Mr. Scrapheap/Mr. Gin, the Savile stuff is less surprising than it might be.
I have vague memories of his rumoured proclivities being known about even in the primary school playground.
Yes. All Savile impressions at school involved now then now then, I have a small boy here on my lap etc etc Everyone knew he was a nonce, nobody did anything about it
Such a totally unrepresentative initial sample needed such heavy weighting that the results will be dominated by the weighting used rather than any actual changes in VI .
The weighting is likely to be reasonably accurate, though - the polling companies have a good idea of how many people of each demographic they should find.
The problem is the assumption that the people who do respond are not systematically different from the people who do not respond, and without a good understanding of why the initial sample was so unrepresentative the worry would be that you are missing out on important information.
Mr. Scrapheap/Mr. Gin, the Savile stuff is less surprising than it might be.
I have vague memories of his rumoured proclivities being known about even in the primary school playground.
Yes. All Savile impressions at school involved now then now then, I have a small boy here on my lap etc etc Everyone knew he was a nonce, nobody did anything about it
I always found him "creepy" but never knew why. Could never quite put my finger on it. But even as a five year old watching him TOTP I didn't like the man...
Coulson's (probably) off to prison today isn't he?
Nope, well not today, later on this week.
There's going to be a lot of Barristers speaking today, trying to get mitigation for those who pleaded guilty at the start.
So that will take a lot of time before Hizonner gives sentence.
Are you suggesting that Barristers like to talk for a long time?
Hell no.
But when their clients plead guilty, they have to talk for a long time to explain why their clients did what they did, as they didn't have an opportunity to do so during the trial.
Mr. Scrapheap/Mr. Gin, the Savile stuff is less surprising than it might be.
I have vague memories of his rumoured proclivities being known about even in the primary school playground.
Yes. All Savile impressions at school involved now then now then, I have a small boy here on my lap etc etc Everyone knew he was a nonce, nobody did anything about it
I always found him "creepy" but never knew why. Could never quite put my finger on it. But even as a five year old watching him TOTP I didn't like the man...
It's the problem with the 70s culture in a nutshell. TOTP had girls of young age hanging off him. It was happening on screen and therefore legitimised in the minds of the viewing public.
Secondly look at the weightings . As we know the sample should have roughly equal Con and Labour voters to reflect the closeness of the results in 2010 The actual sample before weighting had 418 Conservative 2010 voters to just 214 Labour 2010 voters , Such a totally unrepresentative initial sample needed such heavy weighting that the results will be dominated by the weighting used rather than any actual changes in VI .
As I've pointed out before, this sort of thing is a major problem for all the polls at the moment. The initial sample is far from being representative.
In the last Ashcroft National Poll 346 C1 and C2 respondents were weighted up to 495. In the latest Guardian ICM poll 348 C1 and C2 respondents were weighted up to 501. A bit under 70% of their quota of C1 and C2 respondents.
However, this isn't a new problem. The 2010 General Election prediction poll by ICM for the Guardian only had 75% of its quota of C1 and C2 respondents, and it managed okay. Perhaps this is a growing problem - a randomly chosen Guardian ICM poll from 2004 found 83% of the C1 and C2 respondents it was looking for.
Yes you are right in pointing out the general problem with getting fully representative samples . An error in sampling too many in a group which votes 55/45 Party A v Party B and too few in a group which votes 45/55 may be significant but not on the same scale as a poll which samples twice as many voting Party A than it should do .and half as many voting Party B as it should do . .
Secondly look at the weightings . As we know the sample should have roughly equal Con and Labour voters to reflect the closeness of the results in 2010 The actual sample before weighting had 418 Conservative 2010 voters to just 214 Labour 2010 voters , Such a totally unrepresentative initial sample needed such heavy weighting that the results will be dominated by the weighting used rather than any actual changes in VI .
As I've pointed out before, this sort of thing is a major problem for all the polls at the moment. The initial sample is far from being representative.
In the last Ashcroft National Poll 346 C1 and C2 respondents were weighted up to 495. In the latest Guardian ICM poll 348 C1 and C2 respondents were weighted up to 501. A bit under 70% of their quota of C1 and C2 respondents.
However, this isn't a new problem. The 2010 General Election prediction poll by ICM for the Guardian only had 75% of its quota of C1 and C2 respondents, and it managed okay. Perhaps this is a growing problem - a randomly chosen Guardian ICM poll from 2004 found 83% of the C1 and C2 respondents it was looking for.
I'm with Mark Senior on this one, the Pudsey punt is a very small one and based more off the Local Election results 60%, JackW's ARSE 30%, Pudsey not being in the Ashcroft poll but yet being in this one combined 5% each..
Polls that need alot of weighting are not great in my book.
Such a totally unrepresentative initial sample needed such heavy weighting that the results will be dominated by the weighting used rather than any actual changes in VI .
The weighting is likely to be reasonably accurate, though - the polling companies have a good idea of how many people of each demographic they should find.
The problem is the assumption that the people who do respond are not systematically different from the people who do not respond, and without a good understanding of why the initial sample was so unrepresentative the worry would be that you are missing out on important information.
Right definitely last post - I've got some exciting reason why letters to do.
1. Good news if Henry can be tempted back on. 2. No way Jose am I betting on Spurs in the Top4 sadly. I expect Poch to be gone before the end of the season. 3. Quite a chunk re Tory most seats, I did go all green as you pros call it, a few months ago on Tory maj however as accept that is a big ask 4. IHT 5. I fancy USA to beat Spurs, sorry Belgium tomorrow.
Secondly look at the weightings . As we know the sample should have roughly equal Con and Labour voters to reflect the closeness of the results in 2010 The actual sample before weighting had 418 Conservative 2010 voters to just 214 Labour 2010 voters , Such a totally unrepresentative initial sample needed such heavy weighting that the results will be dominated by the weighting used rather than any actual changes in VI .
As I've pointed out before, this sort of thing is a major problem for all the polls at the moment. The initial sample is far from being representative.
In the last Ashcroft National Poll 346 C1 and C2 respondents were weighted up to 495. In the latest Guardian ICM poll 348 C1 and C2 respondents were weighted up to 501. A bit under 70% of their quota of C1 and C2 respondents.
However, this isn't a new problem. The 2010 General Election prediction poll by ICM for the Guardian only had 75% of its quota of C1 and C2 respondents, and it managed okay. Perhaps this is a growing problem - a randomly chosen Guardian ICM poll from 2004 found 83% of the C1 and C2 respondents it was looking for.
For non-mathematicians, a clarifying note may be useful. The underlying assumption (widely accepted) is that a balanced demographic sample is a good thing - in the old days some pollsters just took 800 random people and didn't care if half were pensioners or whatever, but that's died out. So if your sample only has say 10% C2 voters and the repsentative figure would be 20%, what do you do? You "weight" the ones you've got, i.e. in this case count them double. If you were really zealous you'd hold the results till you went out and found more C2s, but commercially that'd be problematic, and it would make your data less current.
In principle this is OK, so long as you have "typical" C2s - if they are different in some way (perhaps mostly from one ethnic group or mostly women or whatever), the differences of that variant of C2 will be magnified. The overall effect is to increase variability a bit, making it (even) less sensible to exult or despair when a poll moves a couple of points.
A separate issue is 2010 voting record. Most people report their jobs accurately for the C1 etc. classification, but they may not remember how they voted accurately - in some cases, they may be embarrassed to remember and fib about it. So a currently unpopular party may appear to have fewer 2010 adherents than actually happened. The ones who do admit to it are then weighted upwards (like the C2s above). This may understate the size of the drop, since it looks as though unpopular party X has hung on to lots of its supporters, whereas in reality it's so discredited that a chunk of its 2010 supporters are showing up as something else.
Is this Mikes attempt to cheer up PB Tories on a Monday morning ?
The polling consistently shows a Labour lead of about 4% across the country and slightly more in marginals.
Unless the Tories get most of their votes back from UKIP, they will do badly in 2015, losing 50+ seats and Labour will be in with a chance of a majority.
