Andy Coulson will face a perjury charge on August 6th in Glasgow. It never rains!!!
"Non issue" - R Nabavi
Don't worry, surbiton. I don't think the fact that all these offences were committed by journalists working for a Labour-supporting newspaper group will have much effect. Of course it is true that the offences took place entirely under Labour and were investigated three times under Labour, with no action being taken other than the limited 2006 prosecution of Mulcaire and Goodman, and of course the fact that there were a lot more cases was known at the time by the Labour Attorney-General and the Labour-appointed head of the CPS (who shares Chambers with Cherie Blair), who decided to take no action. But I don't think it will do much if any damage.
At the risk of over-interpeting these two rather bouncy polls, maybe we get a brief patriotic sugar rush whenever Cameron sticks it to Johnny Foreigner, followed by a move in the opposite direction when the people who were impressed by that get used to the fact that he doesn't have any kind of workable plan to actually do anything about whatever it is he's just been playing up the importance of.
And changes in the law on such issues always lags public attitudes.
So, for example, homosexuality between consenting male adults was generally tolerated and even played a prominent role in public culture long before the law changed.
One legacy of this lag has been a lack of distinction between pederasty and homosexuality in attitudes. Look at the Scallywag articles of the early 1990s which were among the first to expose 'today's' news and its attacks would now be totally unacceptable for being homophobic.
Today we are able to distinguish in our attitudes to homosexuality and paedophilia. The two are very different, but that wasn't the prevailing attitude even as late as 1970s-90s.
And tolerance/acceptance was just the flipside of condemnation. Just as a silent majority just didn't want to know, there was a 'disruptive' minority (e.g. Dickens, Private Eye, Scallywag) who saw an opportunity to attack.
The traditions of single sex public schools also played a role in determining the prevailing attitudes of the age. As long as activity was "discreet" and no one was forced to make a decision, there was no need to object.
Remember we had a PM in the 1950s who was rumoured to have been forced to leave Eton "for the usual reasons".
Edwinas comments to seem to be hearsay, though it is documented that Morrison was picked up by the police for cottaging.
It is worth bearing in mind that the age of consent for homosexuality was 21 at the time, but now is 16, so some illegal acts then are perfectly legal now.
So for example this harmless piece of celeb gossip:
Would have potentially resulted in criminal charges in the eighties. Times change, and what would have been shocking a generation ago is now banal, and sometimes vice versa.
"The traditions of single sex public schools also played a role in determining the prevailing attitudes of the age. As long as activity was "discreet" and no one was forced to make a decision, there was no need to object."
Avery, finally you have said something correct about these sorry public school types:
1. They played with themselves
2. then, they played with their own types
3. The more retarded played with kiddies - all very discreetly, of course.
And, what did the ladies in pearls say: " Oh! men "
The point is all these were well known but tolerated.
@AveryLP The principle is sound, but the technology is struggling with even the simplest cases. IDS states that it has been rolled out to married couples. I would hazard a guess that these couples will have no children and no jobs. Send me a yellow box if I am wrong?
LBC (@LBC) 07/07/2014 22:12 .@Nigel_Farage tells @DuncanBarkes he will "more than likely" stand in Kent. Says Craig Mackinlay is a friend but not a good politican
LBC (@LBC) 07/07/2014 22:12 .@Nigel_Farage tells @DuncanBarkes he will "more than likely" stand in Kent. Says Craig Mackinlay is a friend but not a good politican
And changes in the law on such issues always lags public attitudes.
So, for example, homosexuality between consenting male adults was generally tolerated and even played a prominent role in public culture long before the law changed.
One legacy of this lag has been a lack of distinction between pederasty and homosexuality in attitudes. Look at the Scallywag articles of the early 1990s which were among the first to expose 'today's' news and its attacks would now be totally unacceptable for being homophobic.
Today we are able to distinguish in our attitudes to homosexuality and paedophilia. The two are very different, but that wasn't the prevailing attitude even as late as 1970s-90s.
And tolerance/acceptance was just the flipside of condemnation. Just as a silent majority just didn't want to know, there was a 'disruptive' minority (e.g. Dickens, Private Eye, Scallywag) who saw an opportunity to attack.
