A fresh point for discussion: the experiment with (almost) fixed 5-year parliaments has proved a failure, hasn't it? - at least in a coalition period. The Government is extending Parliamentary holidays because of a lack of things they can agree to do, and the Opposition has leisurely punted policy ideas around, feeling that anything not announced in the final year will be yesterday's chip paper. There will now be quite a lot of policy stuff from all sides, but really it would have been better all round if Cameron had had a reasonable option to go for a majority earlier. But having 5 years locked in office is very tempting for any government, and I suspect we're stuck with it.
Not frantically rushing around legislating isn't necessarily failure!
That said, ideally the holidays wouldn't have been extended, but instead more time given over to Parliament holding the executive to account.
Just got an e-mail from Dave telling me what a team effort Newark was and encouraging me to sign up to their 2015 volunteers to build on it. No doubt Ed has sent something similar. Success leads to success and Ed will rue the day.
Matthew Parris is likely to upset some people with this today
Imagine, then, that Mr Cameron navigates five years of successful coalition, saves the union, with his chancellor steers Britain off the economic rocks, wins another election outright for his party and gets the boundary changes it sorely needs, then finally negotiates a settlement within the EU that, for the first time in 40 years, gets the clear endorsement of the British people . . . then imagine trying to argue that this is not the record of a purposeful man.
The art of first past the post is to focus all your resources where you have a chance of victory and to all but ignore everywhere else. Simple. That's political strategy and how the LDs will play GE15 which is why the party's collapse in seats that don't matter should be troubling to the Tories.
There'll be no effort to win votes in the CON-LAB marginals and in many of those the yellows were on 20%+ in 2010.
Interesting article, apart from the tired One Nation jibe - the Tories also claim to represent the whole country, but they didn't even put up a candidate in my area of London. An aspiration on how to govern is not the same as a commitment to fight every by-election as life and death. I think we should have tried a bit harder, but I wouldn't have thrown the kitchen sink at it.
To illustrate Mike's point: in order to win in 11 months, I need a net gain of 1 LibDem vote in 17. This assumes that other things are equal - no big Con<->Lab switching, UKIP not damaging Lab more than Con, turnout similar to last time. None of these assumptions are outlandish. The Ashcroft poll suggested I was getting 7 LibDems in 17 (hence, partly, the overall 16-point lead when respondents are prompted to think about the candidates). Similarly, in Sherwood, Labour needs to gain a net 1 LibDem in 15. There are lots of other similar seats. Of course the Tories can win, but the hill is pretty steep.
A fresh point for discussion: the experiment with (almost) fixed 5-year parliaments has proved a failure, hasn't it? - at least in a coalition period. The Government is extending Parliamentary holidays because of a lack of things they can agree to do, and the Opposition has leisurely punted policy ideas around, feeling that anything not announced in the final year will be yesterday's chip paper. There will now be quite a lot of policy stuff from all sides, but really it would have been better all round if Cameron had had a reasonable option to go for a majority earlier. But having 5 years locked in office is very tempting for any government, and I suspect we're stuck with it.
I quite like the idea of politicians engaging in 'firm masterly inactivity' h/t Sir Humphrey
@pinball13 Ozzie wanted the extra year, and the coalition decided it would agree. It was originally the four you suggest. The reason for the extra year is fairly obvious if you look at Osbourne's economic plan with a critical eye.
[Regarding 5yr parliaments, can someone remind me why it wasn't 4yrs? Seems the obvious choice]
I think was convention Vs convention - I really can't see 5 as being anything other than the responsible choice.
I agree entirely. The reasoning of 4 as the 'normal' choice is one I understand, although it's also pretty normal for many places to have fixed terms , but my view on it was that all previous parliaments had the opportunity to run to five years. Yes, they normally ended before then, but that was the rule, and so there needed to be a good reason to limit all future parliaments by making it 4. Fitting in with 4 years as standard is not a good reason on its own to change even if some might say it would be convenient, and the other fear about parliaments running out of things to do, well, that's something that will stop in time, there's never been a guarantee that parliaments will have enough decent work to do.
The idea that Cameron could "save the union" other than by self immolation on the steps of Hollyrood is....and I search for a polite word here....naive?
Regarding 5yr parliaments, can someone remind me why it wasn't 4yrs? Seems the obvious choice.
The reporting was that 4 years was the original idea, but they didn't think the economy/public finances would turn around in time, so they made it 5 years instead.
That Ozzie is a clever chap. If the Tories have any chance of a win next year the gloss that year 5 is going to add to their economic record is going to be the reason. In year 4 what recovery and short term blip would have been the battlefield
Charles at 9.41 is right. Labour taking it easy to allow UKIP to embarras the Tories may be a good idea, but Labour taking it easy to allow UKIP to embarras them is not. Newark showed that the Tories can run a stop ukip campaign and with labour and libems offering nothing to these swing voters they have shown it can work.
In Tory/Lib seats the message will undoubtably be that a vote for the Libs will let weirdo Miliband in the back door who will tax you to the hilt and ruin the country in a way that makes what Brown did look like a vicarage tea party.
Ditto tory/lab marginals where UKIP are conveinently eating into the white van man labour vote.
I suspect in Tory/LD seats, where UKIP did well at the election, the message targeted to the erstwhile LD voters could be "only the tories can beat UKIP"
Lord Ashcroft's Newark poll had the 2010 LDs breaking Con 13%, UKIP 28%.
Yes, but my point is targeting the remaining LDs in some of their good seats like Yeovil.
Trying to encourage tactical (anti-UKIP) voting from people who haven't switched to either the Tories of UKIP prior to the election campaign
So, UKIP's 10% performance in Scotland last month is good for Ruth Davidson's bunch is it?
The SNP claim that UKIP is irrelevant in Scotland because it has no elected representatives is now dead in the water.
The SNP claim that Scotland is different is also now proven to be a delusion. UKIP doubled its vote and won a seat, while the Conservative vote is now recovering.
Better Together claim that UKIP is irrelevant in Scotland.
Scotland seems to be very similar to London. Though much less attractive to immigrants!
So, Scotland's electoral politics are "very similar to London" are they?
London election May 2012: Con 44.0% SNP 0
Scottish election May 2011: SNP 45.4% Con 13.9%
Oh yes. So similar you could not put a fag paper between them.
Fair point Stuart. In London in May 2014 the Greens got an MEP and UKIP didn't. In Scotland the opposite was true. Compared to 2012 the Tory vote went down in London, compared to 2011 it went up in Scotland. Conclusion? As London moves left, Scotland moves right. But, overall, pretty similar. I can see why that might hurt a nationalist, always keen to look for dividing lines and differences, and I'm sorry about that.
By differentiating London from the rest of England you seem to be seeking 'dividing lines and differences' yourself. I guess marginally-left-of-centrists have to seek comfort somewhere.
Not that clever, his masterplan was rely on the usual upswing after a recession. This was never going to be a "normal" recovery though, as anyone doing simple maths on the pertinent questions could have told you. Blindly ignoring the obvious is our usual political level.
In Tory/Lib seats the message will undoubtably be that a vote for the Libs will let weirdo Miliband in the back door who will tax you to the hilt and ruin the country in a way that makes what Brown did look like a vicarage tea party.
Ditto tory/lab marginals where UKIP are conveinently eating into the white van man labour vote.
I suspect in Tory/LD seats, where UKIP did well at the election, the message targeted to the erstwhile LD voters could be "only the tories can beat UKIP"
Lord Ashcroft's Newark poll had the 2010 LDs breaking Con 13%, UKIP 28%.
Yes, but my point is targeting the remaining LDs in some of their good seats like Yeovil.
Trying to encourage tactical (anti-UKIP) voting from people who haven't switched to either the Tories of UKIP prior to the election campaign
!r Briskin at 9.34. Holidays. Well strictly speaking its a holiday from parliament. MPs should still be working at their job which most of us would suggest is (hold your noses everyone) 24/7. This may not be the case and voters should observe and draw their conclusions. But in reality we should not equate absence from parliament as a holiday. Of course when Farage swans off on a pointless expenses paid jolly on the eve of an important by election and emerges at 4 in the morning on the arm of a poor disabled all be it miniskirted blonde lady .... well we can understand the public's scepticism.
Not that clever, his masterplan was rely on the usual upswing after a recession. This was never going to be a "normal" recovery though, as anyone doing simple maths on the pertinent questions could have told you. Blindly ignoring the obvious is our usual political level.
I think that was Lab's masterplan.
I fucking hate team Scotland.
Suffice to say - I doubt you're as clever as Lagarde.
!r Briskin at 9.34. Holidays. Well strictly speaking its a holiday from parliament. MPs should still be working at their job which most of us would suggest is (hold your noses everyone) 24/7. This may not be the case and voters should observe and draw their conclusions. But in reality we should not equate absence from parliament as a holiday. Of course when Farage swans off on a pointless expenses paid jolly on the eve of an important by election and emerges at 4 in the morning on the arm of a poor disabled all be it miniskirted blonde lady .... well we can understand the public's scepticism.