The Tories won't get their votes back from UKIP unless they take a much tougher line on unskilled immigration than they are currently, and make their renegotiation plan a lot clearer, including setting out what they want to get back and giving a precise date for the referendum.
Is this Mikes attempt to cheer up PB Tories on a Monday morning ?
The polling consistently shows a Labour lead of about 4% across the country and slightly more in marginals.
Unless the Tories get most of their votes back from UKIP, they will do badly in 2015, losing 50+ seats and Labour will be in with a chance of a majority.
The Lord Ashcroft polling in the Con/Lab marginals showed Labour doing the same in the marginals as it was doing nationwide.
Can't say I'm in anyway surprised at that. I really don't think there will be a permanent or discernible change in the polls until Feb 2015. Cons low 30s, Labour Mid / upper 30s Libs 10 +/- UKIP 17 +/-
We have such a strange (to us) electoral cycle this parliament. A known date for the election which has amended the behaviour of all the parties with announcements, fighting opponents and putting pressure on 'the other side' to knock them off balance or weaken them.
The much discussed alteration to the political picture caused by coalition, removing the LibDems from the long held position of mid term protest vote repository, the unsuitability of Labour for protest or anti government votes as they are just off a 13 year power crazed governing high, therefore the facilitation of the rise of UKIP as the easy option for refuseniks (not in a Jewish sense, before anyone complains) to support.
The press have no real incentive to use the ammunition they have, they need a large store of dry powder for the election campaign. They would open up with two barrels if they thought they could get a scalp or push a weak government towards an election. Coalition has left them with no easy targets, no reshuffles to speak of or a PM who is easily swayed into changing his team.
After 4 years and 9 months of steady as she goes politics the real election campaign will begin. I suspect it will be an explosive campaign. It will be an invitation for voters to think of the options, the press to use the stories they have collected and the parties to brainwash the unaware with sweet messages of hope.
Swings to voting intention are predicted to be late, rapid and will no doubt oscillate during the campaign.
As I've pointed out before, this sort of thing is a major problem for all the polls at the moment. The initial sample is far from being representative.
In the last Ashcroft National Poll 346 C1 and C2 respondents were weighted up to 495. In the latest Guardian ICM poll 348 C1 and C2 respondents were weighted up to 501. A bit under 70% of their quota of C1 and C2 respondents.
However, this isn't a new problem. The 2010 General Election prediction poll by ICM for the Guardian only had 75% of its quota of C1 and C2 respondents, and it managed okay. Perhaps this is a growing problem - a randomly chosen Guardian ICM poll from 2004 found 83% of the C1 and C2 respondents it was looking for.
For non-mathematicians, a clarifying note may be useful. The underlying assumption (widely accepted) is that a balanced demographic sample is a good thing - in the old days some pollsters just took 800 random people and didn't care if half were pensioners or whatever, but that's died out. So if your sample only has say 10% C2 voters and the repsentative figure would be 20%, what do you do? You "weight" the ones you've got, i.e. in this case count them double. If you were really zealous you'd hold the results till you went out and found more C2s, but commercially that'd be problematic, and it would make your data less current.
In principle this is OK, so long as you have "typical" C2s - if they are different in some way (perhaps mostly from one ethnic group or mostly women or whatever), the differences of that variant of C2 will be magnified. The overall effect is to increase variability a bit, making it (even) less sensible to exult or despair when a poll moves a couple of points.
A separate issue is 2010 voting record. Most people report their jobs accurately for the C1 etc. classification, but they may not remember how they voted accurately - in some cases, they may be embarrassed to remember and fib about it. So a currently unpopular party may appear to have fewer 2010 adherents than actually happened. The ones who do admit to it are then weighted upwards (like the C2s above). This may understate the size of the drop, since it looks as though unpopular party X has hung on to lots of its supporters, whereas in reality it's so discredited that a chunk of its 2010 supporters are showing up as something else.
Again generally agreed , FWIW though in this particular poll the last effect is not present as the "Unpopular Party " Lib Dems had to be weighted down slightly as there were slightly more 2010 Lib Dem voters in the sample than there should have been .
Mr. Flag, this might vary according to geography (my primary school was quite close to Leeds), but there were plenty of rumours flying around about Savile.
Is this Mikes attempt to cheer up PB Tories on a Monday morning ?
The polling consistently shows a Labour lead of about 4% across the country and slightly more in marginals.
Unless the Tories get most of their votes back from UKIP, they will do badly in 2015, losing 50+ seats and Labour will be in with a chance of a majority.
The Tories won't get their votes back from UKIP unless they take a much tougher line on unskilled immigration than they are currently, and make their renegotiation plan a lot clearer, including setting out what they want to get back and giving a precise date for the referendum.
The Tories won't be able to do anything about immigration from the EU, unless they gain agreement from all EU members, for the UK to have an opt out of the relevant chapter on rights of movement. Or the Tories change their policy that they will recommend people vote to leave the EU.
This is not going to happen. I would put a small bet on there not being any referendum in the UK on EU membership in or out, within the next 10 years. The EU are not going to have any new treaty in the forseeable future, because a number of countries including the UK would have to hold referendums. The Tories would have a referendum in 2017, but I don't think they will win in 2015, unless Cameron follows your advice Socrates, but I can't see this happening. Although the Tories come across as being EU sceptic, I think there are a large number of Tories and their backers who would be very unhappy with any policy to vote to leave the EU. As for Labour or Lib Dems, I think they won't want to hold any vote on EU membership while Europe is in a financial mess.
Mr. Flag, this might vary according to geography (my primary school was quite close to Leeds), but there were plenty of rumours flying around about Savile.
And yet, one remembers the way in which the tabloids dug into that teacher's unusual life in Bristol after the murder of a young lady there a few years ago.
I agree entirely that being (or looking) unusual/eccentric cannot be considered cause for a witch-hunt. But we know that not only was Savile guilty, but that those who tried to bring him to justice were prevented, dissuaded or disbelieved.
'Voters can only conclude from this explicit statement of fundamental fiscal divergence that you now accept that a currency union is not going to happen. You are right to do so."
"I hope you will very soon explain to the Scottish people what your alternative monetary proposal is, so people can vote in possession of the full facts."
I think Dave has now reached a point where he has to make his mind up, and soon: Deep down, in his waters, does he prefer exit or abject failure on reform and to stay in with the UK controlled by Brussels? (Because, although we probably all want it in the UK, there now seems very little chance that a truly reformed EU is going to be on offer).
As 'ever closer' proceeds and the prospects of the UK's sovereignty remaining unmolested fade it seems clear to me where the British people's feelings will mostly lie. Unless a two speed EU can be agreed Brussels is taking the EU to a place that the British people won't be able to accept. And getting on the wrong side of the people on a fundamental issue never ends well for a politician (witness Clegg and his blind deference to Brussels).
And IMHO having Ed Microband as PM will only accelerate this. A Labour win in 2015 will give a big impetus to a hugely popular 2020 exit manisfesto from the Tories (led by someone who is not Dave).
The Crown will be retrying Mr Coulson and Mr Goodman on the counts of conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office, contrary to s. 1 of the Criminal Law Act 1977, on which the jury was discharged from reaching verdicts last week.
Is this Mikes attempt to cheer up PB Tories on a Monday morning ?
The polling consistently shows a Labour lead of about 4% across the country and slightly more in marginals.
Unless the Tories get most of their votes back from UKIP, they will do badly in 2015, losing 50+ seats and Labour will be in with a chance of a majority.
The Tories won't get their votes back from UKIP unless they take a much tougher line on unskilled immigration than they are currently, and make their renegotiation plan a lot clearer, including setting out what they want to get back and giving a precise date for the referendum.
The Tories won't be able to do anything about immigration from the EU, unless they gain agreement from all EU members, for the UK to have an opt out of the relevant chapter on rights of movement. Or the Tories change their policy that they will recommend people vote to leave the EU.
