Re LAB bounceback. Less than a month ago Tory PBers had cracked open the crossover champagne. Average of last 6 YG polls is now a 5.2% lead
You're a bit of a silly billy to use YouGov as YouGov have yet to show crossover (bar the one poll when Dave, Ed and Nick's name was mentioned and a Lab lead became a Tory lead)
OK presumably I should have used the ARSE polls
Or using other ctossover firms the bounceback would be equally impressive?
Personally I'd wait for the next set of ICMs. Both phone and the Wisdom Index.
The Wisdom Index is not a poll.
I know. But as ICM keep on telling us, it was the most accurate "poll" they had at the last election.
I come on here again today to find that the Tories have won the general election.
Meanwhile we wait on for a thread on Labour's bounce back in the polls, following the crossover hysteria.
For the want of doubt as a "Coalitionista" I have and neither has my independent ARSE projected a Conservative majority come May 2015.
Perhaps you might advise PB of your own current seat projection ?
"Interestingly Brazil is the fourth country to host a World Cup twice and first non-European country so to do. The others are Italy, France and Germany. There is an intriguing pattern the first time Italy hosted they won, second time didn't. First time France hosted they didn't win, second time did. Germany first time hosted, second time didn't. Brazil hosted back in 1950 got to the final but lost to Uruguay, if the pattern holds they'll win otherwise they'll be the only nation to host twice and not win either."
Mexico has hosted twice - 1970 and 1986.
1950 is actually the only World Cup in which there was not a final. There was a mini-league. In the final game Brazil needed a draw to win the tournament and Uruguay needed a win.
You use that line when you are rattled, and you have just used it twice in ten minutes. I hope for your sake you don't play poker.
Crossover was an identifiable and important polling event on which posters here had money, so one wouldn't expect it to go unnoticed. And attention to it was largely due to a wannabe funny man on the left, not to the tories
As I say, rattled.
I'm rattled by Labour's growing polling lead?
You clearly know nothing about betting as the crossover bet was with YouGov.
Re LAB bounceback. Less than a month ago Tory PBers had cracked open the crossover champagne. Average of last 6 YG polls is now a 5.2% lead
You're a bit of a silly billy to use YouGov as YouGov have yet to show crossover (bar the one poll when Dave, Ed and Nick's name was mentioned and a Lab lead became a Tory lead)
OK presumably I should have used the ARSE polls
Or using other ctossover firms the bounceback would be equally impressive?
Personally I'd wait for the next set of ICMs. Both phone and the Wisdom Index.
The Wisdom Index is not a poll.
I know. But as ICM keep on telling us, it was the most accurate "poll" they had at the last election.
I come on here again today to find that the Tories have won the general election.
Meanwhile we wait on for a thread on Labour's bounce back in the polls, following the crossover hysteria.
What? I've not seen any post " Shortly there will be an election and the Tories will win"
I refer you to Easterross who is predicting another 1992.
"Interestingly Brazil is the fourth country to host a World Cup twice and first non-European country so to do. The others are Italy, France and Germany. There is an intriguing pattern the first time Italy hosted they won, second time didn't. First time France hosted they didn't win, second time did. Germany first time hosted, second time didn't. Brazil hosted back in 1950 got to the final but lost to Uruguay, if the pattern holds they'll win otherwise they'll be the only nation to host twice and not win either."
Mexico has hosted twice - 1970 and 1986.
1950 is actually the only World Cup in which there was not a final. There was a mini-league. In the final game Brazil needed a draw to win the tournament and Uruguay needed a win.
I stand corrected. I'd forgotten that, and failed to notice when I was double-checking. Football isn't my forte
@GoodwinMJ: We flagged Great Grimsby as most promising seat for #UKIP. Party just chose their candidate - an ex-Conservative ppc http://t.co/uAhjnrO6sw
Interesting that the Grimsby Telegraph report refers to her by her first name. Does that indicate a preference? It's pretty unusual for newspapers to treat politicians in that way. I don't remember a news report talking about David, Ed and Nick!
@GoodwinMJ: We flagged Great Grimsby as most promising seat for #UKIP. Party just chose their candidate - an ex-Conservative ppc http://t.co/uAhjnrO6sw
Interesting that the Grimsby Telegraph report refers to her by her first name. Does that indicate a preference? It's pretty unusual for newspapers to treat politicians in that way. I don't remember a news report talking about David, Ed and Nick!
Re LAB bounceback. Less than a month ago Tory PBers had cracked open the crossover champagne. Average of last 6 YG polls is now a 5.2% lead
You're a bit of a silly billy to use YouGov as YouGov have yet to show crossover (bar the one poll when Dave, Ed and Nick's name was mentioned and a Lab lead became a Tory lead)
OK presumably I should have used the ARSE polls
Or using other ctossover firms the bounceback would be equally impressive?
My ARSE is not a "poll", it is a projection.
Jack thank you once more for an enlightening projection. You and Rod Crosby are far better "value" than ComedyResolution and YouJokeGuv any day.
Incidentally I do hope you will heed the advice of our fellow traveller Charles and use a proper numbering system.
Do you think that Broxtowe could be the new Basildon? When we hear in the early hours of election night 2015 that Anna Soubry has held with an increased majority, we will know that Ed Milibland will never be First Lord of the Treasury.
Another one who declines to back up his forecasts with hard cash.
Interesting that those predicting a Tory majority are very often the same people who have no desire to bet.
I've been laying Lab maj for about 2 years between 2.3 and 2.6 on betfair - you can check the current price if you desire.