Farage is not an MP, so what has he got to do with a discussion on parliamentary recesses?
Electoral Commission has published statement of accounts for local branches ( mostly based on parliamentary constituencies ) for 2013 . Conservative Party membership is down by around 15 to 20% on 2012 , Labour and Lib Dem membership figures look static though that will be clarified when all the parties ( except the Conservatives ) publish them in their annual national accounts in a couple of months time .
would you rather have 10 old members sipping gin in the Con club or 2 non member youngsters out leafletting ?
There is no need to be clever, just basic arithmetic, and look in the right place for the relevant information. It is right in front of you under a big flashing sign that says "this can't possibly add up".
I disagree that parties that have little chance (and Labour didn't have no chance - didn't you back them at one point?), should simply forget those seats. Minor parties might behave like that; they might have to if they don't have the resources.
UKIP's policy of contesting no-hope Westminster and council by-elections paid dividends in the Euros, which are held under PR. It also is good preparation for any future referendum on the EU.
No yellow card for a penalty one yard from the try line but Yarde gets one for not releasing the ball near the 22?
The bloody Welsh don't understand rugby.
Both cynical as well, deserving of clear yellows. He's normally a great ref, but I don't know what's wrong with him today. With the All Blacks not at their best, this is the best chance to sneak a win in a long time, and he may well have scuppered that with an inconsitent decision. I also don't get understanding of the knock on rule, where palming it clearly backwards somehow counts as knocking it on according to him today.
Not that clever, his masterplan was rely on the usual upswing after a recession. This was never going to be a "normal" recovery though, as anyone doing simple maths on the pertinent questions could have told you. Blindly ignoring the obvious is our usual political level.
Its certainly not a normal recovery in socialist France.
Interesting article, apart from the tired One Nation jibe - the Tories also claim to represent the whole country, but they didn't even put up a candidate in my area of London. An aspiration on how to govern is not the same as a commitment to fight every by-election as life and death. I think we should have tried a bit harder, but I wouldn't have thrown the kitchen sink at it.
To illustrate Mike's point: in order to win in 11 months, I need a net gain of 1 LibDem vote in 17. This assumes that other things are equal - no big Con<->Lab switching, UKIP not damaging Lab more than Con, turnout similar to last time. None of these assumptions are outlandish. The Ashcroft poll suggested I was getting 7 LibDems in 17 (hence, partly, the overall 16-point lead when respondents are prompted to think about the candidates). Similarly, in Sherwood, Labour needs to gain a net 1 LibDem in 15. There are lots of other similar seats. Of course the Tories can win, but the hill is pretty steep.
A fresh point for discussion: the experiment with (almost) fixed 5-year parliaments has proved a failure, hasn't it? - at least in a coalition period. The Government is extending Parliamentary holidays because of a lack of things they can agree to do, and the Opposition has leisurely punted policy ideas around, feeling that anything not announced in the final year will be yesterday's chip paper. There will now be quite a lot of policy stuff from all sides, but really it would have been better all round if Cameron had had a reasonable option to go for a majority earlier. But having 5 years locked in office is very tempting for any government, and I suspect we're stuck with it.
Yes, I also felt that an otherwise objective piece was spoiled by that unnecessary "one nation" snipe.
The conflation of the principle of being a one nation party is very different to the idea that a party always has to put maximum effort into winning any parliamentary seat. "One nation" for Labour means creating a more united nation by seeking to reduce the scale of divisions within it. The tactical issue of how you best target limited resources in order to get into government and achieve that is entirely separate.
One point overlooked is the impact on UKIP that a bigger Labour effort would have had. What if a maximum effort from Labour could have edged their vote share up to say 24% in second, with UKIP finishing with 23% in a disappointing third? That would have shifted the narrative much more towards the failure of UKIP and could have caused Farage's bandwagon to go into rapid reverse. But is it really in Labour's interests to seek the rapid implosion of UKIP, rather than a gentle ebbing later that might still leave UKIP eating into Conservative support in 2015?
No yellow card for a penalty one yard from the try line but Yarde gets one for not releasing the ball near the 22?
The bloody Welsh don't understand rugby.
Both cynical as well, deserving of clear yellows. He's normally a great ref, but I don't know what's wrong with him today. With the All Blacks not at their best, this is the best chance to sneak a win in a long time, and he may well have scuppered that with an inconsitent decision. I also don't get understanding of the knock on rule, where palming it clearly backwards somehow counts as knocking it on according to him today.
Probably still miffed at the hiding England gave Wales this year.
UKIP are the English Snake Oil Peddlers selling Out of the EU as a panacea for all problems SNP are the Scottish Snake Oil Peddlers selling Independence as a panacea for all ills
No yellow card for a penalty one yard from the try line but Yarde gets one for not releasing the ball near the 22?
The bloody Welsh don't understand rugby.
Both cynical as well, deserving of clear yellows. He's normally a great ref, but I don't know what's wrong with him today. With the All Blacks not at their best, this is the best chance to sneak a win in a long time, and he may well have scuppered that with an inconsitent decision. I also don't get understanding of the knock on rule, where palming it clearly backwards somehow counts as knocking it on according to him today.
Probably still miffed at the hiding England gave Wales this year.
Now a Try conceded - would that have happened if England hadn't been down to 14 men, or New Zealand also down to 14? Absorbing game, but bitter end thanks to the official unfortunately.
Excellent post Southam. I agree with every word. I am also hopeful that the toxicity of UKIP will eventually repel several of the best posters on here such as Richard Tyndall and Sean F.
Hopefully exasperation with real world compromises will not be enough.
Morning David,
I think part of the problem there though (in so far as hoping that supporters like myself and Sean will abandon UKIP) is that there is a disconnect between the perception that you are trying to portray of UKIP and the reality.
I do not believe that the Tories were ever the baby eating toxic party that their opponents made them out to be. The held positions that the vocal left could use to try and project that image but in the end the reality was a long way from that. Those who remained loyal to the Tory party throughout that period (and even those who left because of the rise of UKIP) saw from the inside that the Tory party as not the way it was portrayed by some in the media and no matter how much the left tried to push that image in the end they could not persuade supporters that it was a true reflection of the party. Basically those who always hated the Tories had their views reinforced whilst those who were supporters or even ambivalent ignored the hype as normal politicking.
The same applies to UKIP. Whilst I do not generally like parties and make no exception for UKIP, I recognise that the attempts by their opponents to portray the as the 'nasty party' are a very long way from the truth. There are certainly elements of their public positioning that I don't like - opposition to gay marriage being the most obvious - but given that they will do nothing to reverse it and that I believe there is scope to change the basic position within the party, just as there was in the Tory party, then I am happy to continue to support UKIP for the positive reasons that I first joined them./
I see far more hope of the current UKIP leadership coming round to my position on social affairs than I do for the current Tory leadership coming round to my position on EU membership.
"Growth" depends on raw materials, which people all over the world are now clamouring for their share of. Taking the case of oil as an example (it holds true for most resources though) we have used up all the cheaply available deposits, and now have to exploit more difficult finds at greater cost and energy consumption. Since everywhere is demanding "growth" the pressures on the remaining stocks becomes greater, which in turn makes for tension between countries.
No yellow card for a penalty one yard from the try line but Yarde gets one for not releasing the ball near the 22?
The bloody Welsh don't understand rugby.
Both cynical as well, deserving of clear yellows. He's normally a great ref, but I don't know what's wrong with him today. With the All Blacks not at their best, this is the best chance to sneak a win in a long time, and he may well have scuppered that with an inconsitent decision. I also don't get understanding of the knock on rule, where palming it clearly backwards somehow counts as knocking it on according to him today.
Probably still miffed at the hiding England gave Wales this year.
Now a Try conceded - would that have happened if England hadn't been down to 14 men, or New Zealand also down to 14? Absorbing game, but bitter end thanks to the official unfortunately.
Yeah. Hard to play with 14 men against 16.
Nigel Owen should retire from refereeing to save himself further embarrassment.
In Tory/Lib seats the message will undoubtably be that a vote for the Libs will let weirdo Miliband in the back door who will tax you to the hilt and ruin the country in a way that makes what Brown did look like a vicarage tea party.
Ditto tory/lab marginals where UKIP are conveinently eating into the white van man labour vote.
I suspect in Tory/LD seats, where UKIP did well at the election, the message targeted to the erstwhile LD voters could be "only the tories can beat UKIP"
Lord Ashcroft's Newark poll had the 2010 LDs breaking Con 13%, UKIP 28%.
Yes, but my point is targeting the remaining LDs in some of their good seats like Yeovil.
Trying to encourage tactical (anti-UKIP) voting from people who haven't switched to either the Tories of UKIP prior to the election campaign
Below are illustrative numbers - I actually used Yeovil as a general example rather than specifically looking at the numbers, so there may be better cases.