This is not going to happen. I would put a small bet on there not being any referendum in the UK on EU membership in or out, within the next 10 years. The EU are not going to have any new treaty in the forseeable future, because a number of countries including the UK would have to hold referendums. The Tories would have a referendum in 2017, but I don't think they will win in 2015, unless Cameron follows your advice Socrates, but I can't see this happening. Although the Tories come across as being EU sceptic, I think there are a large number of Tories and their backers who would be very unhappy with any policy to vote to leave the EU. As for Labour or Lib Dems, I think they won't want to hold any vote on EU membership while Europe is in a financial mess.
Yet the government could easily do things that would massively discourage flow of (low wage) migrants.
Number One. All benefits require five years residence in the UK. Number Two. To get NHS benefits beyond emergency care requires an NHS Card. Said card comes with 10 years of residence or 5 years of NI payments. One can purchase an NHS Card for one year for £5,000. Number Three. Employers in the UK are required to ensure that all employees have appropriate health insurance or an NHS Card.
Mr. Eagles, how long would you guess such a retrial would last?
Got to say I was swayed by Mr. Nabavi's argument that Cameron's apology should've been an absolute non-issue, given that the guilty verdict was delivered by the jury, and Cameron simply apologising on the basis of the jury's opinion could not itself affect the jury's opinion.
I think Dave has now reached a point where he has to make his mind up, and soon: Deep down, in his waters, does he prefer exit or abject failure on reform and to stay in with the UK controlled by Brussels? (Because, although we probably all want it in the UK, there now seems very little chance that a truly reformed EU is going to be on offer).
As 'ever closer' proceeds and the prospects of the UK's sovereignty remaining unmolested fade it seems clear to me where the British people's feelings will mostly lie. Unless a two speed EU can be agreed Brussels is taking the EU to a place that the British people won't be able to accept. And getting on the wrong side of the people on a fundamental issue never ends well for a politician (witness Clegg and his blind deference to Brussels).
And IMHO having Ed Microband as PM will only accelerate this. A Labour win in 2015 will give a big impetus to a hugely popular 2020 exit manisfesto from the Tories (led by someone who is not Dave).
Its a huge chance for BOO ers and DC is following a process which will see "out" win a referendum - likely with DC backing out.
He's called the EU's bluff - if they don't offer up serious, grown up reforms then they will be pitched as aloof, inflexible and following a path that has led to poor growth in Europe.
Kippers bleating about DC "fixing" the referendum - he might be on the OUT side with them if they don't hand Ed Miliband the keys to no 10.
Mr. Eagles, how long would you guess such a retrial would last?
Got to say I was swayed by Mr. Nabavi's argument that Cameron's apology should've been an absolute non-issue, given that the guilty verdict was delivered by the jury, and Cameron simply apologising on the basis of the jury's opinion could not itself affect the jury's opinion.
I genuinely don't know, this has been a very complex trial, with some extra-ordinary circumstances and reporting restrictions. My guess would be a lot less than the 8 months this current trial lasted.
The other complicating factor is, I'm expecting Mr Coulson to appeal against his guilty verdict from last week.
Got to say I was swayed by Mr. Nabavi's argument that Cameron's apology should've been an absolute non-issue, given that the guilty verdict was delivered by the jury, and Cameron simply apologising on the basis of the jury's opinion could not itself affect the jury's opinion.
The argument is that Cameron introduced information into the public domain while the jury were deliberating, viz. that Coulson had given him an untrue assurance, which had not been led before the jury at trial. The counter-argument is that Saunders J went native.
" I'm expecting Mr Coulson to appeal his guilty verdict ..."
Gaaaah! Its "appeal against", Mr. Eagles, "appeal against" not just "appeal". I never thought i would see that ghastly Americanism from an educated man like yourself.
" I'm expecting Mr Coulson to appeal his guilty verdict ..."
Gaaaah! Its "appeal against", Mr. Eagles, "appeal against" not just "appeal". I never thought i would see that ghastly Americanism from an educated man like yourself.
Corrected already. I genuinely missed out the word against, is a habit of mine, of missing out words.
Mr. Eagles, how long would you guess such a retrial would last?
Got to say I was swayed by Mr. Nabavi's argument that Cameron's apology should've been an absolute non-issue, given that the guilty verdict was delivered by the jury, and Cameron simply apologising on the basis of the jury's opinion could not itself affect the jury's opinion.
10 months...? Verdicts announced on 30th April, 2015?
(That's a semi serious point though: there could clearly be political impact from the trial outcome. Would the courts take that into account in any way in scheduling the trial?)
Is this Mikes attempt to cheer up PB Tories on a Monday morning ?
The polling consistently shows a Labour lead of about 4% across the country and slightly more in marginals.
Unless the Tories get most of their votes back from UKIP, they will do badly in 2015, losing 50+ seats and Labour will be in with a chance of a majority.
The Tories won't get their votes back from UKIP unless they take a much tougher line on unskilled immigration than they are currently, and make their renegotiation plan a lot clearer, including setting out what they want to get back and giving a precise date for the referendum.
The Tories won't be able to do anything about immigration from the EU, unless they gain agreement from all EU members, for the UK to have an opt out of the relevant chapter on rights of movement. Or the Tories change their policy that they will recommend people vote to leave the EU.
This is not going to happen. I would put a small bet on there not being any referendum in the UK on EU membership in or out, within the next 10 years. The EU are not going to have any new treaty in the forseeable future, because a number of countries including the UK would have to hold referendums. The Tories would have a referendum in 2017, but I don't think they will win in 2015, unless Cameron follows your advice Socrates, but I can't see this happening. Although the Tories come across as being EU sceptic, I think there are a large number of Tories and their backers who would be very unhappy with any policy to vote to leave the EU. As for Labour or Lib Dems, I think they won't want to hold any vote on EU membership while Europe is in a financial mess.
Yet the government could easily do things that would massively discourage flow of (low wage) migrants.
Number One. All benefits require five years residence in the UK. Number Two. To get NHS benefits beyond emergency care requires an NHS Card. Said card comes with 10 years of residence or 5 years of NI payments. One can purchase an NHS Card for one year for £5,000. Number Three. Employers in the UK are required to ensure that all employees have appropriate health insurance or an NHS Card.
Simple things that probably don't even require primary legislation and would be popular. I wonder why the Cameron clique hasn't already implemented them or something like them. Could it be that the man with the real power, i.e. Clegg, wouldn't allow it? Or would such measures fall foul of EU rules?
'Voters can only conclude from this explicit statement of fundamental fiscal divergence that you now accept that a currency union is not going to happen. You are right to do so."
"I hope you will very soon explain to the Scottish people what your alternative monetary proposal is, so people can vote in possession of the full facts."
However when you look at his weasely eyes whilst saying it you can easily tell he is lying through his teeth. His days are numbered.
Whichever way the referendum goes I hope you won't stop posting here. The site would be immeasurably the poorer without your nuanced and thoughtful insights of this sort.
The other complicating factor is, I'm expecting Mr Coulson to appeal his guilty verdict from last week.
It's difficult to see on what grounds he could obtain leave. One potential point of law was rejected by the Court of Appeal (Lord Judge CJ, Lloyd-Jones LJ & Openshaw J) in an interlocutory appeal last year (see R v Coulson & others[2013] EWCA Crim 1026). Prejudicial publicity is a non-starter given the verdicts that the jury returned last week. The rest of his case at trial all looks like jury points on which CACD will not interfere with a conviction. That said, if he is to apply for leave, he must do so within 28 days of the date on which the conviction was recorderd.
Mr. Scrapheap/Mr. Gin, the Savile stuff is less surprising than it might be.
I have vague memories of his rumoured proclivities being known about even in the primary school playground.
Yes. All Savile impressions at school involved now then now then, I have a small boy here on my lap etc etc Everyone knew he was a nonce, nobody did anything about it
I always found him "creepy" but never knew why. Could never quite put my finger on it. But even as a five year old watching him TOTP I didn't like the man...