Re LAB bounceback. Less than a month ago Tory PBers had cracked open the crossover champagne. Average of last 6 YG polls is now a 5.2% lead
You're a bit of a silly billy to use YouGov as YouGov have yet to show crossover (bar the one poll when Dave, Ed and Nick's name was mentioned and a Lab lead became a Tory lead)
OK presumably I should have used the ARSE polls
Or using other ctossover firms the bounceback would be equally impressive?
Personally I'd wait for the next set of ICMs. Both phone and the Wisdom Index.
The Wisdom Index is not a poll.
I know. But as ICM keep on telling us, it was the most accurate "poll" they had at the last election.
I come on here again today to find that the Tories have won the general election.
Meanwhile we wait on for a thread on Labour's bounce back in the polls, following the crossover hysteria.
What? I've not seen any post " Shortly there will be an election and the Tories will win"
I refer you to Easterross who is predicting another 1992.
But he's not betting on it ;-)
That would be a wilful misreading of what Easterross actually said.
"Interestingly Brazil is the fourth country to host a World Cup twice and first non-European country so to do. The others are Italy, France and Germany. There is an intriguing pattern the first time Italy hosted they won, second time didn't. First time France hosted they didn't win, second time did. Germany first time hosted, second time didn't. Brazil hosted back in 1950 got to the final but lost to Uruguay, if the pattern holds they'll win otherwise they'll be the only nation to host twice and not win either."
Mexico has hosted twice - 1970 and 1986.
1950 is actually the only World Cup in which there was not a final. There was a mini-league. In the final game Brazil needed a draw to win the tournament and Uruguay needed a win.
I stand corrected. I'd forgotten that, and failed to notice when I was double-checking. Football isn't my forte
As a young man I was a complete football anorak. Some of the useless facts I picked up then have stuck with me!
@GoodwinMJ: We flagged Great Grimsby as most promising seat for #UKIP. Party just chose their candidate - an ex-Conservative ppc http://t.co/uAhjnrO6sw
Interesting that the Grimsby Telegraph report refers to her by her first name. Does that indicate a preference? It's pretty unusual for newspapers to treat politicians in that way. I don't remember a news report talking about David, Ed and Nick!
The seat just seems to tick every single box. Labour are a good way ahead there in the marginal poll, but 16-1 was so good I called Paddy for the first time ever to get extra cash on.
We don't have "dire Scottish weather". We have some rain this morning. As I live in the area of mainland UK with the consistently lowest average rainfall, the Inner Moray Firth, you can keep your steel and glass cages in the sky and I will continue to enjoy looking out my window at the growing barley, hares boxing and roe deer bobbing up among the rape seed. As it happens it is now very sunny.
You do live in an impressive rain shadow east of the Scottish Highlands, but I think the Thames Estuary and the area around Cambridge have you beat on annual average rainfall.
@GoodwinMJ: We flagged Great Grimsby as most promising seat for #UKIP. Party just chose their candidate - an ex-Conservative ppc http://t.co/uAhjnrO6sw
Interesting that the Grimsby Telegraph report refers to her by her first name. Does that indicate a preference? It's pretty unusual for newspapers to treat politicians in that way. I don't remember a news report talking about David, Ed and Nick!
Maybe it's more common for female politicians?
Maggie was Maggie, but she earned that and it was only used in headlines as far as I recall.
"Interestingly Brazil is the fourth country to host a World Cup twice and first non-European country so to do. The others are Italy, France and Germany. There is an intriguing pattern the first time Italy hosted they won, second time didn't. First time France hosted they didn't win, second time did. Germany first time hosted, second time didn't. Brazil hosted back in 1950 got to the final but lost to Uruguay, if the pattern holds they'll win otherwise they'll be the only nation to host twice and not win either."
Mexico has hosted twice - 1970 and 1986.
1950 is actually the only World Cup in which there was not a final. There was a mini-league. In the final game Brazil needed a draw to win the tournament and Uruguay needed a win.
I stand corrected. I'd forgotten that, and failed to notice when I was double-checking. Football isn't my forte
As a young man I was a complete football anorak. Some of the useless facts I picked up then have stuck with me!
Given my World Cup thoughts are based on the fact the only non-English players I've heard of are Argentinian, I'm not sure I'd get far. Although I figure that having heard of them they must be competent at their profession.
@GoodwinMJ: We flagged Great Grimsby as most promising seat for #UKIP. Party just chose their candidate - an ex-Conservative ppc http://t.co/uAhjnrO6sw
Interesting that the Grimsby Telegraph report refers to her by her first name. Does that indicate a preference? It's pretty unusual for newspapers to treat politicians in that way. I don't remember a news report talking about David, Ed and Nick!
Maybe it's more common for female politicians?
Maggie was Maggie, but she earned that and it was only used in headlines as far as I recall.
I always assumed Maggie was a term of derision that was adopted by the right to defuse it. For instance 'Hattie' isn't a term of endearment for Ms Harman.
Jean-Claude Juncker was apparently one of the main architects of the Euro. He is one of the guilty men responsible for the greatest economic catastrophe of the last quarter century. Why on Earth would he be put in charge of the overall project? It would be like appointing Fred Goodwin as Chancellor.
@GoodwinMJ: We flagged Great Grimsby as most promising seat for #UKIP. Party just chose their candidate - an ex-Conservative ppc http://t.co/uAhjnrO6sw
Interesting that the Grimsby Telegraph report refers to her by her first name. Does that indicate a preference? It's pretty unusual for newspapers to treat politicians in that way. I don't remember a news report talking about David, Ed and Nick!
She was the Conservative candidate in 2010 and missed out by 700 votes
A lot of dodgy stuff about her past though.. pretty controversial. Still, I guess the counter will be that the Conservatives thought she was ok to run
Gutted I didnt take the 16s about that one for UKIP, 6/1 now
You use that line when you are rattled, and you have just used it twice in ten minutes. I hope for your sake you don't play poker.
