To me the betting value is with a Labour majority. I see most of David H's potential surprises working in Labours favour, and we start from a position where the polls indicate a Labour majority.
It is possible to find a handful of Tory gains (mostly from LD) but hard to find a Labour held seat that is likely to go Tory. There are quite a few Tory marginals likely to go the other way.
The Miliband factor is priced in, and he can only surprise on the upside
You think 3 weeks or more of Ed on the telly will help Labour? Ed can have a disastrous campaign just as much as a good one. We know he is crap.. there are all sorts of states of crap
I can understand why a lot of right wingers loathe Ed, but they should not fall into the fallacy of assuming others think the same.
Ed is a canny operator, and at home in the debating meme which he was brought up on. He has an instinctive ability at machine politics, and political tactics. It is a mistake to underestimate him. He is better at set pieces with longer times than with soundbites and staged photocalls.
I am not saying that he will be a good PM, but I do think that he is mistakenly underestimated by many on here.
There are many on here who are seeking to shift markets in favour of the Tories. I'm not sure what proportion of people who bet on politics also read this blog, though. I doubt that there are many political punters who aren't parti pris in the first place. It's not unknown, for example, for agents to lay their Party to insure against a lost deposit...
"I believe we are seeing a secular shift from western labour to capital and/or eastern labour - that is to say, western labour no longer has a monopoly on education."
IA - you are absolutely right and this is something that Labour does not want to acknowledge as it happened under their watch - remember ministers applauding ever improving results whilst ignoring the UK slipping down the PISA and other rankings - Welsh Labour have just woken up to this fact.
But many educationalists still refuse to admit the error of their theories and ways and present a vocal and influential barrier to education improvement and prefer to defend their theories than worry about the education of our children today so that they can compete in a global economy.
So the UK has a huge problem of hundreds of thousands of people who are under/uneducated and are unemployable in a global market.
Furthermore, many had been falsely classified under incapacity benefit and now they have been pushed onto the job-seekers allowance, are very angry and have no intention of seeking work as their life on benefits was OK and comfortable. Also many do not see why they should relocate to where the work is as they want to continue living where they are - and they see it is HMG's responsibility to pay them to bring up their own children.
So these people will not see the benefit of an improving economy, but will remain an underclass and the4 gap will grow between them and the rest.
To me the betting value is with a Labour majority. I see most of David H's potential surprises working in Labours favour, and we start from a position where the polls indicate a Labour majority.
It is possible to find a handful of Tory gains (mostly from LD) but hard to find a Labour held seat that is likely to go Tory. There are quite a few Tory marginals likely to go the other way.
The Miliband factor is priced in, and he can only surprise on the upside
You think 3 weeks or more of Ed on the telly will help Labour? Ed can have a disastrous campaign just as much as a good one. We know he is crap.. there are all sorts of states of crap
I can understand why a lot of right wingers loathe Ed, but they should not fall into the fallacy of assuming others think the same.
Ed is a canny operator, and at home in the debating meme which he was brought up on. He has an instinctive ability at machine politics, and political tactics. It is a mistake to underestimate him. He is better at set pieces with longer times than with soundbites and staged photocalls.
I am not saying that he will be a good PM, but I do think that he is mistakenly underestimated by many on here.
I don't loathe Ed personally, I have never met him, but I loathe what he would try to do to Britain and I think his personality, such as it comes over wouldn't do well as representing the Country. It was Labour and Brown who screwed the country , the last thing we need is another dose of it, just when thinks are starting to look very positive..
"I believe we are seeing a secular shift from western labour to capital and/or eastern labour - that is to say, western labour no longer has a monopoly on education."
IA - you are absolutely right and this is something that Labour does not want to acknowledge as it happened under their watch - remember ministers applauding ever improving results whilst ignoring the UK slipping down the PISA and other rankings - Welsh Labour have just woken up to this fact.
But many educationalists still refuse to admit the error of their theories and ways and present a vocal and influential barrier to education improvement and prefer to defend their theories than worry about the education of our children today so that they can compete in a global economy.