It's the problem with the 70s culture in a nutshell. TOTP had girls of young age hanging off him. It was happening on screen and therefore legitimised in the minds of the viewing public.
Saville exploited a general tendency in this country to let depraved men get away with abusing the vulnerable by turning a blind eye. It has been happening since God knows when. Child prostitutes in Victorian England, young boys preyed on by predatory figures of authority throughout the 20th century, young white women targeted by Asian grooming gangs, and so on. There is always a reason to look away and/or to blame the victim. And then we moan about checks and PC gone made and all the rest of it. But if what is done now had been done when Jimmy Saville was stalking the wards and mortuaries of NHS hospitals he would not have got away with his crimes and hundreds of damaged people may not have become so.
" I'm expecting Mr Coulson to appeal his guilty verdict ..."
Gaaaah! Its "appeal against", Mr. Eagles, "appeal against" not just "appeal". I never thought i would see that ghastly Americanism from an educated man like yourself.
Corrected already. I genuinely missed out the word against, is a habit of mine, of missing out words.
Mr. Eagles, how long would you guess such a retrial would last?
Got to say I was swayed by Mr. Nabavi's argument that Cameron's apology should've been an absolute non-issue, given that the guilty verdict was delivered by the jury, and Cameron simply apologising on the basis of the jury's opinion could not itself affect the jury's opinion.
10 months...? Verdicts announced on 30th April, 2015?
(That's a semi serious point though: there could clearly be political impact from the trial outcome. Would the courts take that into account in any way in scheduling the trial?)
No.
And nor should it. To have the process of law affected by political timetabling would be grotesque, unless absolutely necessary.
Got to say I was swayed by Mr. Nabavi's argument that Cameron's apology should've been an absolute non-issue, given that the guilty verdict was delivered by the jury, and Cameron simply apologising on the basis of the jury's opinion could not itself affect the jury's opinion.
The argument is that Cameron introduced information into the public domain while the jury were deliberating, viz. that Coulson had given him an untrue assurance, which had not been led before the jury at trial. The counter-argument is that Saunders J went native.
Only to the level that it was a logical deduction from the 'fact' of Coulsons phone hacking.
WASHINGTON — Just weeks before Blackwater guards fatally shot 17 civilians at Baghdad’s Nisour Square in 2007, the State Department began investigating the security contractor’s operations in Iraq. But the inquiry was abandoned after Blackwater’s top manager there issued a threat: “that he could kill” the government’s chief investigator and “no one could or would do anything about it as we were in Iraq,” according to department reports.
" I'm expecting Mr Coulson to appeal his guilty verdict ..."
Gaaaah! Its "appeal against", Mr. Eagles, "appeal against" not just "appeal". I never thought i would see that ghastly Americanism from an educated man like yourself.
Corrected already. I genuinely missed out the word against, is a habit of mine, of missing out words.
Bit of a tricky habit for a lawyer I would have thought
The other complicating factor is, I'm expecting Mr Coulson to appeal his guilty verdict from last week.
It's difficult to see on what grounds he could obtain leave. One potential point of law was rejected by the Court of Appeal (Lord Judge CJ, Lloyd-Jones LJ & Openshaw J) in an interlocutory appeal last year (see R v Coulson & others[2013] EWCA Crim 1026). Prejudicial publicity is a non-starter given the verdicts that the jury returned last week. The rest of his case at trial all looks like jury points on which CACD will not interfere with a conviction. That said, if he is to apply for leave, he must do so within 28 days of the date on which the conviction was recorderd.
I know, but I expect his legal team to appeal.
For me, the most amusing thing from the trial was the former Editor of the Sun and News of the World, that rails against the ECHR, tried to use article six to prevent her love letters to Andy Coulson being used in court.
I was surprised by the way the press covered the Juncker debacle. I expected Cameron to get a hammering for being ineffective, humiliated etc. Instead the focus was on his comments that this was a bad day for Europe and that it was going to be harder to persuade Britain to remain in now. Even lefty orientated papers were more sympathetic than I expected.
Where I slightly disagree with Patrick and where I think we need to move on from Maastricht is the premise of a two speed Europe. A two speed Europe is one where we all have the same destination in mind, we are merely getting there at different speeds.
This really will not do. What the UK really wants now, I think, is a different sort of settlement with the EU which allows us to retain membership of some sort but without the silly pretence that we are ever going to join the Euro, that we are subject to mission creep and the extension of jurisdiction by the ECJ and the general premise that we are in any way committed to an ever closer union.
It is far from clear such an option will be available and not just because Jonny Foreigner is dastardly. Such a set up makes the operation of the single market increasingly problematic as time goes on, makes the application or non application of EU law as a cohesive jurisprudence more and more difficult and complicates decision making.
I was involved in a case earlier this year where we were trying to review the Scottish Government's decision not to allow a released prisoner to be supervised in Germany where he has a family. This is an area where the rest of the EU have a straightforward mechanism by which parole can be supervised by any MS and they have an obligation to provide the supervision if there is a good reason for them being in that country. We have an opt out of the directive at the moment which meant that although the German courts were bound by the legislation we were not even although the Scottish Parliament had passed legislation to implement the directive if it comes into force. It got incredibly complicated. Imagine this sort of problem magnified a hundred fold. This is what the other members fear and I can understand why.
But if we don't find such a solution I think we will leave.
" I'm expecting Mr Coulson to appeal his guilty verdict ..."
Gaaaah! Its "appeal against", Mr. Eagles, "appeal against" not just "appeal". I never thought i would see that ghastly Americanism from an educated man like yourself.
Corrected already. I genuinely missed out the word against, is a habit of mine, of missing out words.
Bit of a tricky habit for a lawyer I would have thought
The other complicating factor is, I'm expecting Mr Coulson to appeal his guilty verdict from last week.
It's difficult to see on what grounds he could obtain leave. One potential point of law was rejected by the Court of Appeal (Lord Judge CJ, Lloyd-Jones LJ & Openshaw J) in an interlocutory appeal last year (see R v Coulson & others[2013] EWCA Crim 1026). Prejudicial publicity is a non-starter given the verdicts that the jury returned last week. The rest of his case at trial all looks like jury points on which CACD will not interfere with a conviction. That said, if he is to apply for leave, he must do so within 28 days of the date on which the conviction was recorderd.
I know, but I expect his legal team to appeal.
For me, the most amusing thing from the trial was the former Editor of the Sun and News of the World, that rails against the ECHR, tried to use article six to prevent her love letters to Andy Coulson being used in court.
@TheScreamingEagles If Coulson was subsequently found innocent at a future appeal, would Dave have to retract his apology?
A successful appeal does lead to the entry of a judgment and verdict of acquittal. All the Court is concerned with, however, is the safety of the conviction, not innocence or guilt.
" I'm expecting Mr Coulson to appeal his guilty verdict ..."
Gaaaah! Its "appeal against", Mr. Eagles, "appeal against" not just "appeal". I never thought i would see that ghastly Americanism from an educated man like yourself.
An appeal was, in fact, a venerable way of bringing a criminal complaint at first instance in English law, abolished by the Appeal of Murder, etc. Act 1819. Hence X appealed Y is a correct English form...
Simple things that probably don't even require primary legislation and would be popular. I wonder why the Cameron clique hasn't already implemented them or something like them. Could it be that the man with the real power, i.e. Clegg, wouldn't allow it? Or would such measures fall foul of EU rules?
Those European countries with insurance based health systems (Italy, France) effectively discourage health tourism already so there would be no problem with us following their lead. And there's certainly nothing that would stop 'length of residence' or 'number of years of NI payments' being used as a requirement for benefits more generally. My last point, about requiring health insurance / an NHS Card to take a job is a harder one. There may be complications, but I would have thought it would be possible.
Re Clegg: good question. He might go for it if there was a quid pro quo that might allow him to gain some face elsewhere...
@TheScreamingEagles If Coulson was subsequently found innocent at a future appeal, would Dave have to retract his apology?