The traditions of single sex public schools also played a role in determining the prevailing attitudes of the age. As long as activity was "discreet" and no one was forced to make a decision, there was no need to object.
Remember we had a PM in the 1950s who was rumoured to have been forced to leave Eton "for the usual reasons".
Edwinas comments to seem to be hearsay, though it is documented that Morrison was picked up by the police for cottaging.
It is worth bearing in mind that the age of consent for homosexuality was 21 at the time, but now is 16, so some illegal acts then are perfectly legal now.
So for example this harmless piece of celeb gossip:
Would have potentially resulted in criminal charges in the eighties. Times change, and what would have been shocking a generation ago is now banal, and sometimes vice versa.
"The traditions of single sex public schools also played a role in determining the prevailing attitudes of the age. As long as activity was "discreet" and no one was forced to make a decision, there was no need to object."
Avery, finally you have said something correct about these sorry public school types:
1. They played with themselves
2. then, they played with their own types
3. The more retarded played with kiddies - all very discreetly, of course.
And, what did the ladies in pearls say: " Oh! men "
The point is all these were well known but tolerated.
True public school types weren't "sorry", Surby.
They boasted about it.
Discreetly and only in the right company of course.
LBC (@LBC) 07/07/2014 22:12 .@Nigel_Farage tells @DuncanBarkes he will "more than likely" stand in Kent. Says Craig Mackinlay is a friend but not a good politican
North Thanet or (less likely) Folkestone.
Hmmm I backed ST at 2/1 and NT at 10/1... Folkestone would be annoying!
@foxinsoxuk They were breaking the law of the land at the time? Now I can see merit in disregarding a law you see as unjust, but if person in question is supposed to be a pillar of society then it is more serious.
Andy Coulson will face a perjury charge on August 6th in Glasgow. It never rains!!!
"Non issue" - R Nabavi
Don't worry, surbiton. I don't think the fact that all these offences were committed by journalists working for a Labour-supporting newspaper group will have much effect. Of course it is true that the offences took place entirely under Labour and were investigated three times under Labour, with no action being taken other than the limited 2006 prosecution of Mulcaire and Goodman, and of course the fact that there were a lot more cases was known at the time by the Labour Attorney-General and the Labour-appointed head of the CPS (who shares Chambers with Cherie Blair), who decided to take no action. But I don't think it will do much if any damage.
And the whole story repeats itself with the paedophilia scandalum magnatum.
There is hardly any 'evidence' available today which wasn't also available throughout 1997-2010.
Labour sources even used the known gossip to attack the Major government through publications such as Scallywag.
@foxinsoxuk They were breaking the law of the land at the time? Now I can see merit in disregarding a law you see as unjust, but if person in question is supposed to be a pillar of society then it is more serious.
There was a lot of transgressing of boundaries in the sixties and seventies, some of it would be rightly considered beyond the pale now.
In the light if recent scandals I was quite surprised there is a john peel stage at Glastonbury... He was at it too wasn't he. He married a 15 year old!
Another thing to come out of this affair is the astonishing snobbery that Geoffrey Dickens was clearly subject to while he was an MP. He wasn't taken seriously because he was working-class and represented a slightly off-the-beaten-track northern constituency.
Another thing to come out of this affair is the astonishing snobbery that Geoffrey Dickens was clearly subject to while he was an MP. He wasn't taken seriously because he was working-class and represented a slightly off-the-beaten-track northern constituency.
Come on, Andy.
This was the government of Maggie Thatcher, Norman Tebbit and Cecil Parkinson. Geoffrey Dickens may have been subject to snobbery but it would have been intellectual not social.
He was seen as an obsessive conspiracy theorist, a loose cannon, with the vanity of a self-publicist, who couldn't mount an argument or campaign that was able to persuade the powerful.
His goal was principally to have his government close down PIE rather than to out paedophiles. This was a laudable objective (more so in retrospect) but he went about it in entirely the wrong way.
Watch the recent scathing remarks of David Mellor on Dickens and his dodgy dossier to see what the attitudes of the day were.
Dickens has become the unfortunate casualty of the press looking for a hook on which to hang the bigger story.