2010: LD 56%, Con 33%, Lab 5%, UKIP 4%, other 2%
Ok, let's deduct 1/2 [28 pp] of the LD10 vote (for sake of argument) and assume that 50% goes to Labour, 10% to the greens Greens, 25% to UKIP and 15% to the Tories. Let's also assume that 5% of the Tory share has switched directly to UKIP
Interim result:
Labour = 5% + 14% = 19% [28pp * 50%] Tories = 33% + 4% - 5% = 32% [28pp x 15%, minus UKIP] UKIP = 4% + 7% + 5% = 16% [28pp x 25%, plus Tory] Green = 2% + 3% = 5% [28pp x 10%] LibDem = 28%
With that split, it becomes a Tory/LD hard fought seat. Labour won't put in much effort, and I suspect that UKIP will push hard - they may also get a higher initial switch than usual (don't know) because of Laws' previous
But with the EU result, the Tories can do bar charts showing "only the Tories can beat UKIP" as a new message to try and erode the LD 28%. Given that a proportion of these voters are well-trained in tactical voting it may be a message they are receptive to.
No yellow card for a penalty one yard from the try line but Yarde gets one for not releasing the ball near the 22?
The bloody Welsh don't understand rugby.
Both cynical as well, deserving of clear yellows. He's normally a great ref, but I don't know what's wrong with him today. With the All Blacks not at their best, this is the best chance to sneak a win in a long time, and he may well have scuppered that with an inconsitent decision. I also don't get understanding of the knock on rule, where palming it clearly backwards somehow counts as knocking it on according to him today.
Probably still miffed at the hiding England gave Wales this year.
Now a Try conceded - would that have happened if England hadn't been down to 14 men, or New Zealand also down to 14? Absorbing game, but bitter end thanks to the official unfortunately.
I've just come in from parkrunning so haven't seen it, but these are shocking allegations against St Nigel.
Not a great refereeing show there, but England made a lot of silly mistakes. An excellent performance, but an ill-disciplined one with too many handling errors. The advances we have made, though, are just spectacular. The forwards were just superb.
The art of first past the post is to focus all your resources where you have a chance of victory and to all but ignore everywhere else. Simple. That's political strategy and how the LDs will play GE15 which is why the party's collapse in seats that don't matter should be troubling to the Tories.
There'll be no effort to win votes in the CON-LAB marginals and in many of those the yellows were on 20%+ in 2010.
Aggregate vote shares might be fun to @Sunil_Prasannan but are irrelevant. Why bother? A better equation is, when the election expenses are published, to look at the cost in ££ per vote won. All the LDs did in Newark was put up a candidate. There was no other campaigning apart from the free distribution of one leaflet and my guess is that the cost per vote will be much lower than CON or UKIP. Labour's will be pretty low as well.
It's the seats where you think you are in with a shout and you put in the effort that matter. CON won on Thursday and UKIP lost. The other parties were mere bystanders.
But why was Labour a bystander? 1. Because they allowed a party that started 18% behind to not just overtake them but finish 8% ahead; 2. Because they have not established themselves as the principal alternative to the Tories. 3. Because they believe at some level in the 'anti-Tory' party and that, implicitly, a UKIP MP is, as far as the voting lobbies are concerned, just a Labour MP in a blazer.
I disagree that parties that have little chance (and Labour didn't have no chance - didn't you back them at one point?), should simply forget those seats. Minor parties might behave like that; they might have to if they don't have the resources. Parties that aspire to govern can't.
It is also worth pointing out that Labour in Newark have been fatally split since the Jones affair a decade or more ago. There are still very influential independent councilors on the Town council who carry a huge amount of support in Labour areas of the constituency and who would not support any Labour campaign in the town.
So, UKIP's 10% performance in Scotland last month is good for Ruth Davidson's bunch is it?
The SNP claim that UKIP is irrelevant in Scotland because it has no elected representatives is now dead in the water.
The SNP claim that Scotland is different is also now proven to be a delusion. UKIP doubled its vote and won a seat, while the Conservative vote is now recovering.
Better Together claim that UKIP is irrelevant in Scotland.
Scotland seems to be very similar to London. Though much less attractive to immigrants!
So, Scotland's electoral politics are "very similar to London" are they?
London election May 2012: Con 44.0% SNP 0
Scottish election May 2011: SNP 45.4% Con 13.9%
Oh yes. So similar you could not put a fag paper between them.
Fair point Stuart. In London in May 2014 the Greens got an MEP and UKIP didn't. In Scotland the opposite was true. Compared to 2012 the Tory vote went down in London, compared to 2011 it went up in Scotland. Conclusion? As London moves left, Scotland moves right. But, overall, pretty similar. I can see why that might hurt a nationalist, always keen to look for dividing lines and differences, and I'm sorry about that.
By differentiating London from the rest of England you seem to be seeking 'dividing lines and differences' yourself. I guess marginally-left-of-centrists have to seek comfort somewhere.
Nope - different parts of our United Kingdom vote in different ways. Dumfries and Galloway, for example, seems to be very like Warwickshire, where I am based.
No yellow card for a penalty one yard from the try line but Yarde gets one for not releasing the ball near the 22?
The bloody Welsh don't understand rugby.
Both cynical as well, deserving of clear yellows. He's normally a great ref, but I don't know what's wrong with him today. With the All Blacks not at their best, this is the best chance to sneak a win in a long time, and he may well have scuppered that with an inconsitent decision. I also don't get understanding of the knock on rule, where palming it clearly backwards somehow counts as knocking it on according to him today.
Probably still miffed at the hiding England gave Wales this year.
Now a Try conceded - would that have happened if England hadn't been down to 14 men, or New Zealand also down to 14? Absorbing game, but bitter end thanks to the official unfortunately.
I've just come in from parkrunning so haven't seen it, but these are shocking allegations against St Nigel.
Oh not at all. Just three errors, but one of which had a crucial impact. It happens. I would like to hear his explanation though. Saints can't make mistakes. Not after they are made saints anyway I think.
So the Tories threw the kitchen sink and all the astroturf they could muster at retaining a single safe seat. Whilst this is undoubtedly better than previous dire performances, it hardly represents a triumph or indeed the progress they would need to turn a minority position into a majority.
Labour meanwhile, who still have a better one nation claim than any other party, got the result they must have expected but continue to lose GE momentum.
As long as Labour continues to push multiculturalism, as a normality, down people's throats and denies them a referendum about government by a non-totally electable - by the UK - organisation, then they are not a one-nation party.
Indeed, I am increasingly of the view that 2015 will be an excellent election to lose.
Oh dear. That. Old. Cliche.
I'm old enough to remember 11 General Elections and that tired mantra has been tripped out every time, invariably by the side that is losing. It's similar to the other one that 'we're doing better in the marginals than nationally' which cannot withstand a national mood swing, a narrative or meme change. But try telling that to Mike Smithson …
Actually maybe we could have some fun with tired old political cliches. Here's another classic:
'They're all the same anyway.'
I remember that gem being said to me in February 1979 …!
I think it is a comment that can only ever be true in retrospect. I don't think anyone can doubt that the 1992 election for Major was probably one it would have been better for the Tory party to have lost in light of the economic problems heading their way which had already been seeded by the ERM decisions Major had made previously.
But I agree that saying in advance that any election is a good one to lose seems rather daft.
In Tory/Lib seats the message will undoubtably be that a vote for the Libs will let weirdo Miliband in the back door who will tax you to the hilt and ruin the country in a way that makes what Brown did look like a vicarage tea party.
Ditto tory/lab marginals where UKIP are conveinently eating into the white van man labour vote.
I suspect in Tory/LD seats, where UKIP did well at the election, the message targeted to the erstwhile LD voters could be "only the tories can beat UKIP"
Lord Ashcroft's Newark poll had the 2010 LDs breaking Con 13%, UKIP 28%.
Yes, but my point is targeting the remaining LDs in some of their good seats like Yeovil.
Trying to encourage tactical (anti-UKIP) voting from people who haven't switched to either the Tories of UKIP prior to the election campaign
Below are illustrative numbers - I actually used Yeovil as a general example rather than specifically looking at the numbers, so there may be better cases.
2010: LD 56%, Con 33%, Lab 5%, UKIP 4%, other 2%
Ok, let's deduct 1/2 [28 pp] of the LD10 vote (for sake of argument) and assume that 50% goes to Labour, 10% to the greens Greens, 25% to UKIP and 15% to the Tories. Let's also assume that 5% of the Tory share has switched directly to UKIP
Interim result:
Labour = 5% + 14% = 19% [28pp * 50%] Tories = 33% + 4% - 5% = 32% [28pp x 15%, minus UKIP] UKIP = 4% + 7% + 5% = 16% [28pp x 25%, plus Tory] Green = 2% + 3% = 5% [28pp x 10%] LibDem = 28%
With that split, it becomes a Tory/LD hard fought seat. Labour won't put in much effort, and I suspect that UKIP will push hard - they may also get a higher initial switch than usual (don't know) because of Laws' previous
But with the EU result, the Tories can do bar charts showing "only the Tories can beat UKIP" as a new message to try and erode the LD 28%. Given that a proportion of these voters are well-trained in tactical voting it may be a message they are receptive to.