Crossover was an identifiable and important polling event on which posters here had money, so one wouldn't expect it to go unnoticed. And attention to it was largely due to a wannabe funny man on the left, not to the tories
As I say, rattled.
I'm rattled by Labour's growing polling lead?
You clearly know nothing about betting as the crossover bet was with YouGov.
YouGov has not shown crossover.
But whatever gets you through the night.
I know the betting was on YouGov. I have however noticed that it is sometimes the case that when one or two (or was it 3) polls show the same thing, a fourth poll may also show the same thing. You, it seems, haven't.
And what the polls showed was that when the public actually focuses on miliband in the context of a national election the Labour lead melts like ice cream in a blast furnace.
Please God, no more crossover till after the Labour party conference.
There's absolutely no excuse for fly-tipping. It is a pre-planned and mean spirited thing to do. Yet people seem to do it all the time. They deserve to become seriously strapped for cash if they are caught.
Re LAB bounceback. Less than a month ago Tory PBers had cracked open the crossover champagne. Average of last 6 YG polls is now a 5.2% lead
You're a bit of a silly billy to use YouGov as YouGov have yet to show crossover (bar the one poll when Dave, Ed and Nick's name was mentioned and a Lab lead became a Tory lead)
I don't think one can simply ignore the very clear indication from YouGov over the past few days of a widening in Labour's lead over the Tories, on the pretext that this particular pollster has yet to report a crossover. Furthermore this recent trend which they have reported has also been similarly identified by a couple of other pollsters. For whatever reason, the Lab vs Tory lead appears to have increased by 2-3 percentage points, possibly in the aftermath of the Euro elections, possibly reflecting all the May vs Gove nonsense and Cameron's usual inability to deal with this effectively. Either way, now might prove a good time to back Labour in the GE markets if this shift in opinion were to prove real and sustainable, before the bookies react by reflecting this in their prices.
I agree there is scope to highlight the difference of outlook, and that Labour's closed mind and standing up for special interests puts them on the wrong side of the argument.
There's absolutely no excuse for fly-tipping. It is a pre-planned and mean spirited thing to do. Yet people seem to do it all the time. They deserve to become seriously strapped for cash if they are caught.
I seem to remember from when I was on my council that a large amount of fly tipping appears to be items that are either non-domestic waste or larger items of domestic waste. These types of waste are difficult to recycle or dispose of and you often come up against the dead hand of bureaucracy. I think that disposal of waste neds to be made easier rather than simply clobbering those who fly tip.
Re LAB bounceback. Less than a month ago Tory PBers had cracked open the crossover champagne. Average of last 6 YG polls is now a 5.2% lead
You're a bit of a silly billy to use YouGov as YouGov have yet to show crossover (bar the one poll when Dave, Ed and Nick's name was mentioned and a Lab lead became a Tory lead)
I don't think one can simply ignore the very clear indication from YouGov over the past few days of a widening in Labour's lead over the Tories, on the pretext that this particular pollster has yet to report a crossover. Furthermore this recent trend which they have reported has also been similarly identified by a couple of other pollsters. For whatever reason, the Lab vs Tory lead appears to have increased by 2-3 percentage points, possibly in the aftermath of the Euro elections, possibly reflecting all the May vs Gove nonsense and Cameron's usual inability to deal with this effectively. Either way, now might prove a good time to back Labour in the GE markets if this shift in opinion were to prove real and sustainable, before the bookies react by reflecting this in their prices.
I'm not ignoring it. I'm just pointing out using Yougov as the end of the crossover is wrong as there has been no crossover with them.
I've been of the opinion that the reality was the Tories were never really ahead in the polls. The true position was a Lab lead of 0-3 points but moe, sampling variations and differing methodologies put the Tories ahead. A Lab lead of 6 points fits that narrative.
UKIP seem to have a habit of selecting ex-Tories as candidates.
It rather blows the 'we take as many votes from elsewhere' line out of the water.
It's also a mistake in Great Grimsby, isn't it? They need ex-Labour and ex-LD votes most of all. Simply splitting the Tory vote won't win them the seat.
There's absolutely no excuse for fly-tipping. It is a pre-planned and mean spirited thing to do. Yet people seem to do it all the time. They deserve to become seriously strapped for cash if they are caught.
I seem to remember from when I was on my council that a large amount of fly tipping appears to be items that are either non-domestic waste or larger items of domestic waste. These types of waste are difficult to recycle or dispose of and you often come up against the dead hand of bureaucracy. I think that disposal of waste neds to be made easier rather than simply clobbering those who fly tip.
Hmm If it has metal I leave it out for the rag & bone man to collect
Re LAB bounceback. Less than a month ago Tory PBers had cracked open the crossover champagne. Average of last 6 YG polls is now a 5.2% lead
You're a bit of a silly billy to use YouGov as YouGov have yet to show crossover (bar the one poll when Dave, Ed and Nick's name was mentioned and a Lab lead became a Tory lead)
OK presumably I should have used the ARSE polls
Or using other ctossover firms the bounceback would be equally impressive?
My ARSE is not a "poll", it is a projection.
Jack thank you once more for an enlightening projection. You and Rod Crosby are far better "value" than ComedyResolution and YouJokeGuv any day.
Incidentally I do hope you will heed the advice of our fellow traveller Charles and use a proper numbering system.
Do you think that Broxtowe could be the new Basildon? When we hear in the early hours of election night 2015 that Anna Soubry has held with an increased majority, we will know that Ed Milibland will never be First Lord of the Treasury.
Good Morning fine fellow. Perhaps I should allocate the countdown by 1745 seconds !!