A successful appeal does lead to the entry of a judgment and verdict of acquittal. All the Court is concerned with, however, is the safety of the conviction, not innocence or guilt.
" I'm expecting Mr Coulson to appeal his guilty verdict ..."
Gaaaah! Its "appeal against", Mr. Eagles, "appeal against" not just "appeal". I never thought i would see that ghastly Americanism from an educated man like yourself.
An appeal was, in fact, a venerable way of bringing a criminal complaint at first instance in English law, abolished by the Appeal of Murder, etc. Act 1819. Hence X appealed Y is a correct English form...
Indeed, no English court has ever found anyone innocent - it is (correctly) beyond the scope of our system.
Yet the government could easily do things that would massively discourage flow of (low wage) migrants.
Number One. All benefits require five years residence in the UK. Number Two. To get NHS benefits beyond emergency care requires an NHS Card. Said card comes with 10 years of residence or 5 years of NI payments. One can purchase an NHS Card for one year for £5,000. Number Three. Employers in the UK are required to ensure that all employees have appropriate health insurance or an NHS Card.
Simple things that probably don't even require primary legislation and would be popular. I wonder why the Cameron clique hasn't already implemented them or something like them. Could it be that the man with the real power, i.e. Clegg, wouldn't allow it? Or would such measures fall foul of EU rules?
I don't think the residence rule would be legal as stated. But they could switch to a generally contributory system, which would affect British people who hadn't paid in equally. This would be politically feasible, since the government likes slapping around the British people who would be affected anyway. It sounds like Labour want to move in this direction.
The NHS proposals would be politically suicidal, as British voters like being able to show up at hospital ad get treated without needing a card even more than they hate the hypothetical foreigners they think are sponging off them.
The Crown will be retrying Mr Coulson and Mr Goodman on the counts of conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office, contrary to s. 1 of the Criminal Law Act 1977, on which the jury was discharged from reaching verdicts last week.
Is this Mikes attempt to cheer up PB Tories on a Monday morning ?
The polling consistently shows a Labour lead of about 4% across the country and slightly more in marginals.
Unless the Tories get most of their votes back from UKIP, they will do badly in 2015, losing 50+ seats and Labour will be in with a chance of a majority.
The Tories won't get their votes back from UKIP unless they take a much tougher line on unskilled immigration than they are currently, and make their renegotiation plan a lot clearer, including setting out what they want to get back and giving a precise date for the referendum.
The Tories won't be able to do anything about immigration from the EU, unless they gain agreement from all EU members, for the UK to have an opt out of the relevant chapter on rights of movement. Or the Tories change their policy that they will recommend people vote to leave the EU.
This is not going to happen. I would put a small bet on there not being any referendum in the UK on EU membership in or out, within the next 10 years. The EU are not going to have any new treaty in the forseeable future, because a number of countries including the UK would have to hold referendums. The Tories would have a referendum in 2017, but I don't think they will win in 2015, unless Cameron follows your advice Socrates, but I can't see this happening. Although the Tories come across as being EU sceptic, I think there are a large number of Tories and their backers who would be very unhappy with any policy to vote to leave the EU. As for Labour or Lib Dems, I think they won't want to hold any vote on EU membership while Europe is in a financial mess.
Yet the government could easily do things that would massively discourage flow of (low wage) migrants.
Number One. All benefits require five years residence in the UK. Number Two. To get NHS benefits beyond emergency care requires an NHS Card. Said card comes with 10 years of residence or 5 years of NI payments. One can purchase an NHS Card for one year for £5,000. Number Three. Employers in the UK are required to ensure that all employees have appropriate health insurance or an NHS Card.
They could call it the Gangmasters' Assistance Act.
Hello RSC1000 -- just wOndering why should countries with insurance based health systems discourage health tourism? All EU countries have a reciprocal arrangement. Take France for instance.The insurance is compulsory ie its a tax and free at the point of service. The French govt dictate what drugs and treatment can be used and funds the deficit.Some countries may charge a fee for a consultation but we could here if we wanted to with the NHS. The French system of course is much more expensive.
If he appeals he will be on bail pending the appeal (as it would become academic otherwise) which will punt any release (should his appeal be unsuccessful) well beyond the election, let alone the Conference.
The decision to retry charges on which the Jury were unable to reach a verdict is predictable but disappointing. After such a long trial (and with all the other trials to come) it seems unreasonable to put him through that again. It would not astonish me if an attempt is made to judicially review that decision although I would have reservations about the prospects.
Mr. Scrapheap/Mr. Gin, the Savile stuff is less surprising than it might be.
I have vague memories of his rumoured proclivities being known about even in the primary school playground.
Yes. All Savile impressions at school involved now then now then, I have a small boy here on my lap etc etc Everyone knew he was a nonce, nobody did anything about it
I always found him "creepy" but never knew why. Could never quite put my finger on it. But even as a five year old watching him TOTP I didn't like the man...
It's the problem with the 70s culture in a nutshell. TOTP had girls of young age hanging off him. It was happening on screen and therefore legitimised in the minds of the viewing public.
Saville exploited a general tendency in this country to let depraved men get away with abusing the vulnerable by turning a blind eye. It has been happening since God knows when. Child prostitutes in Victorian England, young boys preyed on by predatory figures of authority throughout the 20th century, young white women targeted by Asian grooming gangs, and so on. There is always a reason to look away and/or to blame the victim. And then we moan about checks and PC gone made and all the rest of it. But if what is done now had been done when Jimmy Saville was stalking the wards and mortuaries of NHS hospitals he would not have got away with his crimes and hundreds of damaged people may not have become so.
What is done now hasn't stopped the Asian grooming gangs though has it? There was another case at the weekend
"Scotland has only a "modest amount" of shale gas and oil, according to a new study.".... ..."It estimates there are 80 trillion cubic feet of shale gas in central Scotland and six billion barrels of shale oil.
That compares to 13 trillion cubic feet in the north of England and 4.4 billion barrels in the south of England."
Mr. Scrapheap/Mr. Gin, the Savile stuff is less surprising than it might be.
I have vague memories of his rumoured proclivities being known about even in the primary school playground.
Yes. All Savile impressions at school involved now then now then, I have a small boy here on my lap etc etc Everyone knew he was a nonce, nobody did anything about it
I always found him "creepy" but never knew why. Could never quite put my finger on it. But even as a five year old watching him TOTP I didn't like the man...
It's the problem with the 70s culture in a nutshell. TOTP had girls of young age hanging off him. It was happening on screen and therefore legitimised in the minds of the viewing public.
Saville exploited a general tendency in this country to let depraved men get away with abusing the vulnerable by turning a blind eye. It has been happening since God knows when. Child prostitutes in Victorian England, young boys preyed on by predatory figures of authority throughout the 20th century, young white women targeted by Asian grooming gangs, and so on. There is always a reason to look away and/or to blame the victim. And then we moan about checks and PC gone made and all the rest of it. But if what is done now had been done when Jimmy Saville was stalking the wards and mortuaries of NHS hospitals he would not have got away with his crimes and hundreds of damaged people may not have become so.
What is done now hasn't stopped the Asian grooming gangs though has it? There was another case at the weekend
No, it has not stopped them. But it has probably prevented a lot of other cases. As we know, it is not only Moslem Asians that abuse and exploit vulnerable children. Clearly, a lot more needs to be done to tackle the grooming gangs, but that does not invalidate what has been done in other areas
Hello RSC1000 -- just wOndering why should countries with insurance based health systems discourage health tourism? All EU countries have a reciprocal arrangement. Take France for instance.The insurance is compulsory ie its a tax and free at the point of service. The French govt dictate what drugs and treatment can be used and funds the deficit.Some countries may charge a fee for a consultation but we could here if we wanted to with the NHS. The French system of course is much more expensive.
I thought France required co-payments from patients?
"Scotland has only a "modest amount" of shale gas and oil, according to a new study.".... ..."It estimates there are 80 trillion cubic feet of shale gas in central Scotland and six billion barrels of shale oil.