I think this talk of an anti-UKIP vote is fantasy.
UKIP are contenders in a very small number of seats. They won't be a sellable bogeyman until they have won in those seats.
The anti-UKIP/Green rhetoric we see on here seems to be largely partisans who are miffed that UKIP/Greens are taking their former supporters.
Excellent post Southam. I agree with every word. I am also hopeful that the toxicity of UKIP will eventually repel several of the best posters on here such as Richard Tyndall and Sean F.
Hopefully exasperation with real world compromises will not be enough.
Morning David,
I think part of the problem there though (in so far as hoping that supporters like myself and Sean will abandon UKIP) is that there is a disconnect between the perception that you are trying to portray of UKIP and the reality.
I do not believe that the Tories were ever the baby eating toxic party that their opponents made them out to be. The held positions that the vocal left could use to try and project that image but in the end the reality was a long way from that. Those who remained loyal to the Tory party throughout that period (and even those who left because of the rise of UKIP) saw from the inside that the Tory party as not the way it was portrayed by some in the media and no matter how much the left tried to push that image in the end they could not persuade supporters that it was a true reflection of the party. Basically those who always hated the Tories had their views reinforced whilst those who were supporters or even ambivalent ignored the hype as normal politicking.
The same applies to UKIP. Whilst I do not generally like parties and make no exception for UKIP, I recognise that the attempts by their opponents to portray the as the 'nasty party' are a very long way from the truth. There are certainly elements of their public positioning that I don't like - opposition to gay marriage being the most obvious - but given that they will do nothing to reverse it and that I believe there is scope to change the basic position within the party, just as there was in the Tory party, then I am happy to continue to support UKIP for the positive reasons that I first joined them./
I see far more hope of the current UKIP leadership coming round to my position on social affairs than I do for the current Tory leadership coming round to my position on EU membership.
A real issue for UKIP is the below the line comments in virtually all forums such as conservative home, the mail, the telegraph etc. They give the impression that the typical kipper is a foaming at the mouth loon. EUSSR, liblabcon, Bliar, etc and an unhealthy obsession with immigration does not help their cause. If they could restrain themselves to sensible argument such as is often seen on here it would go a long way.
I normally skip over the rugby chat but moaning about refs, really? Grow up.
The game was not decided by the ref. We gave away too many silly points and dropped the ball far too much. It was a great performance, but not a good enough one against a team like the All Blacks. The ref did make some bad calls though, no doubt about that.
In Tory/Lib seats the message will undoubtably be that a vote for the Libs will let weirdo Miliband in the back door who will tax you to the hilt and ruin the country in a way that makes what Brown did look like a vicarage tea party.
Ditto tory/lab marginals where UKIP are conveinently eating into the white van man labour vote.
I suspect in Tory/LD seats, where UKIP did well at the election, the message targeted to the erstwhile LD voters could be "only the tories can beat UKIP"
Lord Ashcroft's Newark poll had the 2010 LDs breaking Con 13%, UKIP 28%.
Yes, but my point is targeting the remaining LDs in some of their good seats like Yeovil.
Trying to encourage tactical (anti-UKIP) voting from people who haven't switched to either the Tories of UKIP prior to the election campaign
Below are illustrative numbers - I actually used Yeovil as a general example rather than specifically looking at the numbers, so there may be better cases.
2010: LD 56%, Con 33%, Lab 5%, UKIP 4%, other 2%
Ok, let's deduct 1/2 [28 pp] of the LD10 vote (for sake of argument) and assume that 50% goes to Labour, 10% to the greens Greens, 25% to UKIP and 15% to the Tories. Let's also assume that 5% of the Tory share has switched directly to UKIP
Interim result:
Labour = 5% + 14% = 19% [28pp * 50%] Tories = 33% + 4% - 5% = 32% [28pp x 15%, minus UKIP] UKIP = 4% + 7% + 5% = 16% [28pp x 25%, plus Tory] Green = 2% + 3% = 5% [28pp x 10%] LibDem = 28%
With that split, it becomes a Tory/LD hard fought seat. Labour won't put in much effort, and I suspect that UKIP will push hard - they may also get a higher initial switch than usual (don't know) because of Laws' previous
But with the EU result, the Tories can do bar charts showing "only the Tories can beat UKIP" as a new message to try and erode the LD 28%. Given that a proportion of these voters are well-trained in tactical voting it may be a message they are receptive to.
I think this talk of an anti-UKIP vote is fantasy.
UKIP are contenders in a very small number of seats. They won't be a sellable bogeyman until they have won in those seats.
The anti-UKIP/Green rhetoric we see on here seems to be largely partisans who are miffed that UKIP/Greens are taking their former supporters.
I normally skip over the rugby chat but moaning about refs, really? Grow up.
Well that's a slipperly slope. If people cannot moan about poor refereeing when they grow up, then they should also not get excited or entertained by men throwing a ball around or cars going around in a circle in the first place, or a by-election victory in the Scottish highlands 500 miles away. None of those things are really important to me, they are silly things to get emotionally invested in, so I should grow up and not get invested in any of them? The ref had an impact, not decisive, but an impact, it's fine to point that out.
People who advocated such a position are the ones who need to grow up, getting invested in silly things is perfectly reasonable.
As C S Lewis said, "When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up".
Mr. kle4, point of order: NASCAR goes around ellipses, not circles.
Ferrari have reportedly shifted their focus to 2015. More of a psychological than resource shift, I'd suggest, as there aren't nearly as many changes from this year to next. Surprisingly, their upgrades appear to have actually made the car faster in Canada. I'm surprised they haven't tried this sort of approach before.
I'll be keeping my eyes open for Alonso's podium odds (and the weather forecast). Not worth backing now, as I expect the Ferraris to be outqualified by the Red Bulls.
No yellow card for a penalty one yard from the try line but Yarde gets one for not releasing the ball near the 22?
The bloody Welsh don't understand rugby.
Both cynical as well, deserving of clear yellows. He's normally a great ref, but I don't know what's wrong with him today. With the All Blacks not at their best, this is the best chance to sneak a win in a long time, and he may well have scuppered that with an inconsitent decision. I also don't get understanding of the knock on rule, where palming it clearly backwards somehow counts as knocking it on according to him today.
Probably still miffed at the hiding England gave Wales this year.
Now a Try conceded - would that have happened if England hadn't been down to 14 men, or New Zealand also down to 14? Absorbing game, but bitter end thanks to the official unfortunately.
I've just come in from parkrunning so haven't seen it, but these are shocking allegations against St Nigel.
Oh not at all. Just three errors, but one of which had a crucial impact. It happens. I would like to hear his explanation though. Saints can't make mistakes. Not after they are made saints anyway I think.
Excellent post Southam. I agree with every word. I am also hopeful that the toxicity of UKIP will eventually repel several of the best posters on here such as Richard Tyndall and Sean F.
Hopefully exasperation with real world compromises will not be enough.
Morning David,
I think part of the problem there though (in so far as hoping that supporters like myself and Sean will abandon UKIP) is that there is a disconnect between the perception that you are trying to portray of UKIP and the reality.
The same applies to UKIP. Whilst I do not generally like parties and make no exception for UKIP, I recognise that the attempts by their opponents to portray the as the 'nasty party' are a very long way from the truth. There are certainly elements of their public positioning that I don't like - opposition to gay marriage being the most obvious - but given that they will do nothing to reverse it and that I believe there is scope to change the basic position within the party, just as there was in the Tory party, then I am happy to continue to support UKIP for the positive reasons that I first joined them./
I see far more hope of the current UKIP leadership coming round to my position on social affairs than I do for the current Tory leadership coming round to my position on EU membership.
A real issue for UKIP is the below the line comments in virtually all forums such as conservative home, the mail, the telegraph etc. They give the impression that the typical kipper is a foaming at the mouth loon. EUSSR, liblabcon, Bliar, etc and an unhealthy obsession with immigration does not help their cause. If they could restrain themselves to sensible argument such as is often seen on here it would go a long way.
Oh gods the comments in such places are depressingly one note, regardless of the topic, and disturbingly obsessive and conspiracy minded.
But then, that is the way of comments sections, I don't think almost anyone will gain an impression of UKIPers as a result of such places, although maybe that's why some political commentators were surprised if they took a hard position against the idiocy of UKIP that most people who know UKIP supporters do not agree they are all like that.