The projection indicates that Labour will overall perform marginally better in the Midlands and accordingly Nick Palmer has a little more wind in his sails. Clearly if Labour fail in Broxtowe then they'd be looking down the barrel of a potential net seat loss.
If I were looking for a "Basildon Moment" for Labour from the "JackW Dozen" I'd choose nearby Enfield North.
One reason Basildon became so prominent was because it was early to declare. Going by the Electoral Commission count completion times* for 2010 then the first of the JackW dozen to declare would be Vale of Glamorgan, at around 2am.
JackW has this as a "Likely Con Hold", it is roughly-speaking the very seat that would give Labour an overall majority, falling on a 4.5% swing in a constituency where there is a Lib Dem 15.2% share of the vote for Labour to target.
I don't know if there is a similar marginal likely to declare earlier than Vale of Glamorgan, but if you want just one seat to look out for I would say that is the one.
* The complication here is that the places which had local elections in 2010 will not be the same places that have local elections in 2015, so you might expect some large differences in count completion times for that reason.
Re LAB bounceback. Less than a month ago Tory PBers had cracked open the crossover champagne. Average of last 6 YG polls is now a 5.2% lead
You're a bit of a silly billy to use YouGov as YouGov have yet to show crossover (bar the one poll when Dave, Ed and Nick's name was mentioned and a Lab lead became a Tory lead)
OK presumably I should have used the ARSE polls
Or using other ctossover firms the bounceback would be equally impressive?
Personally I'd wait for the next set of ICMs. Both phone and the Wisdom Index.
The Wisdom Index is not a poll.
I know. But as ICM keep on telling us, it was the most accurate "poll" they had at the last election.
I come on here again today to find that the Tories have won the general election.
Meanwhile we wait on for a thread on Labour's bounce back in the polls, following the crossover hysteria.
What? I've not seen any post " Shortly there will be an election and the Tories will win"
I refer you to Easterross who is predicting another 1992.
But he's not betting on it ;-)
Yep but he also predicted repeatedly that the Tories were going to win the Euros.
There's absolutely no excuse for fly-tipping. It is a pre-planned and mean spirited thing to do. Yet people seem to do it all the time. They deserve to become seriously strapped for cash if they are caught.
I seem to remember from when I was on my council that a large amount of fly tipping appears to be items that are either non-domestic waste or larger items of domestic waste. These types of waste are difficult to recycle or dispose of and you often come up against the dead hand of bureaucracy. I think that disposal of waste neds to be made easier rather than simply clobbering those who fly tip.
Hmm If it has metal I leave it out for the rag & bone man to collect
I was just thinking in my area where if you turn up in anything other than a car you get refused permission to use the local corporation dump.
I agree there is scope to highlight the difference of outlook, and that Labour's closed mind and standing up for special interests puts them on the wrong side of the argument.
Labour believes that the pooling of some resources and a level of locally accountable oversight would enhance the ability of schools to provide the service we all want them to. They cite the London Challenge as being a great example of how this can work in practice. What do you so dislike about that approach and why do you see it as standing up for special interests?
I agree there is scope to highlight the difference of outlook, and that Labour's closed mind and standing up for special interests puts them on the wrong side of the argument.
Labour believes that the pooling of some resources and a level of locally accountable oversight would enhance the ability of schools to provide the service we all want them to. They cite the London Challenge as being a great example of how this can work in practice. What do you so dislike about that approach and why do you see it as standing up for special interests?
I just think that it would be the start of rolling back the innovations of recent years, not just Gove's, and I think that would be wrong.
There's absolutely no excuse for fly-tipping. It is a pre-planned and mean spirited thing to do. Yet people seem to do it all the time. They deserve to become seriously strapped for cash if they are caught.
I seem to remember from when I was on my council that a large amount of fly tipping appears to be items that are either non-domestic waste or larger items of domestic waste. These types of waste are difficult to recycle or dispose of and you often come up against the dead hand of bureaucracy. I think that disposal of waste neds to be made easier rather than simply clobbering those who fly tip.
I would support making such disposals easier also, but that does not justify fly-tipping in anyway, and people fly-tipping deserve to get clobbered just the same. Just because something is difficult for you doesn't mean you should solve the problem by ruining things for your neighbours instead.
I agree there is scope to highlight the difference of outlook, and that Labour's closed mind and standing up for special interests puts them on the wrong side of the argument.
I am shocked, shocked I tell you, to discover that you, a Tory, agree with the Tories and think that Labour are wrong. But thanks for sharing.
Any chance of you opening a Green/Lib Dem match bet for the next GE?
There is no chance of the Green party out-polling the LDs in a GE. It was just about done in the Euros but in a GE the Greens will presumably miss out on about one third of constituencies and will have their vote squeezed almost everywhere.
I agree there is scope to highlight the difference of outlook, and that Labour's closed mind and standing up for special interests puts them on the wrong side of the argument.
Labour believes that the pooling of some resources and a level of locally accountable oversight would enhance the ability of schools to provide the service we all want them to. They cite the London Challenge as being a great example of how this can work in practice. What do you so dislike about that approach and why do you see it as standing up for special interests?
I just think that it would be the start of rolling back the innovations of recent years, not just Gove's, and I think that would be wrong.
The London Challenge has been a huge success story. I struggle to see how seeking to replicate it elsewhere would be wrong.
Any chance of you opening a Green/Lib Dem match bet for the next GE?
There is no chance of the Green party out-polling the LDs in a GE. It was just about done in the Euros but in a GE the Greens will presumably miss out on about one third of constituencies and will have their vote squeezed almost everywhere.
The Greens are surging, plus you misunderestimate Ed's toxicity, and there's a natural home for socialists who want to tell us the rest of us how to live our lives.