Another thing to come out of this affair is the astonishing snobbery that Geoffrey Dickens was clearly subject to while he was an MP. He wasn't taken seriously because he was working-class and represented a slightly off-the-beaten-track northern constituency.
As was Ted Heath. Desperately wanted to be a Tory insider but got rebuffed.
Another thing to come out of this affair is the astonishing snobbery that Geoffrey Dickens was clearly subject to while he was an MP. He wasn't taken seriously because he was working-class and represented a slightly off-the-beaten-track northern constituency.
As was Ted Heath. Desperately wanted to be a Tory insider but got rebuffed.
So too Maggie in her own way.
They were both products of the early grammar school system which delivered far greater social mobility than its successor.
It is no co-incidence that the Conservative Party is now giving greater prominence and office to public school boys than in the 1960s-90s. Nor that the same broadly applies to the Labour shadow cabinet and Lib Dem and UKIP leadership.
Whatever one's view on the subject, the European Court's decision on Google searches really is entirely futile. All you have to do to get around it is to click on "Google.com" instead of the UK version and you get the information which is censored. I've just done it with a search involving the currently most popular news item. I had two windows on the page with both versions, and it was immediately obvious which link was being censored on the UK version.
Another thing to come out of this affair is the astonishing snobbery that Geoffrey Dickens was clearly subject to while he was an MP. He wasn't taken seriously because he was working-class and represented a slightly off-the-beaten-track northern constituency.
Come on, Andy.
This was the government of Maggie Thatcher, Norman Tebbit and Cecil Parkinson. Geoffrey Dickens may have been subject to snobbery but it would have been intellectual not social.
He was seen as an obsessive conspiracy theorist, a loose cannon, with the vanity of a self-publicist, who couldn't mount an argument or campaign that was able to persuade the powerful.
His goal was principally to have his government close down PIE rather than to out paedophiles. This was a laudable objective (more so in retrospect) but he went about it in entirely the wrong way.
Watch the recent scathing remarks of David Mellor on Dickens and his dodgy dossier to see what the attitudes of the day were.
Dickens has become the unfortunate casualty of the press looking for a hook on which to hang the bigger story.
Whatever one's view on the subject, the European Court's decision on Google searches really is entirely futile. All you have to do to get around it is to click on "Google.com" instead of the UK version and you get the information which is censored. I've just done it with a search involving the currently most popular news item. I had two windows on the page with both versions, and it was immediately obvious which link was being censored on the UK version.
I'm sure Google is doing exactly what is require of them from the current legislation ;-)
Another thing to come out of this affair is the astonishing snobbery that Geoffrey Dickens was clearly subject to while he was an MP. He wasn't taken seriously because he was working-class and represented a slightly off-the-beaten-track northern constituency.
As was Ted Heath. Desperately wanted to be a Tory insider but got rebuffed.
So too Maggie in her own way.
They were both products of the early grammar school system which delivered far greater social mobility than its successor.
It is no co-incidence that the Conservative Party is now giving greater prominence and office to public school boys than in the 1960s-90s. Nor that the same broadly applies to the Labour shadow cabinet and Lib Dem and UKIP leadership.
Mm.
David Cameron's 2010 cabinet was the first Tory one ever in which more than half the members hadn't gone to public school. The % of overall Tory MPs has also fallen.
Heath, Thatcher, Major tended to be very much the exceptions rather than the rule.
"Child abuse claims: Paedophile gang 'included 20 ex-MPs'
There is evidence at least 20 prominent paedophiles - including former MPs and government ministers - abused children for "decades", a former child protection manager has claimed.
Peter McKelvie, whose allegations led initially to a 2012 police inquiry, said a "powerful elite" of paedophiles carried out "the worst form" of abuse."
YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour ahead by three points: CON 34%, LAB 37%, LD 9%, UKIP 13%
Relief for Con after the two earlier polls today.
Indeed but still not great. Labour seem to have got a real boost from something, not sure what.
FWIW my impression is that there's a bunch of Labour-leaning pretty apolitical voters - not a huge bunch, but 3% or so of the electorate - who say "don't know" until the papers have more political stories, and then wake up and start supporting Labour. So if you have a quiet period the Labour lead drifts down, and if there's a lot of controversy then it goes up. That applies regardless of what the controversy is about - it's not that these voters have taken a keen interest in the Juncker story, for instance, but just that they've seen a lot of Cameron on TV and it's reminded them that they're basically anti-Tory.