So the UK has a huge problem of hundreds of thousands of people who are under/uneducated and are unemployable in a global market.
Furthermore, many had been falsely classified under incapacity benefit and now they have been pushed onto the job-seekers allowance, are very angry and have no intention of seeking work as their life on benefits was OK and comfortable. Also many do not see why they should relocate to where the work is as they want to continue living where they are - and they see it is HMG's responsibility to pay them to bring up their own children.
So these people will not see the benefit of an improving economy, but will remain an underclass and the4 gap will grow between them and the rest.
It's not as simple as that. There are also older workers whose health simply doesn't stand up to the hours that workers have to put in nowadays. And the younger candidate is also more likely to believe what the boss tells them, having no experience to tell them otherwise.
And why were people "falsely classified" onto IB? To keep down the numbers of people classified as unemployed.
To me the betting value is with a Labour majority. I see most of David H's potential surprises working in Labours favour, and we start from a position where the polls indicate a Labour majority.
It is possible to find a handful of Tory gains (mostly from LD) but hard to find a Labour held seat that is likely to go Tory. There are quite a few Tory marginals likely to go the other way.
The Miliband factor is priced in, and he can only surprise on the upside
You think 3 weeks or more of Ed on the telly will help Labour? Ed can have a disastrous campaign just as much as a good one. We know he is crap.. there are all sorts of states of crap
I can understand why a lot of right wingers loathe Ed, but they should not fall into the fallacy of assuming others think the same.
Ed is a canny operator, and at home in the debating meme which he was brought up on. He has an instinctive ability at machine politics, and political tactics. It is a mistake to underestimate him. He is better at set pieces with longer times than with soundbites and staged photocalls.
I am not saying that he will be a good PM, but I do think that he is mistakenly underestimated by many on here.
I don't loathe Ed personally, I have never met him, but I loathe what he would try to do to Britain and I think his personality, such as it comes over wouldn't do well as representing the Country. It was Labour and Brown who screwed the country , the last thing we need is another dose of it, just when thinks are starting to look very positive..
I am not in favour of a majority Labour government for much the same reasons, but many voters see it as the Tories and their friends in the City that have screwed the country.
My own preferred 2015 outcome would be for a resurgent LD party to gain seats and form part of the next government, moderating whoever forms the largest party. I also recognise that this is unlikely!
To me the betting value is with a Labour majority. I see most of David H's potential surprises working in Labours favour,
The Miliband factor is priced in, and he can only surprise on the upside
Wasn't Kinnock priced in ?
Ed as PM will not have full effect until much closer to the GE.
Didn't you say the same about Gordon Brown as PM? Why haven't you learnt from the absence of the so-called "Brown epiphany"?
Brown polled 29%.
What reasons are there to prefer Ed over Gordon ?
I put it to you that you have never found a reason to vote Labour and have no intention of ever doing so. This column would be much improved if those who are active members of a given Party followed the example of OGH (or David Herdson or Nick Palmer come to that) and said so.
To me the betting value is with a Labour majority. I see most of David H's potential surprises working in Labours favour,
The Miliband factor is priced in, and he can only surprise on the upside
Wasn't Kinnock priced in ?
Ed as PM will not have full effect until much closer to the GE.
Didn't you say the same about Gordon Brown as PM? Why haven't you learnt from the absence of the so-called "Brown epiphany"?
Brown polled 29%.
What reasons are there to prefer Ed over Gordon ?
I put it to you that you have never found a reason to vote Labour and have no intention of ever doing so. This column would be much improved if those who are active members of a given Party followed the example of OGH (or David Herdson or Nick Palmer come to that) and said so.
Yes, there should be an enforced strapline where you declare any party employment or membership
To me the betting value is with a Labour majority. I see most of David H's potential surprises working in Labours favour,
The Miliband factor is priced in, and he can only surprise on the upside
Wasn't Kinnock priced in ?