Where has advertising against Plain Packs come from ?
What a ridiculous campaign !
Yes,it's hard to see them mobilising the masses for the sacred right to look at a picture of a camel. Industry does feel strongly - they think their only real USP over cheap generic fags is brand preference and plain packaging will dilute it. Their target for the campaign is really Tory MPs, who they hope will see plain packaging as nannying and who no doubt visit PB to learn of their impending doom :-). Industry also has a feeble sub-theme that crooks will find plain packaging easier to forge (like it's hard to find someone to copy a picture).
I've lost track of where the Government has got to on this? They were going to do it, then they were going to wait for evidence from abroad, then the evidence seemed to be that it helped reduce smoking so they were going to do it, now I'm not sure they are. Anyone know?
I agree there is scope to highlight the difference of outlook, and that Labour's closed mind and standing up for special interests puts them on the wrong side of the argument.
Labour believes that the pooling of some resources and a level of locally accountable oversight would enhance the ability of schools to provide the service we all want them to. They cite the London Challenge as being a great example of how this can work in practice. What do you so dislike about that approach and why do you see it as standing up for special interests?
I just think that it would be the start of rolling back the innovations of recent years, not just Gove's, and I think that would be wrong.
The London Challenge has been a huge success story. I struggle to see how seeking to replicate it elsewhere would be wrong.
I'm not familiar with that but in general what I hear from Labour doesn't encourage me alas.
Seriously labour why did you let this poisonous little man become leader.
He hates the Tories more than he hates the Nats.
@IsabelOakeshott: Gordon Brown has criticised inept' Better Together campaign, but I'm told he refused to play full part cos he didn't want to work w Tories
Any chance of you opening a Green/Lib Dem match bet for the next GE?
There is no chance of the Green party out-polling the LDs in a GE. It was just about done in the Euros but in a GE the Greens will presumably miss out on about one third of constituencies and will have their vote squeezed almost everywhere.
The Greens are surging, plus you misunderestimate Ed's toxicity, and there's a natural home for socialists who want to tell us the rest of us how to live our lives.
One reason Basildon became so prominent was because it was early to declare. Going by the Electoral Commission count completion times* for 2010 then the first of the JackW dozen to declare would be Vale of Glamorgan, at around 2am.
JackW has this as a "Likely Con Hold", it is roughly-speaking the very seat that would give Labour an overall majority, falling on a 4.5% swing in a constituency where there is a Lib Dem 15.2% share of the vote for Labour to target.
I don't know if there is a similar marginal likely to declare earlier than Vale of Glamorgan, but if you want just one seat to look out for I would say that is the one.
* The complication here is that the places which had local elections in 2010 will not be the same places that have local elections in 2015, so you might expect some large differences in count completion times for that reason.The only marginal constituency I can find that I think might declare earlier than Vale of Glamorgan is Kingswood, which Labour need a 2.6% swing to take, the count was completed at 00:55 in 2010 and it's about two-thirds of the way down Labour's target list. If Labour fail to win this seat then it becomes unlikely that they will win enough seats to form a Coalition with the Lib Dems.
Also, since it is held by Chris Skidmore the headlines would write themselves: "Kingswood puts the Skids on Miliband's bid for power!"
Where has advertising against Plain Packs come from ?
What a ridiculous campaign !
Yes,it's hard to see them mobilising the masses for the sacred right to look at a picture of a camel. Industry does feel strongly - they think their only real USP over cheap generic fags is brand preference and plain packaging will dilute it. Their target for the campaign is really Tory MPs, who they hope will see plain packaging as nannying and who no doubt visit PB to learn of their impending doom :-). Industry also has a feeble sub-theme that crooks will find plain packaging easier to forge (like it's hard to find someone to copy a picture).
I've lost track of where the Government has got to on this? They were going to do it, then they were going to wait for evidence from abroad, then the evidence seemed to be that it helped reduce smoking so they were going to do it, now I'm not sure they are. Anyone know?
When I saw the adverts last night, my first thought was, if you want to reduce smoking, put politicians photos on packs of cigarettes.
I agree there is scope to highlight the difference of outlook, and that Labour's closed mind and standing up for special interests puts them on the wrong side of the argument.
Labour believes that the pooling of some resources and a level of locally accountable oversight would enhance the ability of schools to provide the service we all want them to. They cite the London Challenge as being a great example of how this can work in practice. What do you so dislike about that approach and why do you see it as standing up for special interests?
I just think that it would be the start of rolling back the innovations of recent years, not just Gove's, and I think that would be wrong.
The London Challenge has been a huge success story. I struggle to see how seeking to replicate it elsewhere would be wrong.
I'm not familiar with that but in general what I hear from Labour doesn't encourage me alas.
If you are not familiar with that then you can't have been listening very closely to what Labour has been saying. You should read up about the results it achieved.
Smokers are huge net contributors to the Treasury, whereas drinkers (I believe) cost us money. It always slightly puzzled me that smoking is viewed as worse than drinking. It's true passive smoking is bad for other people, but drunks can be violent or fatally unco-ordinated (thankfully drink driving is now seen as socially unacceptable).
Libel? Probably not under criminal law, but at any level below, it should be fairly easy. And I also note that when the Labour party was being accused of much the same you had no qualms then
Any chance of you opening a Green/Lib Dem match bet for the next GE?
There is no chance of the Green party out-polling the LDs in a GE. It was just about done in the Euros but in a GE the Greens will presumably miss out on about one third of constituencies and will have their vote squeezed almost everywhere.
The Greens are surging, plus you misunderestimate Ed's toxicity, and there's a natural home for socialists who want to tell us the rest of us how to live our lives.
Any chance of you opening a Green/Lib Dem match bet for the next GE?