I'm not sure there is quite the same anti-Labour reflex out there. People who dislike Labour are mostly already actively pro-Tory, not vaguely saying they don't know. Oddly, this means the Tories need a low-key election run-up - hard to achieve in practice.
This is a little odd and doesn't really square with the underlying suggestion that Lord Britton, the Home Office and the DPP didn't deal with Dickerns' dossier properly.
"I have received on my desk many cases involving children’s homes where the children are mentally disabled and people are certainly abusing them but the Director of Public Prosecutions is UNABLE to act in spite of the fact that he, the police and the Attorney-General know very well that those things are happening.
........
I should like to place on record my thanks to the Home Office and the departments within the Home Office for following up the many cases that I keep sending to it. I should also like to thank the Attorney-General. They have been very helpful and a strength to me in my campaigns."
Obviously Britton wasn't Home Secreatry when he stated this, but it doesn't sound like he thought that his representations to the Home Office were going straight in the shredder.
And according to the polls during the last GE campaign, Nick Clegg and the Libdems looked to be about to improve their numbers at Westminster.....
It really is worth noting what happened to Scottish Labour's polling in the last Holyrood election when the bell finally rang to herald in the last campaign lap of that fixed term Parliament. And its also important to remember the personal polling which saw Alex Salmond consistently outperform Iain Gray over the same period of that Parliament.
I did wonder if Mike Smithson had this thought at the back of his mind when he penned this mornings PB thread article 'Dave is beating Ed on leader ratings but on nothing like the scale of Major over Kinnock ahead of GE1992' I think that trying to compare David Cameron vs Ed Miliband's personal polling against that of Major/Kinnock, or even Thatcher/Callaghan as an indicator towards the result of the next GE is a mugs game.
Its far better to look to a far similar example, and one much more recent up here in Scotland. even if the voting systems in both elections are different. Unlike the 79' and 92' GE's, neither the SNP or the Conservatives had managed to win a majority in the previous elections. The SNP governed as a minority administration while the Conservatives entered a Coalition with the Libdems, but importantly, both with an agreed fixed term and therefore election dates set early in their terms. And like the Holyrood elections in 2011 which followed hot on the heals of a Government changing GE the previous year, we will have had the result of the Independence Referendum and the subsequent fall out. And at last hopefully, the Chilcot Inquiry will finally be published, which may or may not effect those precious Libdem to Labour switchers that Mike so values in the current polling.
Anyone who tries to suggest that the current polling is an indication that voters intentions are now completely settled, and that the GE result is now already nailed on as a result is spinning on a hope and a prayer.
"Child abuse claims: Paedophile gang 'included 20 ex-MPs'
There is evidence at least 20 prominent paedophiles - including former MPs and government ministers - abused children for "decades", a former child protection manager has claimed.
Peter McKelvie, whose allegations led initially to a 2012 police inquiry, said a "powerful elite" of paedophiles carried out "the worst form" of abuse."
As several recent prosecutions have demonstrated, time does not run against the Crown, as Bracton famously claimed. Either indictments should be preferred, or this salacious quest for nonce finding should end.
Another thing to come out of this affair is the astonishing snobbery that Geoffrey Dickens was clearly subject to while he was an MP. He wasn't taken seriously because he was working-class and represented a slightly off-the-beaten-track northern constituency.
As was Ted Heath. Desperately wanted to be a Tory insider but got rebuffed.
So too Maggie in her own way.
They were both products of the early grammar school system which delivered far greater social mobility than its successor.
It is no co-incidence that the Conservative Party is now giving greater prominence and office to public school boys than in the 1960s-90s. Nor that the same broadly applies to the Labour shadow cabinet and Lib Dem and UKIP leadership.
Mm.
David Cameron's 2010 cabinet was the first Tory one ever in which more than half the members hadn't gone to public school. The % of overall Tory MPs has also fallen.
Heath, Thatcher, Major tended to be very much the exceptions rather than the rule.