That compares to 13 trillion cubic feet in the north of England and 4.4 billion barrels in the south of England."
I was surprised by the way the press covered the Juncker debacle. I expected Cameron to get a hammering for being ineffective, humiliated etc. Instead the focus was on his comments that this was a bad day for Europe and that it was going to be harder to persuade Britain to remain in now. Even lefty orientated papers were more sympathetic than I expected.
Perhaps the media in general find the back room dealing and Janus type behaviour a bit stomach churning and are giving Cameron a it of leeway.
Hello RSC1000 -- just wOndering why should countries with insurance based health systems discourage health tourism? All EU countries have a reciprocal arrangement. Take France for instance.The insurance is compulsory ie its a tax and free at the point of service. The French govt dictate what drugs and treatment can be used and funds the deficit.Some countries may charge a fee for a consultation but we could here if we wanted to with the NHS. The French system of course is much more expensive.
That's not quite true. The EU requires that EU citizens get 'emergency' treatment. It does not offer the full range of services. When my daughter got sick in France and spent a week in hospital, I only got about a third of it paid through my E111, and the other two thirds went to my private travel insurer.
There would be a moral outrage after the first immigrant that could not afford a healthcare died on the streets after being turned away from a hospital, and no government could stand up against that. For such a system to last, you would need to require NHS cards for all immigrants.
If you did that, I would imagine it would certainly limit not just unskilled migration, but skilled migration. Imagine a young graduate in one of the better graduate jobs in London. They would earn about £27k a year, which would be disposable income of £1,776 per month after tax. Sharing a flat with others would be about £500 for basic accommodation, and knocking off bills would probably get them down to about £1100 per month. Adding an NHS card for £416 a month would take them down to £684 a month, or just under £60 a week. I imagine most good foreign graduates would find work elsewhere. Now it's perfectly reasonable to believe we should discourage people like that from immigrating here, but we need to be honest that it wouldn't just be plumbers and construction workers that are being chased off.
DavidL For the UK the purpose of the EU should be to make Johnny Foreigner less dastardly. I would expect to see a two tier Europe rather than a two speed one. The problem for the UK in being in the non Euro tier is that we would have less influence. We would pay in a bit less - unless we paid a bit more to have the odd vote on a few things but I do not see that working. A successful negotiation by Cameron would be to have us both in the EU and out of it - semi detached out of the Eurozone. Its hard to see an agreement whereby the EU ditches this ever closer union stuff and gives priority to the nation state. In the longer term this means the UK will be faced with a massive self interested trading block speaking with one voice politically on its doorstep. Whichever way you look at it this diminishes the UK - in or out. The EU exists and we are faced with dealing with it. In or Out will not make much difference,
I was surprised by the way the press covered the Juncker debacle. I expected Cameron to get a hammering for being ineffective, humiliated etc. Instead the focus was on his comments that this was a bad day for Europe and that it was going to be harder to persuade Britain to remain in now. Even lefty orientated papers were more sympathetic than I expected.
Perhaps the media in general find the back room dealing and Janus type behaviour a bit stomach churning and are giving Cameron a it of leeway.
Yes that will be it. The profound and deeply held moral principles of the British press.
Or maybe the hint that the ground is changing on Brexit was a better story that Cameron just happened to give them.
There would be a moral outrage after the first immigrant that could not afford a healthcare died on the streets after being turned away from a hospital, and no government could stand up against that. For such a system to last, you would need to require NHS cards for all immigrants.
If you did that, I would imagine it would certainly limit not just unskilled migration, but skilled migration. Imagine a young graduate in one of the better graduate jobs in London. They would earn about £27k a year, which would be disposable income of £1,776 per month after tax. Sharing a flat with others would be about £500 for basic accommodation, and knocking off bills would probably get them down to about £1100 per month. Adding an NHS card for £416 a month would take them down to £684 a month, or just under £60 a week. I imagine most good foreign graduates would find work elsewhere. Now it's perfectly reasonable to believe we should discourage people like that from immigrating here, but we need to be honest that it wouldn't just be plumbers and construction workers that are being chased off.
Also, what would you do about students?
There is not moral outrage in Italy or France where they severely limit healthcare to people who are not paying into the insurance system.
Students would be exempt.
The purpose of my proposal is to ensure that people who are capable of contributing in a meaningful way are not discouraged, but that people who come to leach off our benefit system are discouraged, Maybe the right number is £3,000, maybe £2,000, and maybe £10,000. But the point is that markets are invariably better at finding the right answer to who should and shouldn't be in the country than a government committee deciding that we need 25,000 of people with 'y' skills and 30,000 with people with 'z' - a system that would mostly benefit only lawyers and the like.
...What the UK really wants now, I think, is a different sort of settlement with the EU which allows us to retain membership of some sort but without the silly pretence that we are ever going to join the Euro, that we are subject to mission creep and the extension of jurisdiction by the ECJ and the general premise that we are in any way committed to an ever closer union.
It is far from clear such an option will be available and not just because Jonny Foreigner is dastardly. ...
I agree that it is far from clear, but there is a counter-argument which suggests it might be available. If we accept the premise that there is still a political drive in the EU institutions, as well as in many of our EU partner countries, for closer political and economic union, then the current anomalous position of the UK is an obstacle to that, and a big one. The crucial point is that, in reality, the Eurozone is already a separate union-within-the-union. From the point of view of the central core, the fact that we and a handful of other countries are outside the Eurozone is a big fudge, and it is one which causes increasing difficulties as they try to integrate more closely. What's more, there is general agreement that, if they are to keep the Euro and make a success of it, they really do need to do something about the institutional framework - the problems which led to the Eurozone crisis have not gone away.
To a lesser extent, similar arguments apply to some of the other areas where we have opt-outs, notably Schengen.
All this points to some sort of Associate or special status for the UK (and maybe a couple of other countries). The logic is actually inexorable. Of course logic doesn't always triumph, and we may get just more fudge and drift for a long time. Cameron's 2017 deadline may serve to focus minds, subject obviously to what happens in GE 2015.
DavidL For the UK the purpose of the EU should be to make Johnny Foreigner less dastardly. I would expect to see a two tier Europe rather than a two speed one. The problem for the UK in being in the non Euro tier is that we would have less influence. We would pay in a bit less - unless we paid a bit more to have the odd vote on a few things but I do not see that working. A successful negotiation by Cameron would be to have us both in the EU and out of it - semi detached out of the Eurozone. Its hard to see an agreement whereby the EU ditches this ever closer union stuff and gives priority to the nation state. In the longer term this means the UK will be faced with a massive self interested trading block speaking with one voice politically on its doorstep. Whichever way you look at it this diminishes the UK - in or out. The EU exists and we are faced with dealing with it. In or Out will not make much difference,
That is what I was trying to say really. How do you make the protections of the non-core water tight from an activist ECJ? On what do we get a say and when do we have the right to say no? I think it is really tricky.
I also think that the core EU will not want our billet to be so comfortable that it becomes increasingly attractive to others.
When will we see the first single figure Kipper poll ?
? 10mins after you begin your afternoon nap?
WEIGHTINGS WEIGHTINGS WEIGHTINGS
Con +17 Lab -18
Fair enough - Labour voters are lazy and tories get their vote out to the polls...
Lib Dem +13 fair enough too...
UKIP 310 -> 170 (-140)
Pollster asks:
Q.4 Regardless of which party, if any, you are likely to end up voting for at the next General Election due in May 2015 or are leaning towards at the moment, which political party would you say you have usually most closely identified yourself with? Base: All respondents
People hear/answer:
Q.4 Regardless of which party, if any, you are likely to end up voting for at the next General Election due in May 2015 or are leaning towards at the moment, which political party would you say you most closely identify yourself with? Base: All respondents
Result:
253 UKIP identifiers are downweighted to 82 - LAUGHABLE.
Now I am not arguing against all weightings but this one is an utter joke.
Ashcroft's poll today will be far more meaningful to deduce the UKIP score on.