Ed as PM will not have full effect until much closer to the GE.
Didn't you say the same about Gordon Brown as PM? Why haven't you learnt from the absence of the so-called "Brown epiphany"?
Brown polled 29%.
What reasons are there to prefer Ed over Gordon ?
I put it to you that you have never found a reason to vote Labour and have no intention of ever doing so. This column would be much improved if those who are active members of a given Party followed the example of OGH (or David Herdson or Nick Palmer come to that) and said so.
Yes, there should be an enforced strapline where you declare any party employment or membership
To me the betting value is with a Labour majority. I see most of David H's potential surprises working in Labours favour,
The Miliband factor is priced in, and he can only surprise on the upside
Wasn't Kinnock priced in ?
Ed as PM will not have full effect until much closer to the GE.
Didn't you say the same about Gordon Brown as PM? Why haven't you learnt from the absence of the so-called "Brown epiphany"?
Brown polled 29%.
What reasons are there to prefer Ed over Gordon ?
It is an interesting question. My reasons to prefer Ed over Gordon.
Gordon was indecisive while Ed is capable of decisive action (such as running against his own brother)
Gordon was guilty of over borrowing and causing the countries deficit problem. Ed is innocent of this.
Gordon was a bully who crushed dissent, Ed is a listener who is willing to have internal policy differences debated openly in his team.
Gordon was Old Labour; Ed has some trade union support but also a more outward looking approach and is open to other ideas.
Gordon was parochial. Ed is the son of refugee immigrants and completely assimilated to British life. While others can talk about integration and what it means to the country, Ed has lived it.
Finally, I quite like Eds geekiness. This is a country sick of spin and PR, Cameron and Blair.
To me the betting value is with a Labour majority. I see most of David H's potential surprises working in Labours favour,
The Miliband factor is priced in, and he can only surprise on the upside
Wasn't Kinnock priced in ?
Ed as PM will not have full effect until much closer to the GE.
Didn't you say the same about Gordon Brown as PM? Why haven't you learnt from the absence of the so-called "Brown epiphany"?
Brown polled 29%.
What reasons are there to prefer Ed over Gordon ?
I put it to you that you have never found a reason to vote Labour and have no intention of ever doing so. This column would be much improved if those who are active members of a given Party followed the example of OGH (or David Herdson or Nick Palmer come to that) and said so.
This site would be a whole lot better if you didn't try to tell other people what you think they ought to do.. Its a sort of typical lefty authoritarianism.. something else I absolutely loathe.
To me the betting value is with a Labour majority. I see most of David H's potential surprises working in Labours favour,
The Miliband factor is priced in, and he can only surprise on the upside
Wasn't Kinnock priced in ?
Ed as PM will not have full effect until much closer to the GE.
Didn't you say the same about Gordon Brown as PM? Why haven't you learnt from the absence of the so-called "Brown epiphany"?
Brown polled 29%.
What reasons are there to prefer Ed over Gordon ?
I put it to you that you have never found a reason to vote Labour and have no intention of ever doing so. This column would be much improved if those who are active members of a given Party followed the example of OGH (or David Herdson or Nick Palmer come to that) and said so.
Yes, there should be an enforced strapline where you declare any party employment or membership
Am not, have not been a member of any party.
However a concerned voter.
As you've chosen to duck the first sentence of my previous post I think we can all draw our own conclusions. I'm sure your local Tory Association would be very pleased to welcome you on board - and let's face it, one of the problems of our political system to-day is that people don't join the Parties they support. Any of them.
Mr. Foxinsox, I'd be inclined to agree on 'geekiness' (clunky term, I think Miliband comes across a bit weirder than that) except that he's not embracing his inner geek, as it were, and has instead adopted Blairite mannerisms and speech patterns.
The Scottish question has to be resolved first. Although No is likely to win it's not a foregone conclusion, and if Yes wins I strongly suspect (as I've said for a while) it'll be springtime for the SNP and Conservatives (ahem, north and south of the border, respectively).