You missed my careful phrasing, corpse.
I agree with your numbers but the perceived weight of Maggie's meritocrats tips the balance.
I simple typed in tax credits chaos and Brown using google, and I immediately got the result - 20,800,000 results (0.49 seconds).... Just to give us some perspective here for those with very short memories of life under the last Labour Government!
And how could we forget this blunder... Guardian - Lost in the post - 25 million at risk after data discs go missing "The government was forced to admit the most fundamental breach of faith between the state and citizen yesterday when it disclosed that the personal records of 25 million individuals, including their dates of birth, addresses, bank accounts and national insurance numbers had been lost in the post, opening up the threat of mass identity fraud and theft from personal bank accounts.
MPs gasped when the chancellor, Alistair Darling, told the Commons that discs containing personal details from 7.25 million families claiming child benefit had been lost. They went missing in the internal post after a junior official at HM Revenue & Customs in Washington, Tyne and Wear, breached all government security rules by sending them by courier to the National Audit Office in London.
A frantic, secret police-led search over the past week has been unable to locate the discs, containing information on half the British population, sent by unrecorded post. All banks and building societies have been alerted and the public has been told to be vigilant of raids on their bank accounts."
In the end we're all dead. How long does he need. My sources in the civil service tell me there's big concern about tax credits right now. Having to sort out the backlog of problems there rather than dealing with the tax affairs of big multinationals.
And according to the polls during the last GE campaign, Nick Clegg and the Libdems looked to be about to improve their numbers at Westminster.....
It really is worth noting what happened to Scottish Labour's polling in the last Holyrood election when the bell finally rang to herald in the last campaign lap of that fixed term Parliament. And its also important to remember the personal polling which saw Alex Salmond consistently outperform Iain Gray over the same period of that Parliament.
I did wonder if Mike Smithson had this thought at the back of his mind when he penned this mornings PB thread article 'Dave is beating Ed on leader ratings but on nothing like the scale of Major over Kinnock ahead of GE1992' I think that trying to compare David Cameron vs Ed Miliband's personal polling against that of Major/Kinnock, or even Thatcher/Callaghan as an indicator towards the result of the next GE is a mugs game.
Its far better to look to a far similar example, and one much more recent up here in Scotland. even if the voting systems in both elections are different. Unlike the 79' and 92' GE's, neither the SNP or the Conservatives had managed to win a majority in the previous elections. The SNP governed as a minority administration while the Conservatives entered a Coalition with the Libdems, but importantly, both with an agreed fixed term and therefore election dates set early in their terms. And like the Holyrood elections in 2011 which followed hot on the heals of a Government changing GE the previous year, we will have had the result of the Independence Referendum and the subsequent fall out. And at last hopefully, the Chilcot Inquiry will finally be published, which may or may not effect those precious Libdem to Labour switchers that Mike so values in the current polling.
Anyone who tries to suggest that the current polling is an indication that voters intentions are now completely settled, and that the GE result is now already nailed on as a result is spinning on a hope and a prayer.
Another thing to come out of this affair is the astonishing snobbery that Geoffrey Dickens was clearly subject to while he was an MP. He wasn't taken seriously because he was working-class and represented a slightly off-the-beaten-track northern constituency.
Come on, Andy.
This was the government of Maggie Thatcher, Norman Tebbit and Cecil Parkinson. Geoffrey Dickens may have been subject to snobbery but it would have been intellectual not social.
He was seen as an obsessive conspiracy theorist, a loose cannon, with the vanity of a self-publicist, who couldn't mount an argument or campaign that was able to persuade the powerful.
His goal was principally to have his government close down PIE rather than to out paedophiles. This was a laudable objective (more so in retrospect) but he went about it in entirely the wrong way.
Watch the recent scathing remarks of David Mellor on Dickens and his dodgy dossier to see what the attitudes of the day were.
Dickens has become the unfortunate casualty of the press looking for a hook on which to hang the bigger story.
Your posts appear to have a slightly unhealthy underlying position, which is....well, these things happened !!
No. That is not good enough ! Sorry !! These sob's were real bastards !!
"The Home Office gave nearly £500,000 to groups linked to campaigners for sex with children.
