Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If Michael Gove is thinking of the leadership then he’s mil
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If Michael Gove is thinking of the leadership then he’s miles behind Boris in the latest ComRes Favourability Index
Of all the different forms of leadership questions the one I prefer is whether poll respondents have a favourable or unfavourable view of different figures.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Boris as next Tory leader......
Excuse me whilst I damage a rib laughing.
England are collapsing like the Carthiginians at Zama
A politician surely ?
(But I was thinking more of the large number of people outside of london).
He can say it'll be like choosing IDS over Ken Clarke all over again.
I was more thinking of 'not a very good one' cf the Sun apology as a typical mess.
Put Miliband and Clegg's faces on every leaflet?
And being even more unpopular than GO should really seal the deal.
It would have been like electing Keith Joseph as Tory leader in the 70's
A clever chap to be sure, but leader?
Nah.
The point is valid as far as Clegg and the LibDems are concerned, though.
But for that, who knows.
The point is valid as far as Clegg and the LibDems are concerned, though.
The Euros are different to a GE.
That is the essence of a leader that can win elections.
Mr Cameron -46
Mr Clegg -54
Mr Farage -44
Mr Miliband -49
The point is valid as far as Clegg and the LibDems are concerned, though.
The Euros are different to a GE.
No sh1t, Sherlock.
Mike did not specify GEs.
I think a little more respect for voters' decisions is required from you, corporeal.
Surely Cameron should try to make Hague much more prominent in the run-up to the GE.
I guess it's difficult as his job means he is abroad a lot. But whenever he is in the UK he should be, by far, the 2nd most prominent Conservative in the media after Cameron.
No sh1t, Sherlock.
Mike did not specify GEs.
I think a little more respect for voters' decisions is required from you, corporeal.
And your abuse always exceeds your insight.
I'm respecting, or at least paying attention to the number of voters who decided they didn't care enough to vote at the Euros.
Thinking about recent leaders of the main parties, which leader would have made you MOST likely to vote Conservative?
Howard 2
Duncan-Smith 3
Hague 13
Cameron 22
None - I never vote Con 45
A rerun of Howard / IDS is not the answer.
But look how well Hague scores relative to Howard and IDS.
Disraeli and Callaghan, Jewish.
Bonar Law, Scots-Irish, but Canadian.
Any more?
Bertie in to 7/4
Dangerous times for Jordan and Israel too.
Well if we look at the case of Juncker, the German delegations of both right and left are voting in favour, while the UK delegations of both right and left are voting against. Labour often sit uncomfortably with the PES, while the UK Tories and UKIP are both in different groupings to the CDU-CSU.
W had a similar discussion some time back in which some felt that Mr D. Alexander should be banned from being head of the LDs in the future in the event of a No vote. I inquired - even if he was a MP for an EWNI constituency? I don't recall getting any answer.
Mr Gove may be Scottish born but in the event of a Yes vote it is entirely up to him (and to EWNI, of course) whether he becomes an EWNIish subject (as well as taking up his Scottish citizenship).
On-topic, we came back again to The Johnson Conundrum or "How do you solve a problem like Boris ?".
Unless he takes on a constituency at the last minute, he will sit out the 2015 GE contest. Even if he stands and wins, IF David Cameron wins a majority or the Coalition continues, there'll be no vacancy at the top of the Conservative Party. Do we imagine Cameron staying until 2020 - he will by that time have outlasted both Margaret Thatcher and possibly even WSC as Party leader ? Assuming a planned "retirement" in 2018, Johnson is a contender but far from the only runner in that race.
What then if the Conservatives lose next year ? It's probably the best scenario for Johnson to become Party leader quickly (assuming he's in parliament) as he's chosen to rebuild the defeated and demoralised ranks eager to take on PM Miliband in 2020. That doesn't make him a shoo-in but I think he would win.
If he's outside Parliament, then he will miss out if the Tories lose and if they win, he will presumably try to get back into the Commons at the end of his Mayoralty in spring 2016 assuming he can find a pliant backbencher to step down in his favour.
A classic example for Farage was that on the eve of the by election he was not even in the country and irrespective of who he was with and why, he was not only not campaigning for his party at a vital time he was out partying til 4 in the morning. He staggered home to give a grossly misleading account of his party's expectations.