There is no chance of the Green party out-polling the LDs in a GE. It was just about done in the Euros but in a GE the Greens will presumably miss out on about one third of constituencies and will have their vote squeezed almost everywhere.
The Greens are surging, plus you misunderestimate Ed's toxicity, and there's a natural home for socialists who want to tell us the rest of us how to live our lives.
Libel? Probably not under criminal law, but at any level below, it should be fairly easy. And I also note that when the Labour party was being accused of much the same you had no qualms then
Just a list of some of the donations you were referring to would help, thanks. Details are all on the Electoral Commission site.
As for Labour: Remind me, wasn't there some chap called Ecclestone who donated £1m to the party?
One reason Basildon became so prominent was because it was early to declare. Going by the Electoral Commission count completion times* for 2010 then the first of the JackW dozen to declare would be Vale of Glamorgan, at around 2am.
JackW has this as a "Likely Con Hold", it is roughly-speaking the very seat that would give Labour an overall majority, falling on a 4.5% swing in a constituency where there is a Lib Dem 15.2% share of the vote for Labour to target.
I don't know if there is a similar marginal likely to declare earlier than Vale of Glamorgan, but if you want just one seat to look out for I would say that is the one.
* The complication here is that the places which had local elections in 2010 will not be the same places that have local elections in 2015, so you might expect some large differences in count completion times for that reason.
The only marginal constituency I can find that I think might declare earlier than Vale of Glamorgan is Kingswood, which Labour need a 2.6% swing to take, the count was completed at 00:55 in 2010 and it's about two-thirds of the way down Labour's target list. If Labour fail to win this seat then it becomes unlikely that they will win enough seats to form a Coalition with the Lib Dems.
Also, since it is held by Chris Skidmore the headlines would write themselves: "Kingswood puts the Skids on Miliband's bid for power!"Looking at early count completion times from 2010, the other constituencies I favour having an eye on are:
Harlow, would be expected to give Labour a majority of >30 if taken, would need a swing of 5.6%. Currently held by the Conservative Trade Unionist Robert Halfon.
Pendle, is slightly more marginal than Vale of Glamorgan, but has a higher Lib Dem vote to squeeze and might well declare earlier. Plus it's in Lancashire which helps to balance the other three geographically.
Labour has given up on the white working class. Who says so? Labour...
“It is the professional middle classes, together with the young, and black and minority ethnic voters, who are Labour’s base now”.
That sounds like something that someone who didn't like Labour would say!
As the author says on Labour List, that would be a 20% strategy for Labour. It would mean Labour would be writing off the entire country, bar London, and some other cities.
Labour has given up on the white working class. Who says so? Labour...
“It is the professional middle classes, together with the young, and black and minority ethnic voters, who are Labour’s base now”.
That sounds like something that someone who didn't like Labour would say!
As the author says on Labour List, that would be a 20% strategy for Labour. It would mean Labour would be writing off the entire country, bar London, and some other cities.
I read the article yesterday. The author (of the original FT article) gives every impression of never actually having canvassed in a Labour held ward.
the original quote "Like most political parties....." As for the Electoral Commission? surely someone as well versed in financial matters such as yourself, knows that donations are preferred when they don't come directly? It's why the Tories scream about block grants from the Unions, but are reticent about several smaller "private" donation from their funders.
I am fascinated by your accusation of libel though.
Doesnt the ban on former BNP members extend to former National Front members? It might be useful to invoke that rule if so.
Note the date of that Mail hatchet job - December 2013. So this is not something which has been dug out after her selection, it's something they knew about before they chose her.
OK, it's the Mail, but it does seem a very odd decision by UKIP, almost as though they wanted to give ammunition to their enemies.
Labour has given up on the white working class. Who says so? Labour...
“It is the professional middle classes, together with the young, and black and minority ethnic voters, who are Labour’s base now”.
That sounds like something that someone who didn't like Labour would say!
As the author says on Labour List, that would be a 20% strategy for Labour. It would mean Labour would be writing off the entire country, bar London, and some other cities.
I read the article yesterday. The author (of the original FT article) gives every impression of never actually having canvassed in a Labour held ward.
I don't blame him.
Would you want to canvass in a Labour held ward?
It's full of people you'd expect to see on the Jeremy Kyle Show.
Doesnt the ban on former BNP members extend to former National Front members? It might be useful to invoke that rule if so.
Note the date of that Mail hatchet job - December 2013. So this is not something which has been dug out after her selection, it's something they knew about before they chose her.
OK, it's the Mail, but it does seem a very odd decision by UKIP, almost as though they wanted to give ammunition to their enemies.
I am fascinated by your accusation of libel though.
Why fascinated? You stated that the Conservative Party was 'weighed up health benefits [of plain packaging] against donations'. Pretty unambiguous libel.
Don't worry, though. I doubt whether Carter & Ruck will be after you. It's more that it shows your distorted mindset. I expect you actually believe in these fictitious donations, and really believe that there's a connection between them and policy.
@GoodwinMJ: We flagged Great Grimsby as most promising seat for #UKIP. Party just chose their candidate - an ex-Conservative ppc http://t.co/uAhjnrO6sw
Interesting that the Grimsby Telegraph report refers to her by her first name. Does that indicate a preference? It's pretty unusual for newspapers to treat politicians in that way. I don't remember a news report talking about David, Ed and Nick!
She was the Conservative candidate in 2010 for the Great Grimsby seat, falling just 714 seats behind Austin Mitchell, so I guess she is already familiar to the paper and its readers from the 2010 GE campaign, and her subsequent activities as a councillor.
On first impressions, having her as a candidate is a huge coup for UKIP.
I am fascinated by your accusation of libel though.