To me the betting value is with a Labour majority. I see most of David H's potential surprises working in Labours favour,
The Miliband factor is priced in, and he can only surprise on the upside
Wasn't Kinnock priced in ?
Ed as PM will not have full effect until much closer to the GE.
Didn't you say the same about Gordon Brown as PM? Why haven't you learnt from the absence of the so-called "Brown epiphany"?
Brown polled 29%.
What reasons are there to prefer Ed over Gordon ?
I put it to you that you have never found a reason to vote Labour and have no intention of ever doing so. This column would be much improved if those who are active members of a given Party followed the example of OGH (or David Herdson or Nick Palmer come to that) and said so.
Yes, there should be an enforced strapline where you declare any party employment or membership
Under Disqus we could add a tag next to our name and I remember Plato making this very suggestion several years ago. I added my party membership and several others did too.
Does Vanilla have an admin tick-box to allow a similar tag for those who wish?
To me the betting value is with a Labour majority. I see most of David H's potential surprises working in Labours favour,
The Miliband factor is priced in, and he can only surprise on the upside
Wasn't Kinnock priced in ?
Ed as PM will not have full effect until much closer to the GE.
Didn't you say the same about Gordon Brown as PM? Why haven't you learnt from the absence of the so-called "Brown epiphany"?
Brown polled 29%.
What reasons are there to prefer Ed over Gordon ?
I put it to you that you have never found a reason to vote Labour and have no intention of ever doing so. This column would be much improved if those who are active members of a given Party followed the example of OGH (or David Herdson or Nick Palmer come to that) and said so.
Yes, there should be an enforced strapline where you declare any party employment or membership
Am not, have not been a member of any party.
However a concerned voter.
As you've chosen to duck the first sentence of my previous post I think we can all draw our own conclusions. I'm sure your local Tory Association would be very pleased to welcome you on board - and let's face it, one of the problems of our political system to-day is that people don't join the Parties they support. Any of them.
Can't remember your question - was probably very boring.
Why do you want strap lines on posters ? Ban righties that don't share groupthink ? Ensure a fairness agenda and equality of posts for all ? What's next ? Weight ? religion ? inside leg ?
Although I think Labour made a mistake electing EdM, I think he will be PM with a small majority. There were better candidates around but they chose a fiercely ambitious man who grew up cocooned in a cloud of middle-class left-wingery. He may be a nice man in private but he comes over as a product of his upbringing. A little like a posh Tory but without the noblesse oblige they are often given credit for.
But after periods of austerity, the voters don't always vote in gratitude. They vote for a future potential not a past achievement. Churchill didn't receive the votes of a grateful nation in 1945. We have a deficit still of 100,000,000,000 pounds a year (and a debt approaching 1.5 trillion), yet there's an expectation that better times are ahead. Labour are good at spending money and that optimistic expectation may win enough over.
He'll not feature prominently in the GE campaign - he knows his limitations.
To me the betting value is with a Labour majority. I see most of David H's potential surprises working in Labours favour,
The Miliband factor is priced in, and he can only surprise on the upside
Wasn't Kinnock priced in ?
Ed as PM will not have full effect until much closer to the GE.
Didn't you say the same about Gordon Brown as PM? Why haven't you learnt from the absence of the so-called "Brown epiphany"?
Brown polled 29%.
What reasons are there to prefer Ed over Gordon ?
I put it to you that you have never found a reason to vote Labour and have no intention of ever doing so. This column would be much improved if those who are active members of a given Party followed the example of OGH (or David Herdson or Nick Palmer come to that) and said so.
Yes, there should be an enforced strapline where you declare any party employment or membership
Am not, have not been a member of any party.
However a concerned voter.
As you've chosen to duck the first sentence of my previous post I think we can all draw our own conclusions. I'm sure your local Tory Association would be very pleased to welcome you on board - and let's face it, one of the problems of our political system to-day is that people don't join the Parties they support. Any of them.
Can't remember your question - was probably very boring.