I think Dave has now reached a point where he has to make his mind up, and soon: Deep down, in his waters, does he prefer exit or abject failure on reform and to stay in with the UK controlled by Brussels? (Because, although we probably all want it in the UK, there now seems very little chance that a truly reformed EU is going to be on offer).
As 'ever closer' proceeds and the prospects of the UK's sovereignty remaining unmolested fade it seems clear to me where the British people's feelings will mostly lie. Unless a two speed EU can be agreed Brussels is taking the EU to a place that the British people won't be able to accept. And getting on the wrong side of the people on a fundamental issue never ends well for a politician (witness Clegg and his blind deference to Brussels).
And IMHO having Ed Microband as PM will only accelerate this. A Labour win in 2015 will give a big impetus to a hugely popular 2020 exit manisfesto from the Tories (led by someone who is not Dave).
Its a huge chance for BOO ers and DC is following a process which will see "out" win a referendum - likely with DC backing out.
He's called the EU's bluff - if they don't offer up serious, grown up reforms then they will be pitched as aloof, inflexible and following a path that has led to poor growth in Europe.
Kippers bleating about DC "fixing" the referendum - he might be on the OUT side with them if they don't hand Ed Miliband the keys to no 10.
If Kippers are now moaning that any referendum will be 'fixed' - this just an excuse to justify them letting in a labour government. And yes, any negotiations are surely as much a test of the EU as it is the UK govt or Cameron. If they want us out then they can just be obstructive. Cameron needs to get the EU to face up to how it wants to develop. They know clearly now what we think. it seems quite possible they will compromise somehow. Cameron has clearly said he does not support 'ever closer union'. But lets face it Norway are not in the EU but might as well be. So really what is at the heart of all this is protecting ourselves from the activities of the Eurozone counties as they act in their own self interest.
Comments
Everyone knew he was a nonce, nobody did anything about it
Nothing libelous whatsoever?
"extremely innocent face"
The problem is the assumption that the people who do respond are not systematically different from the people who do not respond, and without a good understanding of why the initial sample was so unrepresentative the worry would be that you are missing out on important information.
Maybe Henman played the wrong sport...
For those so us that can only ever manage a semi
But when their clients plead guilty, they have to talk for a long time to explain why their clients did what they did, as they didn't have an opportunity to do so during the trial.
I met him a few times at Fort William highland games, and could never "take to him"
Though like you there seemed no good reason.
.
Polls that need alot of weighting are not great in my book.
1. Good news if Henry can be tempted back on.
2. No way Jose am I betting on Spurs in the Top4 sadly. I expect Poch to be gone before the end of the season.
3. Quite a chunk re Tory most seats, I did go all green as you pros call it, a few months ago on Tory maj however as accept that is a big ask
4. IHT
5. I fancy USA to beat Spurs, sorry Belgium tomorrow.
In principle this is OK, so long as you have "typical" C2s - if they are different in some way (perhaps mostly from one ethnic group or mostly women or whatever), the differences of that variant of C2 will be magnified. The overall effect is to increase variability a bit, making it (even) less sensible to exult or despair when a poll moves a couple of points.
A separate issue is 2010 voting record. Most people report their jobs accurately for the C1 etc. classification, but they may not remember how they voted accurately - in some cases, they may be embarrassed to remember and fib about it. So a currently unpopular party may appear to have fewer 2010 adherents than actually happened. The ones who do admit to it are then weighted upwards (like the C2s above). This may understate the size of the drop, since it looks as though unpopular party X has hung on to lots of its supporters, whereas in reality it's so discredited that a chunk of its 2010 supporters are showing up as something else.
We have such a strange (to us) electoral cycle this parliament. A known date for the election which has amended the behaviour of all the parties with announcements, fighting opponents and putting pressure on 'the other side' to knock them off balance or weaken them.
The much discussed alteration to the political picture caused by coalition, removing the LibDems from the long held position of mid term protest vote repository, the unsuitability of Labour for protest or anti government votes as they are just off a 13 year power crazed governing high, therefore the facilitation of the rise of UKIP as the easy option for refuseniks (not in a Jewish sense, before anyone complains) to support.
The press have no real incentive to use the ammunition they have, they need a large store of dry powder for the election campaign. They would open up with two barrels if they thought they could get a scalp or push a weak government towards an election. Coalition has left them with no easy targets, no reshuffles to speak of or a PM who is easily swayed into changing his team.
After 4 years and 9 months of steady as she goes politics the real election campaign will begin. I suspect it will be an explosive campaign. It will be an invitation for voters to think of the options, the press to use the stories they have collected and the parties to brainwash the unaware with sweet messages of hope.
Swings to voting intention are predicted to be late, rapid and will no doubt oscillate during the campaign.
As for Saville , wise after the fact springs to mind. Some did know but it wasn't the general public.
This is not going to happen. I would put a small bet on there not being any referendum in the UK on EU membership in or out, within the next 10 years. The EU are not going to have any new treaty in the forseeable future, because a number of countries including the UK would have to hold referendums. The Tories would have a referendum in 2017, but I don't think they will win in 2015, unless Cameron follows your advice Socrates, but I can't see this happening. Although the Tories come across as being EU sceptic, I think there are a large number of Tories and their backers who would be very unhappy with any policy to vote to leave the EU. As for Labour or Lib Dems, I think they won't want to hold any vote on EU membership while Europe is in a financial mess.
I agree entirely that being (or looking) unusual/eccentric cannot be considered cause for a witch-hunt. But we know that not only was Savile guilty, but that those who tried to bring him to justice were prevented, dissuaded or disbelieved.
Currency Union AND Free Spending Scotland - all backed by the RUK tax payer - no further discussion or debate required!
Must be wonderful to live in such a simple world......
As 'ever closer' proceeds and the prospects of the UK's sovereignty remaining unmolested fade it seems clear to me where the British people's feelings will mostly lie. Unless a two speed EU can be agreed Brussels is taking the EU to a place that the British people won't be able to accept. And getting on the wrong side of the people on a fundamental issue never ends well for a politician (witness Clegg and his blind deference to Brussels).
And IMHO having Ed Microband as PM will only accelerate this. A Labour win in 2015 will give a big impetus to a hugely popular 2020 exit manisfesto from the Tories (led by someone who is not Dave).
Number One. All benefits require five years residence in the UK.
Number Two. To get NHS benefits beyond emergency care requires an NHS Card. Said card comes with 10 years of residence or 5 years of NI payments. One can purchase an NHS Card for one year for £5,000.
Number Three. Employers in the UK are required to ensure that all employees have appropriate health insurance or an NHS Card.
Got to say I was swayed by Mr. Nabavi's argument that Cameron's apology should've been an absolute non-issue, given that the guilty verdict was delivered by the jury, and Cameron simply apologising on the basis of the jury's opinion could not itself affect the jury's opinion.
He's called the EU's bluff - if they don't offer up serious, grown up reforms then they will be pitched as aloof, inflexible and following a path that has led to poor growth in Europe.
Kippers bleating about DC "fixing" the referendum - he might be on the OUT side with them if they don't hand Ed Miliband the keys to no 10.
The other complicating factor is, I'm expecting Mr Coulson to appeal against his guilty verdict from last week.
If Coulson was subsequently found innocent at a future appeal, would Dave have to retract his apology?
" I'm expecting Mr Coulson to appeal his guilty verdict ..."
Gaaaah! Its "appeal against", Mr. Eagles, "appeal against" not just "appeal". I never thought i would see that ghastly Americanism from an educated man like yourself.
"As a gentleman, he would. "
And as a politician?
(That's a semi serious point though: there could clearly be political impact from the trial outcome. Would the courts take that into account in any way in scheduling the trial?)
And nor should it. To have the process of law affected by political timetabling would be grotesque, unless absolutely necessary.