This is perfectly true reporting. As is the situation where one of it leading winning MEPs was employing loads of cheap foreign labour and had charged them 50 quid a week for linving in bunkhouses. Are you telling me this is in line with UKIP policy?
Farage has lower ratings because he deserves them.
A vast amount of money has been spend in Israel over the last 40 years looking to find 'the Jewish gene'. Unfortunately, it turns out no such genes exist. And - from a DNA perspective - Jews are indistinguishable from Palestinians.
That said: I doubt I could see a Labour voter voting Conservative to stop the LibDems.
But I could see a Conservative (or a Labour-ite) voting LibDem to stop UKIP (and vice-versa).
It should be remembered that the average member of the public can probably only name around half a dozen politicians or fewer.
Also, the general public doesn't elect the Tory leader - this is undertaken firstly by the party's MPs and then by its members. He's not even currently an MP so wouldn't even qualify as a candidate.
Let's get real about this once and for all.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10772851/Boris-Johnson-an-epic-Europhile-claims-Louise-Mensch.html
(I found that a little odd, as most of the parliamentary Conservative Party including the current leadership appear to be strongly pro-EU.)
Cameron and Clegg are as always more popular that their parties because of overlap from the coalition.
And Milliband has poor favourable ratings as always because of the way he got elected is causing only half of LAB voters to view him favourably.
Nothing to be surprised from.
There hasn't been any major change from the euros apart than the LD are still digging deeper and the antiUKIP media campaign has an effect only on tactical voting but not those who vote UKIP.
The problem is that all these terms are murky. My preferred definition would be that race is just a biological thing (albeit with no clear borders between them) and that an ethnic group is the social construct. By that logic, I'd say that the Jews are an ethnic group and not a race. But still, Disraeli would count as an ethnic minority leader.
What is a fact is that most modern Jews are descended from a small tribe of nomads that travelled across the middle east 4 -5000 years ago and called themselves Hebrews.
Con are a bit lost right now - they probably mostly agree with the EPP, except that they disagree with them on constitutional issues. That shouldn't matter because the European Parliament doesn't really deal with constitutional issues, but you can understand why they didn't feel comfortable as the stuff they disagree on is very important to them. This puts them in weird positions like having a party like the AfD who would be quite a good fit for their group, but not wanting to let them in for fear of upsetting somebody whose group they've already symbolically left because they disagree with it. In the long run it should sort itself out - the non-EPP right is now quite diverse, and sooner or later they should get aligned with some natural allies.
The socialists have the greatest problems since the austerity and bailout programs run contrary to everything they stand for. On the other side the christian democrats and other center parties dont have the same problem since they are happy with the austerity agenda and they are not in favour of the free market, so they are the natural parties of the eurozone.
On the long term the socialists will disappear in the eurozone and the christian democrats will become the natural liberal parties confronted by a populist opposition of left and right.
The Conservatives in Britain can't realistically join a liberal EPP without abandoning its support for free markets, something impossible as long as London is booming, so they can join the populist right, but they can't because of UKIP in that camp, so they have to make their own camp by splitting the populist right.
Labour will have no camp to join on the long term.
I'm in the camp that europe is just one recession away from disintergrating politically, so i'm not an optimist.
This is a wide definition but its too easy for people to be saying that 'I am not racist but...' I have a friend, a leftish wing friend, who is unable to see any good on any american or anything american. I tell him he in his narrow and prejudiced outlook is a racist and understandably he is upset. But he exhibits the same blinkered wilful dismissal based on ignorance as any other kind of racist.
Racism is just one example of ignorance fed by bigotry. We should go to the heart of our problems and not be led astray by such things.
In the locals Ukip saw a drop of 6% on its NEV of 2013. They were about a quarter down.
In the locals Ukip saw a drop of 6% on its NEV of 2013. They were about a quarter down.
The are though black jews in ethiopia, but their existence is a product of the ties of ancient axum with the jews.
And I believe reasons for the lowered ratings, the fall in his approvals, remain valid and not simply made up.
Perhaps I should take the opportunity to add that Boris, nice chap that he is and I wish him well, has positive ratings only because he has not and as yet never has done anything.
From the end of April to the by election how many UKIP negative stories were on the papers and on TV?
Second, did the tactical vote changed by euro election day?