Just suppose you are taking (or have taken) your finals in PPE at Oxford and been asked to write a dissertation on the state of the 5 GB wide parties (LAB, Cons, LD, UKIP, Green) and the implications for 2015 and how you would advise the party leaders.
Your resources are 2010GE, polls, council election results, EU result, by-election results candidates profiles and any private information you can glean, beg, borrow or steal.
As you are short of funds (you drank your remaining assets on champagne at a premature celebration) and are starting with Labour, do you high-tail down to Cowley and talk to the residents (bearing in mind that BMW Mini is doing well), but you fear mocking rejection of the gown by the town.
So, looking at the polls, the commentators and the press, you see that EdM and Labour are starting to find and identify some of the problems of the UK economy, but have failed to identify credible solutions to those problems.
You note that the potential war with the Unions over funding and candidate selection seems to have died to an undeclared truce but could flare up again at the post-referendum conferences. AWS is causing problems in Wales - same place where Labour is blamed for bad economy, education and health. Co-oP - just do not mention it
You presume that NO will win the Referendum, but not by so big a margin to deter the SNP from fighting even harder and so threaten the Labour MPs.
Balls et al are simmering about new economic policies and UKIP keep reminding the voters about Labour's record on immigration and Europe. You note from the polls that EdM is viewed as a good leader by less than 50% of the Labour 2010 VI and a small bit more by the current Labour VI. 49% of LAB 2010VI think EdM would best best for PM (11% of them voted for DC). How would you advise EdM?
Mr. Eagles, I recall number 2, who was indeed a number 2, and if 3 is accurate that's blatant bullshit.
Hoping Sharapova wins the first set and Halep the second.
Probably won't offer a qualifying tip but I'll keep my eyes open. The early bet (which I stated unequivocally was not a tip, thankfully) on Perez to be winner without Rosberg/Hamilton is now looking quite stupid.
In Tory/Lib seats the message will undoubtably be that a vote for the Libs will let weirdo Miliband in the back door who will tax you to the hilt and ruin the country in a way that makes what Brown did look like a vicarage tea party.
Ditto tory/lab marginals where UKIP are conveinently eating into the white van man labour vote.
I suspect in Tory/LD seats, where UKIP did well at the election, the message targeted to the erstwhile LD voters could be "only the tories can beat UKIP"
Lord Ashcroft's Newark poll had the 2010 LDs breaking Con 13%, UKIP 28%.
Yes, but my point is targeting the remaining LDs in some of their good seats like Yeovil.
Trying to encourage tactical (anti-UKIP) voting from people who haven't switched to either the Tories of UKIP prior to the election campaign
Below are illustrative numbers - I actually used Yeovil as a general example rather than specifically looking at the numbers, so there may be better cases.
2010: LD 56%, Con 33%, Lab 5%, UKIP 4%, other 2%
Ok, let's deduct 1/2 [28 pp] of the LD10 vote (for sake of argument) and assume that 50% goes to Labour, 10% to the greens Greens, 25% to UKIP and 15% to the Tories. Let's also assume that 5% of the Tory share has switched directly to UKIP
Interim result:
Labour = 5% + 14% = 19% [28pp * 50%] Tories = 33% + 4% - 5% = 32% [28pp x 15%, minus UKIP] UKIP = 4% + 7% + 5% = 16% [28pp x 25%, plus Tory] Green = 2% + 3% = 5% [28pp x 10%] LibDem = 28%
With that split, it becomes a Tory/LD hard fought seat. Labour won't put in much effort, and I suspect that UKIP will push hard - they may also get a higher initial switch than usual (don't know) because of Laws' previous
But with the EU result, the Tories can do bar charts showing "only the Tories can beat UKIP" as a new message to try and erode the LD 28%. Given that a proportion of these voters are well-trained in tactical voting it may be a message they are receptive to.
With the other side of the coin being "only UKIP can beat the Tories".
While middle class LibDem voters might be willing to vote tactically anti-UKIP, working class LibDem voters would be likewise happy to vote tactically anti-Conservative - after all that's what they've been doing in Yeovil and similar places for decades.
So on the general point its possible that the LibDem strongholds could collapse like a house of cards.
Trade deficits are fun, They are a measure of an economy "growing" by consumer spending, and one growing by manufacturing increases. The transition between the two states will be the measure of Ozzie's "genius" because any idiot can manage consumer spending growth.
In Tory/Lib seats the message will undoubtably be that a vote for the Libs will let weirdo Miliband in the back door who will tax you to the hilt and ruin the country in a way that makes what Brown did look like a vicarage tea party.
Ditto tory/lab marginals where UKIP are conveinently eating into the white van man labour vote.
I suspect in Tory/LD seats, where UKIP did well at the election, the message targeted to the erstwhile LD voters could be "only the tories can beat UKIP"
Lord Ashcroft's Newark poll had the 2010 LDs breaking Con 13%, UKIP 28%.
Yes, but my point is targeting the remaining LDs in some of their good seats like Yeovil.
Trying to encourage tactical (anti-UKIP) voting from people who haven't switched to either the Tories of UKIP prior to the election campaign
Below are illustrative numbers - I actually used Yeovil as a general example rather than specifically looking at the numbers, so there may be better cases.
2010: LD 56%, Con 33%, Lab 5%, UKIP 4%, other 2%
Ok, let's deduct 1/2 [28 pp] of the LD10 vote (for sake of argument) and assume that 50% goes to Labour, 10% to the greens Greens, 25% to UKIP and 15% to the Tories. Let's also assume that 5% of the Tory share has switched directly to UKIP
Interim result:
Labour = 5% + 14% = 19% [28pp * 50%] Tories = 33% + 4% - 5% = 32% [28pp x 15%, minus UKIP] UKIP = 4% + 7% + 5% = 16% [28pp x 25%, plus Tory] Green = 2% + 3% = 5% [28pp x 10%] LibDem = 28%
With that split, it becomes a Tory/LD hard fought seat. Labour won't put in much effort, and I suspect that UKIP will push hard - they may also get a higher initial switch than usual (don't know) because of Laws' previous
But with the EU result, the Tories can do bar charts showing "only the Tories can beat UKIP" as a new message to try and erode the LD 28%. Given that a proportion of these voters are well-trained in tactical voting it may be a message they are receptive to.
You are deluded in applying EU results as any forecast as to what will happen in a GE .
The 2013 CC results for Yeovil parliamentary constituency had the Lib Dems in a clear first place over 2,000 votes ahead of the Conservatives with UKIP a close 3rd . Labour managed 7% Your 19% for Labour is sheer fantasy .
Just suppose you are taking (or have taken) your finals in PPE at Oxford and been asked to write a dissertation on the state of the 5 GB wide parties (LAB, Cons, LD, UKIP, Green) and the implications for 2015 and how you would advise the party leaders.
Your resources are 2010GE, polls, council election results, EU result, by-election results candidates profiles and any private information you can glean, beg, borrow or steal.
As you are short of funds (you drank your remaining assets on champagne at a premature celebration) and are starting with Labour, do you high-tail down to Cowley and talk to the residents (bearing in mind that BMW Mini is doing well), but you fear mocking rejection of the gown by the town.
So, looking at the polls, the commentators and the press, you see that EdM and Labour are starting to find and identify some of the problems of the UK economy, but have failed to identify credible solutions to those problems.
You note that the potential war with the Unions over funding and candidate selection seems to have died to an undeclared truce but could flare up again at the post-referendum conferences. AWS is causing problems in Wales - same place where Labour is blamed for bad economy, education and health. Co-oP - just do not mention it
You presume that NO will win the Referendum, but not by so big a margin to deter the SNP from fighting even harder and so threaten the Labour MPs.
Balls et al are simmering about new economic policies and UKIP keep reminding the voters about Labour's record on immigration and Europe. You note from the polls that EdM is viewed as a good leader by less than 50% of the Labour 2010 VI and a small bit more by the current Labour VI. 49% of LAB 2010VI think EdM would best best for PM (11% of them voted for DC). How would you advise EdM?
Me personally? Probably badly.
I would advise him to focus on keeping the party from openly fracturing by any means necessary and make the occasional populist announcement to keep the base satisfied and sneak a win in 2015 thanks to the UKIP surge, and once in power he can attempt to fix the more systemic issues in the party. All problems will seem less troublesome once he gets into power.
Mr. kle4, you're one of those bounders who described the PS4 as a rhombus! It's a parallelogram (if going for a 2D term), or parallelepiped to be more accurate.
[Trade deficits are fun, They are a measure of an economy "growing" by consumer spending, and one growing by manufacturing increases. The transition between the two states will be the measure of Ozzie's "genius" because any idiot can manage consumer spending growth.]
They may be fun but this is incorrect.
It just means we're selling less abroad - something a greenie/commie/whatever you are I would have thought approved of.
From the guardian's minute by minute rugby coverage, the chap is a Welshman.