Why do you want strap lines on posters ? Ban righties that don't share groupthink ? Ensure a fairness agenda and equality of posts for all ? What's next ? Weight ? religion ? inside leg ?
It's not my blog, TGOHF, so I'm hardly in a position to do anything to anyone. However, as you have been reduced to personal abuse I suggest (once more) that people will draw their own conclusions.
Mr. Foxinsox, I'd be inclined to agree on 'geekiness' (clunky term, I think Miliband comes across a bit weirder than that) except that he's not embracing his inner geek, as it were, and has instead adopted Blairite mannerisms and speech patterns.
The Scottish question has to be resolved first. Although No is likely to win it's not a foregone conclusion, and if Yes wins I strongly suspect (as I've said for a while) it'll be springtime for the SNP and Conservatives (ahem, north and south of the border, respectively).
The indyref is one major hurdle, but there has been remarkably little change in the 60/40 split in favour of No. I cannot see it suddenly changing now.
All politicians should learn to embrace their inner geek. Ken was known for his newt fancying, Boris is unafraid of showing his Eton education. They were comfortable with themselves.
Ed does have a certain gaucheness that comes from his background. It is not nessecary to love football and bacon butties to prove oneself British. Tony Benn was a teetotal intellectual but represented a long British tradition of these things. The country is quite tolerant of personal eccentricity, indeed the embracement of eccentricity is a core British value!
On the second question, someone (HurstLlama I think) pointed out that the Electoral Commission mentioned that a consistent polling level of 10% was key in UKIP being considered a major party for the European elections. If they make a decision in October, which they have said they might, UKIP will likely have met that criterion for the general. That means they will in the debates.
@scottp was convinced ukip would not be in the debates... He said it was impossible. He was so convinced that he wouldn't bet it at 1/2
Scottp is the fanny of fannies, so no surprise. He would have needed to get a tweet telling him to do it first.
To me the betting value is with a Labour majority. I see most of David H's potential surprises working in Labours favour, and we start from a position where the polls indicate a Labour majority.
It is possible to find a handful of Tory gains (mostly from LD) but hard to find a Labour held seat that is likely to go Tory. There are quite a few Tory marginals likely to go the other way.
The Miliband factor is priced in, and he can only surprise on the upside
You think 3 weeks or more of Ed on the telly will help Labour? Ed can have a disastrous campaign just as much as a good one. We know he is crap.. there are all sorts of states of crap
I can understand why a lot of right wingers loathe Ed, but they should not fall into the fallacy of assuming others think the same.
Ed is a canny operator, and at home in the debating meme which he was brought up on. He has an instinctive ability at machine politics, and political tactics. It is a mistake to underestimate him. He is better at set pieces with longer times than with soundbites and staged photocalls.
I am not saying that he will be a good PM, but I do think that he is mistakenly underestimated by many on here.
Crap does not even begin to describe him, I reckon he might even be able to make Brown look only bad.
To me the betting value is with a Labour majority. I see most of David H's potential surprises working in Labours favour,
The Miliband factor is priced in, and he can only surprise on the upside
Wasn't Kinnock priced in ?
Ed as PM will not have full effect until much closer to the GE.
Didn't you say the same about Gordon Brown as PM? Why haven't you learnt from the absence of the so-called "Brown epiphany"?
Brown polled 29%.
What reasons are there to prefer Ed over Gordon ?
I put it to you that you have never found a reason to vote Labour and have no intention of ever doing so. This column would be much improved if those who are active members of a given Party followed the example of OGH (or David Herdson or Nick Palmer come to that) and said so.
Yes, there should be an enforced strapline where you declare any party employment or membership
Am not, have not been a member of any party.
However a concerned voter.
As you've chosen to duck the first sentence of my previous post I think we can all draw our own conclusions. I'm sure your local Tory Association would be very pleased to welcome you on board - and let's face it, one of the problems of our political system to-day is that people don't join the Parties they support. Any of them.
Can't remember your question - was probably very boring.