WASHINGTON — Just weeks before Blackwater guards fatally shot 17 civilians at Baghdad’s Nisour Square in 2007, the State Department began investigating the security contractor’s operations in Iraq. But the inquiry was abandoned after Blackwater’s top manager there issued a threat: “that he could kill” the government’s chief investigator and “no one could or would do anything about it as we were in Iraq,” according to department reports.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/30/us/before-shooting-in-iraq-warning-on-blackwater.html
For me, the most amusing thing from the trial was the former Editor of the Sun and News of the World, that rails against the ECHR, tried to use article six to prevent her love letters to Andy Coulson being used in court.
Where I slightly disagree with Patrick and where I think we need to move on from Maastricht is the premise of a two speed Europe. A two speed Europe is one where we all have the same destination in mind, we are merely getting there at different speeds.
This really will not do. What the UK really wants now, I think, is a different sort of settlement with the EU which allows us to retain membership of some sort but without the silly pretence that we are ever going to join the Euro, that we are subject to mission creep and the extension of jurisdiction by the ECJ and the general premise that we are in any way committed to an ever closer union.
It is far from clear such an option will be available and not just because Jonny Foreigner is dastardly. Such a set up makes the operation of the single market increasingly problematic as time goes on, makes the application or non application of EU law as a cohesive jurisprudence more and more difficult and complicates decision making.
I was involved in a case earlier this year where we were trying to review the Scottish Government's decision not to allow a released prisoner to be supervised in Germany where he has a family. This is an area where the rest of the EU have a straightforward mechanism by which parole can be supervised by any MS and they have an obligation to provide the supervision if there is a good reason for them being in that country. We have an opt out of the directive at the moment which meant that although the German courts were bound by the legislation we were not even although the Scottish Parliament had passed legislation to implement the directive if it comes into force. It got incredibly complicated. Imagine this sort of problem magnified a hundred fold. This is what the other members fear and I can understand why.
But if we don't find such a solution I think we will leave.
I'm shocked. Truly shocked I tell you.
Re Clegg: good question. He might go for it if there was a quid pro quo that might allow him to gain some face elsewhere...
Now, he should be sentenced towards the end of this week.
Were he to get a 12 month sentence, he'd be eligible to be released on HDC (that's tagging) in 3 months time.
Which would make his release date from prison on tag, the end of September, the start of October.
Do you know what major political event takes place at the end of September/The start of October?
The Tory Party conference.
Not sure books by perps about their crimes are permitted anyhoo ?
The NHS proposals would be politically suicidal, as British voters like being able to show up at hospital ad get treated without needing a card even more than they hate the hypothetical foreigners they think are sponging off them.
He needs the money remember, he's had to sell his house, pull his kids out of private school.
The decision to retry charges on which the Jury were unable to reach a verdict is predictable but disappointing. After such a long trial (and with all the other trials to come) it seems unreasonable to put him through that again. It would not astonish me if an attempt is made to judicially review that decision although I would have reservations about the prospects.
This is what is baffling me a bit. If Ed is cruising to victory why are so many labour insiders so patently unhappy??
Con 33 (-1) Lab 37 (+2) LD 10 (+2) UKIP 12 (-1)
http://populus.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Online_VI_30-06-2014_BPC.pdf
..."It estimates there are 80 trillion cubic feet of shale gas in central Scotland and six billion barrels of shale oil.
That compares to 13 trillion cubic feet in the north of England and 4.4 billion barrels in the south of England."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-28085418
I must be missing something here, have they got their figures mixed up?
I'm not sure if this is a 'voodoo poll' or not, but quite interesting nonetheless.
When will we see the first single figure Kipper poll ?
You should probably get that checked out ;-)
[nerd post of the day]
It didn't stop the grooming gangs in the north east either, though they might not (judging by the names) be BME's.
That's not quite true. The EU requires that EU citizens get 'emergency' treatment. It does not offer the full range of services. When my daughter got sick in France and spent a week in hospital, I only got about a third of it paid through my E111, and the other two thirds went to my private travel insurer.
There would be a moral outrage after the first immigrant that could not afford a healthcare died on the streets after being turned away from a hospital, and no government could stand up against that. For such a system to last, you would need to require NHS cards for all immigrants.
If you did that, I would imagine it would certainly limit not just unskilled migration, but skilled migration. Imagine a young graduate in one of the better graduate jobs in London. They would earn about £27k a year, which would be disposable income of £1,776 per month after tax. Sharing a flat with others would be about £500 for basic accommodation, and knocking off bills would probably get them down to about £1100 per month. Adding an NHS card for £416 a month would take them down to £684 a month, or just under £60 a week. I imagine most good foreign graduates would find work elsewhere. Now it's perfectly reasonable to believe we should discourage people like that from immigrating here, but we need to be honest that it wouldn't just be plumbers and construction workers that are being chased off.
Also, what would you do about students?
Sounds more like it given the respective size.
For the UK the purpose of the EU should be to make Johnny Foreigner less dastardly.
I would expect to see a two tier Europe rather than a two speed one. The problem for the UK in being in the non Euro tier is that we would have less influence. We would pay in a bit less - unless we paid a bit more to have the odd vote on a few things but I do not see that working.
A successful negotiation by Cameron would be to have us both in the EU and out of it - semi detached out of the Eurozone. Its hard to see an agreement whereby the EU ditches this ever closer union stuff and gives priority to the nation state.
In the longer term this means the UK will be faced with a massive self interested trading block speaking with one voice politically on its doorstep. Whichever way you look at it this diminishes the UK - in or out. The EU exists and we are faced with dealing with it. In or Out will not make much difference,
In 2013 it was the July ICM Guardian that reported the first UKIP poll score in single figures following the local elections of that year.
Remember Ed can't make a decision and stick to it, unless it is a terrible one.
Yes that will be it. The profound and deeply held moral principles of the British press.
Or maybe the hint that the ground is changing on Brexit was a better story that Cameron just happened to give them.
Students would be exempt.
The purpose of my proposal is to ensure that people who are capable of contributing in a meaningful way are not discouraged, but that people who come to leach off our benefit system are discouraged, Maybe the right number is £3,000, maybe £2,000, and maybe £10,000. But the point is that markets are invariably better at finding the right answer to who should and shouldn't be in the country than a government committee deciding that we need 25,000 of people with 'y' skills and 30,000 with people with 'z' - a system that would mostly benefit only lawyers and the like.
To a lesser extent, similar arguments apply to some of the other areas where we have opt-outs, notably Schengen.
All this points to some sort of Associate or special status for the UK (and maybe a couple of other countries). The logic is actually inexorable. Of course logic doesn't always triumph, and we may get just more fudge and drift for a long time. Cameron's 2017 deadline may serve to focus minds, subject obviously to what happens in GE 2015.
I also think that the core EU will not want our billet to be so comfortable that it becomes increasingly attractive to others.
Con +17
Lab -18
Fair enough - Labour voters are lazy and tories get their vote out to the polls...
Lib Dem +13 fair enough too...
UKIP 310 -> 170 (-140)
Pollster asks:
Q.4 Regardless of which party, if any, you are likely to end up voting for at the next General Election due in May 2015 or are leaning towards at the moment, which political party would you say you have usually most closely identified yourself with?
Base: All respondents
People hear/answer:
Q.4 Regardless of which party, if any, you are likely to end up voting for at the next General Election due in May 2015 or are leaning towards at the moment, which political party would you say you most closely identify yourself with?
Base: All respondents
Result:
253 UKIP identifiers are downweighted to 82 - LAUGHABLE.
Now I am not arguing against all weightings but this one is an utter joke.
Ashcroft's poll today will be far more meaningful to deduce the UKIP score on.
And yes, any negotiations are surely as much a test of the EU as it is the UK govt or Cameron. If they want us out then they can just be obstructive. Cameron needs to get the EU to face up to how it wants to develop. They know clearly now what we think. it seems quite possible they will compromise somehow. Cameron has clearly said he does not support 'ever closer union'.
But lets face it Norway are not in the EU but might as well be. So really what is at the heart of all this is protecting ourselves from the activities of the Eurozone counties as they act in their own self interest.