63 min That's a great scrum from New Zealand but no matter as May arcs around, coming off his wing. He chips over the top and regathers just 5m out. Barrett is in trouble as he makes the tackle and England get a penalty. ABs lucky there was no card there.
and later
69 min Manu Tuilagi clearly has happy memories of his performance at Twickenham in 2012. He's barrelling through the New Zealand defence and carries it into the New Zealand 22. England are then driven backwards though and Retallick nicks the ball, then bursts through a gap. He's tackled by Yarde in the England 22, but the winger doesn't release his man and is sent to the bin. That's a bit harsh given that no one was binned for the New Zealand infringement earlier
There's no doubt the run-up to ge2015 will occur under the backdrop of a possible Tory leadership election.After this week May is still over-priced at 4-1.Not only has she had her "Thatcher Moment" in the scything she gave to the Police Federation,this week she has demolished Gove,and any other lingering hopes he may have had.He has moved to a stronger lay position,and should be a double-figure price.By this manoeuvre,she has defeated Osborne's proxy which leaves Osborne vulnerable and out in the open.She now has Osborne where she wants him before delivering the final toxic bite.Nevertheless,Osborne at 12-1 with Betfred is too high.Osborne is a player and won't be 12-1 on the day.Which leaves,Johnson,best priced at 5-1.The only clue to his behaviour is that if he stands he will know Cameron cannot win. It's still possible to do a 3-way dutch bet which increases the probability factors . May has had a good few weeks.Gove has gone in the opposite direction.Osborne and Johnson are ready to pounce.
Excellent post Southam. I agree with every word. I am also hopeful that the toxicity of UKIP will eventually repel several of the best posters on here such as Richard Tyndall and Sean F.
Hopefully exasperation with real world compromises will not be enough.
Morning David,
I think part of the problem there though (in so far as hoping that supporters like myself and Sean will abandon UKIP) is that there is a disconnect between the perception that you are trying to portray of UKIP and the reality.
I do not believe that the Tories were ever the baby eating toxic party that their opponents made them out to be. The held positions that the vocal left could use to try and project that image but in the end the reality was a long way from that. Those who remained loyal to the Tory party throughout that period (and even those who left because of the rise of UKIP) saw from the inside that the Tory party as not the way it was portrayed by some in the media and no matter how much the left tried to push that image in the end they could not persuade supporters that it was a true reflection of the party. Basically those who always hated the Tories had their views reinforced whilst those who were supporters or even ambivalent ignored the hype as normal politicking.
The same applies to UKIP. Whilst I do not generally like parties and make no exception for UKIP, I recognise that the attempts by their opponents to portray the as the 'nasty party' are a very long way from the truth. There are certainly elements of their public positioning that I don't like - opposition to gay marriage being the most obvious - but given that they will do nothing to reverse it and that I believe there is scope to change the basic position within the party, just as there was in the Tory party, then I am happy to continue to support UKIP for the positive reasons that I first joined them./
I see far more hope of the current UKIP leadership coming round to my position on social affairs than I do for the current Tory leadership coming round to my position on EU membership.
Indeed.
The only party which has toxified itself this year in my eyes is the Conservatives.
A party of smearing liars with the whining entitlement of the worst sort of welfare bludging layabout.
Trade deficits are fun, They are a measure of an economy "growing" by consumer spending, and one growing by manufacturing increases. The transition between the two states will be the measure of Ozzie's "genius" because any idiot can manage consumer spending growth.
That only applies if you have no barriers to trade or legislation favouring one side of the equation against the other. Membership of the EU dramatically skews our trade balance further into the negative such that the transition you refer to is a completely false measure of a chancellor's 'genius' or otherwise.
Mr. Eagles, I recall number 2, who was indeed a number 2, and if 3 is accurate that's blatant bullshit.
Hoping Sharapova wins the first set and Halep the second.
Probably won't offer a qualifying tip but I'll keep my eyes open. The early bet (which I stated unequivocally was not a tip, thankfully) on Perez to be winner without Rosberg/Hamilton is now looking quite stupid.
My tennis tips yesterday were awesome.
That said, tipping Nadal to win at 1/7 wasn't exactly the most unexpected tip ever, the less than 36.5 games was nice earner as well
Trade deficits are fun, They are a measure of an economy "growing" by consumer spending, and one growing by manufacturing increases. The transition between the two states will be the measure of Ozzie's "genius" because any idiot can manage consumer spending growth.
Good heavens I thought Mr. AlanBrooke and I were the only people on this site who cared about trade figures. Good to have you with us, Comrade. However, I am not sure what being allied to two revanchist, capitalist running-dogs on a matter of economics will do for your communist credentials
Mr. kle4, you're one of those bounders who described the PS4 as a rhombus! It's a parallelogram (if going for a 2D term), or parallelepiped to be more accurate.
I think we should let the people decide on what shape it is in a vote to settle this dispute. They don't need to worry about accuracy when it comes to their happy fun time machine.
In Tory/Lib seats the message will undoubtably be that a vote for the Libs will let weirdo Miliband in the back door who will tax you to the hilt and ruin the country in a way that makes what Brown did look like a vicarage tea party.
Ditto tory/lab marginals where UKIP are conveinently eating into the white van man labour vote.
IP 28%.
Yes, but my point is targeting the remaining LDs in some of their good seats like Yeovil.
Trying to encourage tactical (anti-UKIP) voting from people who haven't switched to either the Tories of UKIP prior to the election campaign
With that split, it becomes a Tory/LD hard fought seat. Labour won't put in much effort, and I suspect that UKIP will push hard - they may also get a higher initial switch than usual (don't know) because of Laws' previous
But with the EU result, the Tories can do bar charts showing "only the Tories can beat UKIP" as a new message to try and erode the LD 28%. Given that a proportion of these voters are well-trained in tactical voting it may be a message they are receptive to.
With the other side of the coin being "only UKIP can beat the Tories".
While middle class LibDem voters might be willing to vote tactically anti-UKIP, working class LibDem voters would be likewise happy to vote tactically anti-Conservative - after all that's what they've been doing in Yeovil and similar places for decades.
So on the general point its possible that the LibDem strongholds could collapse like a house of cards.
If the overall vote collapses enough, and remarkably they don't seem to have found their floor yet, I would think at least some of the strongholds must be in real danger, there does come a tipping point.
Mr. kle4, you're one of those bounders who described the PS4 as a rhombus! It's a parallelogram (if going for a 2D term), or parallelepiped to be more accurate.
Mr Dancer, you can't call him a bounder when you so caddishly and cavalierly describe Nascar tracks as crudely as ellipses.
Nope - different parts of our United Kingdom vote in different ways. Dumfries and Galloway, for example, seems to be very like Warwickshire, where I am based.
Except that for your own slightly ridiculous purposes you were comparing apples ( a city that has never possessed sovereignty, and despite the bloviating, never will) and oranges (a once sovereign country that will decide in slightly more than 100 days whether to retake that sovereignty).
In reductio ad absurdum world, England's Euro result was much, much closer to that of France than Scotland's. So what?
I'm sure they will. The problem is that committed Liberals are a small proportion of Laws vote:
2010 Westminster: Liberals 55%, Tories 33%, Labour 5%, UKIP 4%, Green N/A. 69% turnout
2014 Euros: UKIP 33%, Tories: 29%, Liberals 19%, Green 8% Labour 7%. 39% turnout.
The tory vote has fallen a little, labour have risen a little, Liberal vote has collapsed from 55% to 19% and UKIP vote has risen from 4% to 33%.
The hardline yoghurt knitters have voted Green, some labour tactical voters have gone home, however most of the UKIP vote has clearly switched straight from the Liberals, this suggests that Laws vote was very soft and resulted from him being the best available at the time not any ideological commitment. Laws will not be helped by events since 2010 denting his personal vote.
The tories may well get some ex UKIP votes at the next election but this seat could well be a tory/UKIP marginal post 2015 with Laws coming third and all three parties within a couple of thousand votes of each other.
Liberals really are facing wipeout, mainly because people will vote UKIP instead of neglecting to vote. No wonder they are so crotchety about UKIP.
Mr. Eagles, winning's winning, whether it's by an inch or a mile.
Mr. kle4, let the people decide? That's almost enough to make me try and track down Davros' speech against democracy in Genesis of the Daleks.
Ours is the victory, Nyder. They talk of democracy, freedom, fairness. Those are the creeds of cowards. The ones who would listen to a thousand opinions and try to satisfy them all. Achievement comes through absolute power, and power through strength! They have lost!
From the guardian's minute by minute rugby coverage, the chap is a Welshman.