A Whitehall inquiry found ‘clear evidence’ that £476,250 was granted over a decade to two organisations connected to the notorious Paedophile Information Exchange."
Documentary from 1995 about the work of the Whips' Offices (mentioning Geoffrey Dickens, David Lightbown and Nicholas Fairbairn who all died in 1995) with a topical reference at 23:34 to 24:03
Geoffrey Dickens 1931-1995 Nicholas Fairbairn 1933-1995 David Lightbown 1932-1995 Gordon McMaster 1960-1997 Bob Mellish 1913-1998 Julian Critchley 1930-2000 Ray Powell 1928-2001 Jack Dormand 1919-2003 Tim Fortescue 1916-2008 Lord Glenamara 1912-2012 Michael Neubert 1933-2014
Comments
Avery, finally you have said something correct about these sorry public school types:
1. They played with themselves
2. then, they played with their own types
3. The more retarded played with kiddies - all very discreetly, of course.
And, what did the ladies in pearls say: " Oh! men "
The point is all these were well known but tolerated.
Just patience, understanding and fortitude.
07/07/2014 22:12
.@Nigel_Farage tells @DuncanBarkes he will "more than likely" stand in Kent. Says Craig Mackinlay is a friend but not a good politican
They boasted about it.
Discreetly and only in the right company of course.
Would he have been able to survive the storm today?
Or this genial national treasure?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/9603959/John-Peel-got-15-year-old-pregnant-after-meeting-at-Black-Sabbath-concert-claims-woman.html
There was a lot of transgressing of boundaries in the sixties and seventies, some of it would be rightly considered beyond the pale now.
There is hardly any 'evidence' available today which wasn't also available throughout 1997-2010.
Labour sources even used the known gossip to attack the Major government through publications such as Scallywag.
But what did they do in office? Nothing!
This was the government of Maggie Thatcher, Norman Tebbit and Cecil Parkinson. Geoffrey Dickens may have been subject to snobbery but it would have been intellectual not social.
He was seen as an obsessive conspiracy theorist, a loose cannon, with the vanity of a self-publicist, who couldn't mount an argument or campaign that was able to persuade the powerful.
His goal was principally to have his government close down PIE rather than to out paedophiles. This was a laudable objective (more so in retrospect) but he went about it in entirely the wrong way.
Watch the recent scathing remarks of David Mellor on Dickens and his dodgy dossier to see what the attitudes of the day were.
Dickens has become the unfortunate casualty of the press looking for a hook on which to hang the bigger story.
They were both products of the early grammar school system which delivered far greater social mobility than its successor.
It is no co-incidence that the Conservative Party is now giving greater prominence and office to public school boys than in the 1960s-90s. Nor that the same broadly applies to the Labour shadow cabinet and Lib Dem and UKIP leadership.
UKIP have selected Charlie Smith as candidate.
http://www.bedfordtoday.co.uk/news/local/ukip-selects-candidate-for-bedford-and-kempston-constitutency-for-2015-general-election-1-6133517
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-28202293
David Cameron's 2010 cabinet was the first Tory one ever in which more than half the members hadn't gone to public school. The % of overall Tory MPs has also fallen.
Heath, Thatcher, Major tended to be very much the exceptions rather than the rule.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28203914
"Child abuse claims: Paedophile gang 'included 20 ex-MPs'
There is evidence at least 20 prominent paedophiles - including former MPs and government ministers - abused children for "decades", a former child protection manager has claimed.
Peter McKelvie, whose allegations led initially to a 2012 police inquiry, said a "powerful elite" of paedophiles carried out "the worst form" of abuse."
I'm not sure there is quite the same anti-Labour reflex out there. People who dislike Labour are mostly already actively pro-Tory, not vaguely saying they don't know. Oddly, this means the Tories need a low-key election run-up - hard to achieve in practice.
"I have received on my desk many cases involving children’s homes where the children are mentally disabled and people are certainly abusing them but the Director of Public Prosecutions is UNABLE to act in spite of the fact that he, the police and the Attorney-General know very well that those things are happening.
........
I should like to place on record my thanks to the Home Office and the departments within the Home Office for following up the many cases that I keep sending to it. I should also like to thank the Attorney-General. They have been very helpful and a strength to me in my campaigns."