Why fascinated? You stated that the Conservative Party was 'weighed up health benefits [of plain packaging] against donations'. Pretty unambiguous libel.
Don't worry, though. I doubt whether Carter & Ruck will be after you. It's more that it shows your distorted mindset. I expect you actually believe in these fictitious donations, and really believe that there's a connection between them and policy.
Ashcroft National Poll: Con 28%, Lab 32%, Lib Dem 8%, UKIP 17%
Monday, 9 June, 2014 in The Ashcroft National Poll
By Lord Ashcroft
Labour lead by four points in the latest Ashcroft National poll, conducted over the past weekend. Ed Miliband’s party is on 32%, down two points on last week, with the Conservatives up three on 28%, the Liberal Democrats up two on 8% and UKIP down two points to 17%.
For the third consecutive week the two largest parties between them command a share of no more than 60%. This is probably a continuing consequence of the Euro election campaign, in which smaller parties tend to achieve greater prominence. This effect is not confined to UKIP; the Green Party’s score of 7% is seven times what they polled at the last general election.
@Richard_Nabavi As I said, you seem to have no qualms about making similar unproved accusations against other parties. This would appear to be a greater proof of your own distorted mindset? And as for money and policy? "Lobbying" groups appear to spend a great deal of money and effort, is all of this wasted effort?
But your indignant response could be more persuasive if you answered my enquiry. What is in fact government policy on this, at the moment?
I think they'd like to do it, but have probably put it into the 'too hard' category for the moment. And, to be fair, there's a genuine difference of views.
She seems thoroughly unsuitable. Whatever the truth of her National Front past, anyone proposing that all immigrants should be sent back home is nasty and unpleasant.
@Richard_Nabavi As I said, you seem to have no qualms about making similar unproved accusations against other parties. This would appear to be a greater proof of your own distorted mindset? And as for money and policy? "Lobbying" groups appear to spend a great deal of money and effort, is all of this wasted effort?
Just a couple of the donations you're referring to will convince me.
You won't find any. That is because they are entirely an invention arising from your own prejudice, which as such doesn't need anything as trivial as a 'fact' to substantiate it.
But your indignant response could be more persuasive if you answered my enquiry. What is in fact government policy on this, at the moment?
I think they'd like to do it, but have probably put it into the 'too hard' category for the moment. And, to be fair, there's a genuine difference of views.
So it might become your problem!
Or Labour's opportunity. £1 million from a tobacco company owner could go down very well.
Comments
Mexico has hosted twice - 1970 and 1986.
1950 is actually the only World Cup in which there was not a final. There was a mini-league. In the final game Brazil needed a draw to win the tournament and Uruguay needed a win.
You clearly know nothing about betting as the crossover bet was with YouGov.
YouGov has not shown crossover.
But whatever gets you through the night.
But he's not betting on it ;-)
1950 is actually the only World Cup in which there was not a final. There was a mini-league. In the final game Brazil needed a draw to win the tournament and Uruguay needed a win.
I stand corrected. I'd forgotten that, and failed to notice when I was double-checking. Football isn't my forte
Not yet backed a Con maj though.
As a young man I was a complete football anorak. Some of the useless facts I picked up then have stuck with me!
Given my World Cup thoughts are based on the fact the only non-English players I've heard of are Argentinian, I'm not sure I'd get far. Although I figure that having heard of them they must be competent at their profession.
A lot of dodgy stuff about her past though.. pretty controversial. Still, I guess the counter will be that the Conservatives thought she was ok to run
Gutted I didnt take the 16s about that one for UKIP, 6/1 now
And what the polls showed was that when the public actually focuses on miliband in the context of a national election the Labour lead melts like ice cream in a blast furnace.
Please God, no more crossover till after the Labour party conference.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26347616
There's absolutely no excuse for fly-tipping. It is a pre-planned and mean spirited thing to do. Yet people seem to do it all the time. They deserve to become seriously strapped for cash if they are caught.
Furthermore this recent trend which they have reported has also been similarly identified by a couple of other pollsters.
For whatever reason, the Lab vs Tory lead appears to have increased by 2-3 percentage points, possibly in the aftermath of the Euro elections, possibly reflecting all the May vs Gove nonsense and Cameron's usual inability to deal with this effectively.
Either way, now might prove a good time to back Labour in the GE markets if this shift in opinion were to prove real and sustainable, before the bookies react by reflecting this in their prices.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/06/the-trojan-horse-affair-illuminates-a-vital-difference-between-the-tories-and-labour/
I agree there is scope to highlight the difference of outlook, and that Labour's closed mind and standing up for special interests puts them on the wrong side of the argument.
http://labourlist.org/2014/06/giving-up-on-the-white-working-class-is-a-20-strategy/
I've been of the opinion that the reality was the Tories were never really ahead in the polls. The true position was a Lab lead of 0-3 points but moe, sampling variations and differing methodologies put the Tories ahead. A Lab lead of 6 points fits that narrative.
It rather blows the 'we take as many votes from elsewhere' line out of the water.
It's also a mistake in Great Grimsby, isn't it? They need ex-Labour and ex-LD votes most of all. Simply splitting the Tory vote won't win them the seat.
Labour hold.
JackW has this as a "Likely Con Hold", it is roughly-speaking the very seat that would give Labour an overall majority, falling on a 4.5% swing in a constituency where there is a Lib Dem 15.2% share of the vote for Labour to target.
I don't know if there is a similar marginal likely to declare earlier than Vale of Glamorgan, but if you want just one seat to look out for I would say that is the one.
* The complication here is that the places which had local elections in 2010 will not be the same places that have local elections in 2015, so you might expect some large differences in count completion times for that reason.