63 min That's a great scrum from New Zealand but no matter as May arcs around, coming off his wing. He chips over the top and regathers just 5m out. Barrett is in trouble as he makes the tackle and England get a penalty. ABs lucky there was no card there.
and later
69 min Manu Tuilagi clearly has happy memories of his performance at Twickenham in 2012. He's barrelling through the New Zealand defence and carries it into the New Zealand 22. England are then driven backwards though and Retallick nicks the ball, then bursts through a gap. He's tackled by Yarde in the England 22, but the winger doesn't release his man and is sent to the bin. That's a bit harsh given that no one was binned for the New Zealand infringement earlier
I'm sure they will. The problem is that committed Liberals are a small proportion of Laws vote:
2010 Westminster: Liberals 55%, Tories 33%, Labour 5%, UKIP 4%, Green N/A. 69% turnout
2014 Euros: UKIP 33%, Tories: 29%, Liberals 19%, Green 8% Labour 7%. 39% turnout.
The tory vote has fallen a little, labour have risen a little, Liberal vote has collapsed from 55% to 19% and UKIP vote has risen from 4% to 33%.
The hardline yoghurt knitters have voted Green, some labour tactical voters have gone home, however most of the UKIP vote has clearly switched straight from the Liberals, this suggests that Laws vote was very soft and resulted from him being the best available at the time not any ideological commitment. Laws will not be helped by events since 2010 denting his personal vote.
The tories may well get some ex UKIP votes at the next election but this seat could well be a tory/UKIP marginal post 2015 with Laws coming third and all three parties within a couple of thousand votes of each other.
Liberals really are facing wipeout, mainly because people will vote UKIP instead of neglecting to vote. No wonder they are so crotchety about UKIP.
A poster on here, I forget who, described the LD west country support as an anti-London vote, rather than a pro-LD vote.
Trade deficits are fun, They are a measure of an economy "growing" by consumer spending, and one growing by manufacturing increases. The transition between the two states will be the measure of Ozzie's "genius" because any idiot can manage consumer spending growth.
Good heavens I thought Mr. AlanBrooke and I were the only people on this site who cared about trade figures. Good to have you with us, Comrade. However, I am not sure what being allied to two revanchist, capitalist running-dogs on a matter of economics will do for your communist credentials
I hope that you've suffered only a temporary loss of memory regarding my own mentions of the trade deficit.
I am also perhaps the only person concerned about the UK's permanent tourism deficit.
Both symptoms of a country which feels entitled to consume more wealth than it is able to create.
[And what pays the difference between exports and imports?]
Someone may or may not have answered better than I can.
My answer would be money.
I think a better answer would be wealth, which has for many years been one of the UK's chief exports.
Yes I know I cheated a bit and dropped the academia for a bit and probably wouldn't have been able to answer anway - Blame Ms Briskin who's still snoozing past 11 on a Saturday!!
Mr. Eagles, well, quite. New Who buggered up Davros (as well as the Master). Probably going to write a blog about why Farscape is better than new Who at some point.
From the guardian's minute by minute rugby coverage, the chap is a Welshman.
63 min That's a great scrum from New Zealand but no matter as May arcs around, coming off his wing. He chips over the top and regathers just 5m out. Barrett is in trouble as he makes the tackle and England get a penalty. ABs lucky there was no card there.
and later
69 min Manu Tuilagi clearly has happy memories of his performance at Twickenham in 2012. He's barrelling through the New Zealand defence and carries it into the New Zealand 22. England are then driven backwards though and Retallick nicks the ball, then bursts through a gap. He's tackled by Yarde in the England 22, but the winger doesn't release his man and is sent to the bin. That's a bit harsh given that no one was binned for the New Zealand infringement earlier
Comments
That said, ideally the holidays wouldn't have been extended, but instead more time given over to Parliament holding the executive to account.
gerardbattenmep.com/
I think was convention Vs convention - I really can't see 5 as being anything other than the responsible choice.
Ozzie wanted the extra year, and the coalition decided it would agree. It was originally the four you suggest.
The reason for the extra year is fairly obvious if you look at Osbourne's economic plan with a critical eye.
The idea that Cameron could "save the union" other than by self immolation on the steps of Hollyrood is....and I search for a polite word here....naive?
Trying to encourage tactical (anti-UKIP) voting from people who haven't switched to either the Tories of UKIP prior to the election campaign
Not that clever, his masterplan was rely on the usual upswing after a recession.
This was never going to be a "normal" recovery though, as anyone doing simple maths on the pertinent questions could have told you.
Blindly ignoring the obvious is our usual political level.
Yeovil LDs will be voting LD.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/yeovil/
Holidays.
Well strictly speaking its a holiday from parliament. MPs should still be working at their job which most of us would suggest is (hold your noses everyone) 24/7. This may not be the case and voters should observe and draw their conclusions. But in reality we should not equate absence from parliament as a holiday.
Of course when Farage swans off on a pointless expenses paid jolly on the eve of an important by election and emerges at 4 in the morning on the arm of a poor disabled all be it miniskirted blonde lady .... well we can understand the public's scepticism.
I fucking hate team Scotland.
Suffice to say - I doubt you're as clever as Lagarde.
No yellow card for a penalty one yard from the try line but Yarde gets one for not releasing the ball near the 22?
The bloody Welsh don't understand rugby.
There is no need to be clever, just basic arithmetic, and look in the right place for the relevant information. It is right in front of you under a big flashing sign that says "this can't possibly add up".
Interesting article, apart from the tired One Nation jibe - the Tories also claim to represent the whole country, but they didn't even put up a candidate in my area of London. An aspiration on how to govern is not the same as a commitment to fight every by-election as life and death. I think we should have tried a bit harder, but I wouldn't have thrown the kitchen sink at it.
To illustrate Mike's point: in order to win in 11 months, I need a net gain of 1 LibDem vote in 17. This assumes that other things are equal - no big Con<->Lab switching, UKIP not damaging Lab more than Con, turnout similar to last time. None of these assumptions are outlandish. The Ashcroft poll suggested I was getting 7 LibDems in 17 (hence, partly, the overall 16-point lead when respondents are prompted to think about the candidates). Similarly, in Sherwood, Labour needs to gain a net 1 LibDem in 15. There are lots of other similar seats. Of course the Tories can win, but the hill is pretty steep.
A fresh point for discussion: the experiment with (almost) fixed 5-year parliaments has proved a failure, hasn't it? - at least in a coalition period. The Government is extending Parliamentary holidays because of a lack of things they can agree to do, and the Opposition has leisurely punted policy ideas around, feeling that anything not announced in the final year will be yesterday's chip paper. There will now be quite a lot of policy stuff from all sides, but really it would have been better all round if Cameron had had a reasonable option to go for a majority earlier. But having 5 years locked in office is very tempting for any government, and I suspect we're stuck with it.
Yes, I also felt that an otherwise objective piece was spoiled by that unnecessary "one nation" snipe.
The conflation of the principle of being a one nation party is very different to the idea that a party always has to put maximum effort into winning any parliamentary seat. "One nation" for Labour means creating a more united nation by seeking to reduce the scale of divisions within it. The tactical issue of how you best target limited resources in order to get into government and achieve that is entirely separate.
One point overlooked is the impact on UKIP that a bigger Labour effort would have had. What if a maximum effort from Labour could have edged their vote share up to say 24% in second, with UKIP finishing with 23% in a disappointing third? That would have shifted the narrative much more towards the failure of UKIP and could have caused Farage's bandwagon to go into rapid reverse. But is it really in Labour's interests to seek the rapid implosion of UKIP, rather than a gentle ebbing later that might still leave UKIP eating into Conservative support in 2015?
I think part of the problem there though (in so far as hoping that supporters like myself and Sean will abandon UKIP) is that there is a disconnect between the perception that you are trying to portray of UKIP and the reality.
I do not believe that the Tories were ever the baby eating toxic party that their opponents made them out to be. The held positions that the vocal left could use to try and project that image but in the end the reality was a long way from that. Those who remained loyal to the Tory party throughout that period (and even those who left because of the rise of UKIP) saw from the inside that the Tory party as not the way it was portrayed by some in the media and no matter how much the left tried to push that image in the end they could not persuade supporters that it was a true reflection of the party. Basically those who always hated the Tories had their views reinforced whilst those who were supporters or even ambivalent ignored the hype as normal politicking.
The same applies to UKIP. Whilst I do not generally like parties and make no exception for UKIP, I recognise that the attempts by their opponents to portray the as the 'nasty party' are a very long way from the truth. There are certainly elements of their public positioning that I don't like - opposition to gay marriage being the most obvious - but given that they will do nothing to reverse it and that I believe there is scope to change the basic position within the party, just as there was in the Tory party, then I am happy to continue to support UKIP for the positive reasons that I first joined them./
I see far more hope of the current UKIP leadership coming round to my position on social affairs than I do for the current Tory leadership coming round to my position on EU membership.
"Growth" depends on raw materials, which people all over the world are now clamouring for their share of.
Taking the case of oil as an example (it holds true for most resources though) we have used up all the cheaply available deposits, and now have to exploit more difficult finds at greater cost and energy consumption.
Since everywhere is demanding "growth" the pressures on the remaining stocks becomes greater, which in turn makes for tension between countries.