Why do you want strap lines on posters ? Ban righties that don't share groupthink ? Ensure a fairness agenda and equality of posts for all ? What's next ? Weight ? religion ? inside leg ?
It's called a declaration of interest. People come on here and ramp incessantly, it helps put it in perspective
Morning all and excellent thread David. Ed Milibland will be Michael Foot Mark II. There would be an irony if the Tories pick up a handful of seats in Scotland and Dave's overall majority is due to them. That was exactly what happened for John Major in 1992. 11 Scottish Tory seats and overall majority of 21.
To me the betting value is with a Labour majority. I see most of David H's potential surprises working in Labours favour,
The Miliband factor is priced in, and he can only surprise on the upside
Wasn't Kinnock priced in ?
Ed as PM will not have full effect until much closer to the GE.
Didn't you say the same about Gordon Brown as PM? Why haven't you learnt from the absence of the so-called "Brown epiphany"?
Brown polled 29%.
What reasons are there to prefer Ed over Gordon ?
I put it to you that you have never found a reason to vote Labour and have no intention of ever doing so. This column would be much improved if those who are active members of a given Party followed the example of OGH (or David Herdson or Nick Palmer come to that) and said so.
Yes, there should be an enforced strapline where you declare any party employment or membership
Am not, have not been a member of any party.
However a concerned voter.
As you've chosen to duck the first sentence of my previous post I think we can all draw our own conclusions. I'm sure your local Tory Association would be very pleased to welcome you on board - and let's face it, one of the problems of our political system to-day is that people don't join the Parties they support. Any of them.
Can't remember your question - was probably very boring.
Why do you want strap lines on posters ? Ban righties that don't share groupthink ? Ensure a fairness agenda and equality of posts for all ? What's next ? Weight ? religion ? inside leg ?
It's called a declaration of interest. People come on here and ramp incessantly, it helps put it in perspective
The site is full of rampers , Trolls and a few deluded LD's. They try to promote a South East bubble version of the world. The analysis on Scotland is pretty pathetic.
Morning all and excellent thread David. Ed Milibland will be Michael Foot Mark II. There would be an irony if the Tories pick up a handful of seats in Scotland and Dave's overall majority is due to them. That was exactly what happened for John Major in 1992. 11 Scottish Tory seats and overall majority of 21.
Morning Easterross, I think it will be a while before that is a likely event, and then it will be in an independent parliament with real Scottish Conservative Party.
Morning all and excellent thread David. Ed Milibland will be Michael Foot Mark II.
Wrong parallel. Ed Miliband is more like Harold Wilson, a technocrat whose main concern is party management. Much of the reason for Labour's relative silence on policy and even on the economy is (imo) Miliband preventing civil war. Like Wilson, Miliband will probably win a small majority (against an old Etonian PM).
Morning all and excellent thread David. Ed Milibland will be Michael Foot Mark II.
Wrong parallel. Ed Miliband is more like Harold Wilson, a technocrat whose main concern is party management. Much of the reason for Labour's relative silence on policy and even on the economy is (imo) Miliband preventing civil war. Like Wilson, Miliband will probably win a small majority (against an old Etonian PM).
I agree - tho Miliband lacks Wilson's (carefully crafted) "common touch" - but he is clearly, for good or ill, our first "post-Blair" leader - I suspect we are in for "interesting times"......
I've not followed the details of the paedophile issues - partly just because they're horrible, partly as I can't influence what happens next - and I wouldn't call myself wildly anti-establishment. But for the specific purpose of clearing up who did what and who covered up what, we need someone who isn't felt by anyone to be part of the establishment. That does make me wonder if Butler-Sloss is the right person - regardless of her merits and whether there's anything to worry about in the Times story. We need someone who gives public confidence after they've reported that we have now understood what happened, and that probably needs someone from outside the establishment - the head of Amnesty, say - rather than an elderly judge.