Third, was there a change in the tactical vote in the published by election polls as time went by?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2658171/DAVID-CAMERON-British-values-arent-optional-theyre-vital-Thats-I-promote-EVERY-school-As-row-rages-Trojan-Horse-takeover-classrooms-Prime-Minister-delivers-uncompromising-pledge.html
I often think whether I could be won back to the Tories by the general election. Sometimes I think it's a possibility - I could even ignore the guy's Europhilia if he's promising us a referendum and it looks like he could get into power. But I find his illiberal nature on individual privacy and mass state surveillance something I just can't stomach. That is a large infringement on British values, in my opinion.
The LD are going down further (they are down in the polls), and UKIP has only been effected from tactical voting from the media campaign (see stable poll ratings, newark by election and the favourable ratings).
Question is. Which leader if any would be any better?
For my money, even if Farage became PM he would rapidly go native once the civil service got into him.
I had some hopes for the Tories after the election. To hear of the encrypted email service that had to close down because Theresa May couldn't resist trying to serve a RIPA warrant on them was thoroughly depressing.
The other one was that they grabbed screenshots of webcam conversations. The idea that a wife could give her husband a virtual strip tease when one of them is away on a business trip and then some GCHQ agent can see that is just a huge intrusion into people's personal lives.
What was awful was that Cameron didn't just support these powers - he openly mocked those that thought it was a problem.
The americans are even more flimsy on what are american values but they all have 1776, the civil war, the american west, WW2 and civil rights somewhere in them.
So for Britain it should be King Arthur, Robin Hood, the war of the roses, Elizabeth, the exploration era, the enlightment, Napoleon, the Empire, WW1 and WW2 somewhere in british values.
Wonder if MPs or ministers have been a victim of such spying by the americans (there are always rumours that Downing Street is full of american bugs) and what will their reaction be if they find out.
ISTR reading a few years ago, that Ebay didn't even require a warrant. A request on police headed paper was sufficient for them to reveal a users entire history or bids, sales and searches etc
As I'm sure you'd agree, unemployed young men are the worst neighbors, irrespective of their ethnic group, country of origin, colour, religion, food preferences, etc. etc. etc. And employed families are the best.
3 April 28%
22 April 27%
25 April 31%
30 April 28%
1 May 27%
2 May 29%
6 May 31%
14 May 25%
16 May 26%
19 May 24%
20 May 27%
Result: 22 May 27.49%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_2014_(United_Kingdom)#2014
The locals 18%-22% is not a large range.
In the 2005 parliament the Conservatives' range was: 35%-43%. Labour 22%-30%
http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/RP12-43/uk-election-statistics-19182012
What demographics should be adjusted for?
I don't know whether it's me but as things stand England have 0 points and a goal difference of minus 1. Costa Rica on the other hand have 3 points and a goal difference of plus 2. To be sure of qualification therefore, England must win both their remaining games (big ask), whereas need to win one of their two games. In either case a tally of 4 points might suffice, with the outcome perhaps resting on goal difference, where Costa Rica clearly has the edge currently.
In such circumstances, all things being equal (including their respective opposition), Costa Rica appear to have a better chance than England.
Yet their respective odds with Betfair of doing do: England 2.04 (0.99/1 net in old money), Costa Rica 2.48 (1.41/1 net). I know which I'd rather be backing, but DYOR.
The UK population may be (lazy guesses, not real numbers):
25% below the age of 16
25% between 16 and 35
25% between 35 and 60
25% above 60
Now, 90% of crimes are committed by people between the ages of 16 and 35 (made up number again).
If the demographics of the Romanian immigrant community in the UK were (more made up numbers):
5% below the age of 16
90% between 16 and 35
5% other
Making a judgement about the criminality of any one nationality, without adjusting for the fact that 90% of the immigrants were of a particular age cohort, would be extremely distorting.
You could theoretically have a rate of offending a quarter the level of a British 18 year old (made up, obviously), yet Romanians in Britain (given my made up demographics, above) would still appear more criminal. Not because they are, but because young people are more likely migrants.
I obviously think the benefits of open borders outweigh the costs. You don't. Let's not get into that argument again. You've utterly failed to persuade me, and I've made a similar impact on you.
This guy wanted to blow up Iran for years
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/209409-graham-urges-obama-to-work-with-iran-to-save-iraq
Neocons are now Iran's best friends.
Some really good discussion today. The morning post got me reflecting further on constitutional reform and even prompted me to write a blog post for the first time in nearly a year - http://goo.gl/GUs89M. Any comments welcome!