Nigel Owen should retire from refereeing to save himself further embarrassment.
2010: LD 56%, Con 33%, Lab 5%, UKIP 4%, other 2%
Ok, let's deduct 1/2 [28 pp] of the LD10 vote (for sake of argument) and assume that 50% goes to Labour, 10% to the greens Greens, 25% to UKIP and 15% to the Tories. Let's also assume that 5% of the Tory share has switched directly to UKIP
Interim result:
Labour = 5% + 14% = 19% [28pp * 50%]
Tories = 33% + 4% - 5% = 32% [28pp x 15%, minus UKIP]
UKIP = 4% + 7% + 5% = 16% [28pp x 25%, plus Tory]
Green = 2% + 3% = 5% [28pp x 10%]
LibDem = 28%
With that split, it becomes a Tory/LD hard fought seat. Labour won't put in much effort, and I suspect that UKIP will push hard - they may also get a higher initial switch than usual (don't know) because of Laws' previous
But with the EU result, the Tories can do bar charts showing "only the Tories can beat UKIP" as a new message to try and erode the LD 28%. Given that a proportion of these voters are well-trained in tactical voting it may be a message they are receptive to.
I honestly just quite enjoy listening to Lagarde - but you've probably already worked that out.
But I agree that saying in advance that any election is a good one to lose seems rather daft.
UKIP are contenders in a very small number of seats. They won't be a sellable bogeyman until they have won in those seats.
The anti-UKIP/Green rhetoric we see on here seems to be largely partisans who are miffed that UKIP/Greens are taking their former supporters.
Sounds like an entertaining rugby match, and a dodgy referee.
Sharapova Vs Halep from 2pm, P3 is 3-4pm (I'll aim to have the pre-qualifying piece up shortly after 4pm) and qualifying 6-7pm.
Unsure if the pre-race piece will be this evening or tomorrow morning.
I enjoy listening to lots of "powerful" people, but I get my kicks from listening to what they are not saying, and the way they don't say it.
+1
People who advocated such a position are the ones who need to grow up, getting invested in silly things is perfectly reasonable.
As C S Lewis said, "When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up".
I just thought Osbourne managing to call out Lagarde was quite cool.
1) The line judge who missed the Spear tackle on Brian O'Driscoll
2) The numpty TMO in the 2007 World Cup Final who denied England a legitimate try that would have undoubtedly won them the World Cup
3) and Nigel Owen who thinks conceding a penalty one yard from the try line isn't a yellow card, but not releasing the man on the 22 is
Did he mention our trade deficit by any chance?
Ferrari have reportedly shifted their focus to 2015. More of a psychological than resource shift, I'd suggest, as there aren't nearly as many changes from this year to next. Surprisingly, their upgrades appear to have actually made the car faster in Canada. I'm surprised they haven't tried this sort of approach before.
I'll be keeping my eyes open for Alonso's podium odds (and the weather forecast). Not worth backing now, as I expect the Ferraris to be outqualified by the Red Bulls.
Have to see if I can track down a replay of the match or something, see if TSE's defamation of the finest referee in world rugby stands up at all.
I have been explicitly academically trained to ignore trade deficits.
I never said I was Oxbridge.
But then, that is the way of comments sections, I don't think almost anyone will gain an impression of UKIPers as a result of such places, although maybe that's why some political commentators were surprised if they took a hard position against the idiocy of UKIP that most people who know UKIP supporters do not agree they are all like that.
Your resources are 2010GE, polls, council election results, EU result, by-election results candidates profiles and any private information you can glean, beg, borrow or steal.
As you are short of funds (you drank your remaining assets on champagne at a premature celebration) and are starting with Labour, do you high-tail down to Cowley and talk to the residents (bearing in mind that BMW Mini is doing well), but you fear mocking rejection of the gown by the town.
So, looking at the polls, the commentators and the press, you see that EdM and Labour are starting to find and identify some of the problems of the UK economy, but have failed to identify credible solutions to those problems.
You note that the potential war with the Unions over funding and candidate selection seems to have died to an undeclared truce but could flare up again at the post-referendum conferences. AWS is causing problems in Wales - same place where Labour is blamed for bad economy, education and health. Co-oP - just do not mention it
You presume that NO will win the Referendum, but not by so big a margin to deter the SNP from fighting even harder and so threaten the Labour MPs.
Balls et al are simmering about new economic policies and UKIP keep reminding the voters about Labour's record on immigration and Europe. You note from the polls that EdM is viewed as a good leader by less than 50% of the Labour 2010 VI and a small bit more by the current Labour VI. 49% of LAB 2010VI think EdM would best best for PM (11% of them voted for DC). How would you advise EdM?
Hoping Sharapova wins the first set and Halep the second.
Probably won't offer a qualifying tip but I'll keep my eyes open. The early bet (which I stated unequivocally was not a tip, thankfully) on Perez to be winner without Rosberg/Hamilton is now looking quite stupid.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27739044
While middle class LibDem voters might be willing to vote tactically anti-UKIP, working class LibDem voters would be likewise happy to vote tactically anti-Conservative - after all that's what they've been doing in Yeovil and similar places for decades.
So on the general point its possible that the LibDem strongholds could collapse like a house of cards.
Trade deficits are fun, They are a measure of an economy "growing" by consumer spending, and one growing by manufacturing increases. The transition between the two states will be the measure of Ozzie's "genius" because any idiot can manage consumer spending growth.
The 2013 CC results for Yeovil parliamentary constituency had the Lib Dems in a clear first place over 2,000 votes ahead of the Conservatives with UKIP a close 3rd . Labour managed 7%
Your 19% for Labour is sheer fantasy .
Namely that the referee must always favour New Zealand.
I would advise him to focus on keeping the party from openly fracturing by any means necessary and make the occasional populist announcement to keep the base satisfied and sneak a win in 2015 thanks to the UKIP surge, and once in power he can attempt to fix the more systemic issues in the party. All problems will seem less troublesome once he gets into power.
They may be fun but this is incorrect.
It just means we're selling less abroad - something a greenie/commie/whatever you are I would have thought approved of.
From the guardian's minute by minute rugby coverage, the chap is a Welshman.
63 min That's a great scrum from New Zealand but no matter as May arcs around, coming off his wing. He chips over the top and regathers just 5m out. Barrett is in trouble as he makes the tackle and England get a penalty. ABs lucky there was no card there.
and later
69 min Manu Tuilagi clearly has happy memories of his performance at Twickenham in 2012. He's barrelling through the New Zealand defence and carries it into the New Zealand 22. England are then driven backwards though and Retallick nicks the ball, then bursts through a gap. He's tackled by Yarde in the England 22, but the winger doesn't release his man and is sent to the bin. That's a bit harsh given that no one was binned for the New Zealand infringement earlier
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/jun/07/new-zealand-england-first-test-live-mbm
It's still possible to do a 3-way dutch bet which increases the probability factors .
May has had a good few weeks.Gove has gone in the opposite direction.Osborne and Johnson are ready to pounce.
The only party which has toxified itself this year in my eyes is the Conservatives.
A party of smearing liars with the whining entitlement of the worst sort of welfare bludging layabout.
That said, tipping Nadal to win at 1/7 wasn't exactly the most unexpected tip ever, the less than 36.5 games was nice earner as well
And what pays the difference between exports and imports?
Pragmatic Communist and Zen Christian since you are curious
In reductio ad absurdum world, England's Euro result was much, much closer to that of France than Scotland's. So what?
Mr. kle4, let the people decide? That's almost enough to make me try and track down Davros' speech against democracy in Genesis of the Daleks.
Someone may or may not have answered better than I can.
My answer would be money.
Please tell Mike Smithson that I see some women in that throng.
2010 Westminster: Liberals 55%, Tories 33%, Labour 5%, UKIP 4%, Green N/A. 69% turnout
2014 Euros: UKIP 33%, Tories: 29%, Liberals 19%, Green 8% Labour 7%. 39% turnout.
The tory vote has fallen a little, labour have risen a little, Liberal vote has collapsed from 55% to 19% and UKIP vote has risen from 4% to 33%.
The hardline yoghurt knitters have voted Green, some labour tactical voters have gone home, however most of the UKIP vote has clearly switched straight from the Liberals, this suggests that Laws vote was very soft and resulted from him being the best available at the time not any ideological commitment. Laws will not be helped by events since 2010 denting his personal vote.
The tories may well get some ex UKIP votes at the next election but this seat could well be a tory/UKIP marginal post 2015 with Laws coming third and all three parties within a couple of thousand votes of each other.
Liberals really are facing wipeout, mainly because people will vote UKIP instead of neglecting to vote. No wonder they are so crotchety about UKIP.
"My answer would be money. "
Borrowing.
Have fun not saying things, I have work to do
I am also perhaps the only person concerned about the UK's permanent tourism deficit.
Both symptoms of a country which feels entitled to consume more wealth than it is able to create.