Labour has given up on the white working class. Who says so? Labour...
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/75415000/jpg/_75415893_6e9387b0-7a29-4183-b41f-75db7491f10b.jpg
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27757991
What a ridiculous campaign !
http://politicalbookie.wordpress.com/2014/06/10/31-scotland-to-vote-yes-a-good-bet/
Any chance of you opening a Green/Lib Dem match bet for the next GE?
Edit - misread 69 years. Need to get to Specsavers .
That sounds like something that someone who didn't like Labour would say!
I've lost track of where the Government has got to on this? They were going to do it, then they were going to wait for evidence from abroad, then the evidence seemed to be that it helped reduce smoking so they were going to do it, now I'm not sure they are. Anyone know?
Then again, UKIP's strong showing has been vindicated in actual votes. Maybe the Lib Dems will be washed away in purple and green tsunami.
Like most political parties, they are weighing up health benefits against donations.
JackW has this as a "Likely Con Hold", it is roughly-speaking the very seat that would give Labour an overall majority, falling on a 4.5% swing in a constituency where there is a Lib Dem 15.2% share of the vote for Labour to target.
I don't know if there is a similar marginal likely to declare earlier than Vale of Glamorgan, but if you want just one seat to look out for I would say that is the one.
* The complication here is that the places which had local elections in 2010 will not be the same places that have local elections in 2015, so you might expect some large differences in count completion times for that reason.The only marginal constituency I can find that I think might declare earlier than Vale of Glamorgan is Kingswood, which Labour need a 2.6% swing to take, the count was completed at 00:55 in 2010 and it's about two-thirds of the way down Labour's target list. If Labour fail to win this seat then it becomes unlikely that they will win enough seats to form a Coalition with the Lib Dems.
Also, since it is held by Chris Skidmore the headlines would write themselves: "Kingswood puts the Skids on Miliband's bid for power!"
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jameskirkup/100275660/memo-to-tory-optimists-labour-is-losing-support-but-youre-not-gaining-it/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2523883/National-Front-past-UKIP-star-centre-race-row--police-probe-abuse-transvestite-husband.html
Smokers are huge net contributors to the Treasury, whereas drinkers (I believe) cost us money. It always slightly puzzled me that smoking is viewed as worse than drinking. It's true passive smoking is bad for other people, but drunks can be violent or fatally unco-ordinated (thankfully drink driving is now seen as socially unacceptable).
Libel?
Probably not under criminal law, but at any level below, it should be fairly easy.
And I also note that when the Labour party was being accused of much the same you had no qualms then
As for Labour: Remind me, wasn't there some chap called Ecclestone who donated £1m to the party?
Not playing party politics, I agree she seems a bit much.. how come she stood for the Tories in 2010? Doesnt seem like DC's cup of tea.
Was all this known then?
Also, since it is held by Chris Skidmore the headlines would write themselves: "Kingswood puts the Skids on Miliband's bid for power!"Looking at early count completion times from 2010, the other constituencies I favour having an eye on are:
Harlow, would be expected to give Labour a majority of >30 if taken, would need a swing of 5.6%. Currently held by the Conservative Trade Unionist Robert Halfon.
Pendle, is slightly more marginal than Vale of Glamorgan, but has a higher Lib Dem vote to squeeze and might well declare earlier. Plus it's in Lancashire which helps to balance the other three geographically.
the original quote "Like most political parties....."
As for the Electoral Commission? surely someone as well versed in financial matters such as yourself, knows that donations are preferred when they don't come directly?
It's why the Tories scream about block grants from the Unions, but are reticent about several smaller "private" donation from their funders.
I am fascinated by your accusation of libel though.
OK, it's the Mail, but it does seem a very odd decision by UKIP, almost as though they wanted to give ammunition to their enemies.
Would you want to canvass in a Labour held ward?
It's full of people you'd expect to see on the Jeremy Kyle Show.
Don't worry, though. I doubt whether Carter & Ruck will be after you. It's more that it shows your distorted mindset. I expect you actually believe in these fictitious donations, and really believe that there's a connection between them and policy.
On first impressions, having her as a candidate is a huge coup for UKIP.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/937232.stm
Monday, 9 June, 2014 in The Ashcroft National Poll
By Lord Ashcroft
Labour lead by four points in the latest Ashcroft National poll, conducted over the past weekend. Ed Miliband’s party is on 32%, down two points on last week, with the Conservatives up three on 28%, the Liberal Democrats up two on 8% and UKIP down two points to 17%.
For the third consecutive week the two largest parties between them command a share of no more than 60%. This is probably a continuing consequence of the Euro election campaign, in which smaller parties tend to achieve greater prominence. This effect is not confined to UKIP; the Green Party’s score of 7% is seven times what they polled at the last general election.
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2014/06/ashcroft-national-poll-con-28-lab-32-lib-dem-8-ukip-17/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=ashcroft-national-poll-con-28-lab-32-lib-dem-8-ukip-17&utm_source=Lord+Ashcroft+Polls&utm_campaign=7acdffff0c-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b70c7aec0a-7acdffff0c-71623245
But your indignant response could be more persuasive if you answered my enquiry. What is in fact government policy on this, at the moment?
As I said, you seem to have no qualms about making similar unproved accusations against other parties. This would appear to be a greater proof of your own distorted mindset?
And as for money and policy? "Lobbying" groups appear to spend a great deal of money and effort, is all of this wasted effort?
So it might become your problem!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/10888727/Dont-threaten-me-over-Juncker-appointment-Angela-Merkel-warns-David-Cameron.html
This is going to get messy.
You won't find any. That is because they are entirely an invention arising from your own prejudice, which as such doesn't need anything as trivial as a 'fact' to substantiate it.