out equally..
These are their best shots IMO
Boston & Skegness
Bromsgrove
Castle Point
Dag & Rain
Dudley North
Great Grimsby
Halesown & Rowley Regis
Morley & Outwood
Newcastle Under Lyme
Plymouth Moor View
S Bas & E Thurrock
Staffordshire Moorlands
Stoke on Trent South
Telford
Thanet North
Thanet South
Thurrock
Walsall North Lads
Walsall South
West Bromwich West
Wolverhampton NE
In Great Yarmouth in 2010, UKIP polled 2,066 votes, over 16,000 votes behind the winner.
UKIP did not fight Castle Point in 2010.
In Thurrock UKIP polled 3,390, over 13,000 votes behind the winner.
In Thanet South UKIP polled 2,529, over 19,000 votes behind the winner.
Great Yarmouth was part of the constituency that elected UKIP's Tom Wise in 2004. Wise was jailed for expenses fraud in 2009. I'm not sure why UKIP would be popular enough there to overturn a 16,000 vote lead.
In Thurrock the Tory majority is only 92. UKIP could possibly gift this to Labour, bringing its desire for Brexit closer by securing the election of an MP bitterly opposed to it. In some way that only UKIPpers understand.
I'm struggling to understand why any of these would be a target. Your best result by poll share last time was the 6% or so in Christchurch. Although that's scant comfort, because the winner's lead over UKIP was also huge - more than 23,000 votes ahead.
#LibDems' GB by-election %-ages since GE 2010 - 9 lost deposits from 16. Only 3 polls higher than 20% #Newark
http://t.co/qMjidIWWTG
< Annecdote Alert >
I spoke to my bother last evening. He is not a natural Conservative voter being a retired London Underground train driver and, in his day, a fiery trade unionist. He now lives near Great Yarmouth. From what he told me, I should imagine that the UKIP message will go down very well indeed in that part of the world.
< /Annecdote Alert >
As in my previous post though I'm still a bit bemused as to why any of these could be considered best shots except in a least-worst sense.
The number after each are how many votes behind the winners UKIP were in 2010.
Boston & Skegness - 17,244
Bromsgrove - 19,608
Castle Point - 19,806 (although elec calc says 0 votes, so I assume not fought)
Dag & Rain - 13,614
Dudley North - 11,007
Great Grimsby - 8,020
Halesown & Rowley Regis - 15,291
Morley & Outwood - 15,758; Ed Balls' seat saved from him by UKIP
Newcastle Under Lyme - 11,350
Plymouth Moor View - 10,657
S Bas & E Thurrock - 16,985
Staffordshire Moorlands - 16,213
Stoke on Trent South - 9,953
Telford - 12,568
Thanet North - 20,007
Thanet South - 19,514
Thurrock - 13,479
Walsall North Lads - 10,658
Walsall South - 11,007
West Bromwich West - 9,046
Wolverhampton NE - 10,826
One way in which UKIP are clearly differentiated from the others is by the fact that their "best shots" list looks a lot like a LibLabCon "no hopers" list!
Are UKIP contesting Norfolk Enchance?
One of the VETs on R4 this morning was pointing out that man of those boys in the graveyards of France were even younger than they are declared because they had lied about their age to sign up a year early, as he had done himself. Many would have been as young as my daughter. A really different world and a different generation.