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1987/mar/31/evidence-by-children-in-relation-to
Obviously Britton wasn't Home Secreatry when he stated this, but it doesn't sound like he thought that his representations to the Home Office were going straight in the shredder.
It really is worth noting what happened to Scottish Labour's polling in the last Holyrood election when the bell finally rang to herald in the last campaign lap of that fixed term Parliament. And its also important to remember the personal polling which saw Alex Salmond consistently outperform Iain Gray over the same period of that Parliament.
I did wonder if Mike Smithson had this thought at the back of his mind when he penned this mornings PB thread article 'Dave is beating Ed on leader ratings but on nothing like the scale of Major over Kinnock ahead of GE1992' I think that trying to compare David Cameron vs Ed Miliband's personal polling against that of Major/Kinnock, or even Thatcher/Callaghan as an indicator towards the result of the next GE is a mugs game.
Its far better to look to a far similar example, and one much more recent up here in Scotland. even if the voting systems in both elections are different. Unlike the 79' and 92' GE's, neither the SNP or the Conservatives had managed to win a majority in the previous elections. The SNP governed as a minority administration while the Conservatives entered a Coalition with the Libdems, but importantly, both with an agreed fixed term and therefore election dates set early in their terms. And like the Holyrood elections in 2011 which followed hot on the heals of a Government changing GE the previous year, we will have had the result of the Independence Referendum and the subsequent fall out. And at last hopefully, the Chilcot Inquiry will finally be published, which may or may not effect those precious Libdem to Labour switchers that Mike so values in the current polling.
Anyone who tries to suggest that the current polling is an indication that voters intentions are now completely settled, and that the GE result is now already nailed on as a result is spinning on a hope and a prayer.
I agree with your numbers but the perceived weight of Maggie's meritocrats tips the balance.
From 2004
Daily Telegraph - Revenue pays out £1m for tax credit blunders
And how could we forget this blunder...
Guardian - Lost in the post - 25 million at risk after data discs go missing
"The government was forced to admit the most fundamental breach of faith between the state and citizen yesterday when it disclosed that the personal records of 25 million individuals, including their dates of birth, addresses, bank accounts and national insurance numbers had been lost in the post, opening up the threat of mass identity fraud and theft from personal bank accounts.
MPs gasped when the chancellor, Alistair Darling, told the Commons that discs containing personal details from 7.25 million families claiming child benefit had been lost. They went missing in the internal post after a junior official at HM Revenue & Customs in Washington, Tyne and Wear, breached all government security rules by sending them by courier to the National Audit Office in London.
A frantic, secret police-led search over the past week has been unable to locate the discs, containing information on half the British population, sent by unrecorded post. All banks and building societies have been alerted and the public has been told to be vigilant of raids on their bank accounts."
BBC - The parish councillor with Down's syndrome
No. That is not good enough ! Sorry !! These sob's were real bastards !!
This promotional video for Expo 88, held in Brisbane, is so late 80s I almost feel as if I've been transported back to then in a time machine vehicle:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnOFeFXnHeE
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2683111/OAPs-Behaving-Badly-How-elderly-blowing-pensions-partying-like-teenagers-Tenerife.html
"The Home Office gave nearly £500,000 to groups linked to campaigners for sex with children.
A Whitehall inquiry found ‘clear evidence’ that £476,250 was granted over a decade to two organisations connected to the notorious Paedophile Information Exchange."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2683917/Home-Office-gave-money-groups-linked-paedophiles-As-two-abuse-inquiries-launched-Whitehall-investigation-finds-nearly-500-000-granted-organisations.html
(mentioning Geoffrey Dickens, David Lightbown and Nicholas Fairbairn who all died in 1995)
with a topical reference at 23:34 to 24:03
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-t-iRQOSeQ
Nicholas Fairbairn 1933-1995
David Lightbown 1932-1995
Gordon McMaster 1960-1997
Bob Mellish 1913-1998
Julian Critchley 1930-2000
Ray Powell 1928-2001
Jack Dormand 1919-2003
Tim Fortescue 1916-2008
Lord Glenamara 1912-2012
Michael Neubert 1933-2014