I've not followed the details of the paedophile issues - partly just because they're horrible, partly as I can't influence what happens next - and I wouldn't call myself wildly anti-establishment. But for the specific purpose of clearing up who did what and who covered up what, we need someone who isn't felt by anyone to be part of the establishment. That does make me wonder if Butler-Sloss is the right person - regardless of her merits and whether there's anything to worry about in the Times story. We need someone who gives public confidence after they've reported that we have now understood what happened, and that probably needs someone from outside the establishment - the head of Amnesty, say - rather than an elderly judge.
I tend to agree with you Nick. I would not however choose the head of Amnesty. Amnesty's credibility has, to my mind, rather been damaged in relation to how they have treated their own internal whistleblowers over their association with M Begg's Caged Prisoners. That would not give the necessary confidence that they understand the issues re whistleblowing.
Someone like Mary Robinson, the ex-President of Ireland, a distinguished lawyer in her own right, would be a good choice.
I've not followed the details of the paedophile issues - partly just because they're horrible, partly as I can't influence what happens next - and I wouldn't call myself wildly anti-establishment. But for the specific purpose of clearing up who did what and who covered up what, we need someone who isn't felt by anyone to be part of the establishment. That does make me wonder if Butler-Sloss is the right person - regardless of her merits and whether there's anything to worry about in the Times story. We need someone who gives public confidence after they've reported that we have now understood what happened, and that probably needs someone from outside the establishment - the head of Amnesty, say - rather than an elderly judge.
DecrepitJohn Miliband is nothing like Wilson, Wilson was a charismatic opportunist and brilliant intellect, born and raised in Yorkshire. In many ways Cameron resembles Wilson far more than the decent but dull Home, he is also a charismatic opportunist who, like Wilson, is far more interested in power and getting elected than what he actually does with it and also led his party into power after 13 years in opposition by the narrowest of margins. Miliband is far closer to a Gaitskill, ie a north London, social democratic intellectual, than he is to Wilson. Gaitskill of course ultimately lost to an Old Etonian, Cameron's hero Macmillan (who was himself basically a Liberal in Tory clothing like Dave and had his own version of UKIP in the League of Empire Loyalists)
To me the betting value is with a Labour majority. I see most of David H's potential surprises working in Labours favour,
The Miliband factor is priced in, and he can only surprise on the upside
Wasn't Kinnock priced in ?
Ed as PM will not have full effect until much closer to the GE.
Didn't you say the same about Gordon Brown as PM? Why haven't you learnt from the absence of the so-called "Brown epiphany"?
Brown polled 29%.
What reasons are there to prefer Ed over Gordon ?
It is an interesting question. My reasons to prefer Ed over Gordon.
Gordon was indecisive while Ed is capable of decisive action (such as running against his own brother)
Gordon was guilty of over borrowing and causing the countries deficit problem. Ed is innocent of this.
Gordon was a bully who crushed dissent, Ed is a listener who is willing to have internal policy differences debated openly in his team.
Gordon was Old Labour; Ed has some trade union support but also a more outward looking approach and is open to other ideas.
Gordon was parochial. Ed is the son of refugee immigrants and completely assimilated to British life. While others can talk about integration and what it means to the country, Ed has lived it.
Finally, I quite like Eds geekiness. This is a country sick of spin and PR, Cameron and Blair.
Snap. I agree with just about all of that. I do hope your last sentence is correct though. Also, I think I can add that should you meet Ed the odds on your liking him would be pretty high.
I tend to agree with you Nick. I would not however choose the head of Amnesty. Amnesty's credibility has, to my mind, rather been damaged in relation to how they have treated their own internal whistleblowers over their association with M Begg's Caged Prisoners. That would not give the necessary confidence that they understand the issues re whistleblowing.
Someone like Mary Robinson, the ex-President of Ireland, a distinguished lawyer in her own right, would be a good choice.
Fair enough - I didn't know about the Amnesty controversy but that sounds like a snag. Mary R would be an interesting choice.
On another subject, since we don't seem to be getting a new thread for this morning:
There's an interesting cultural clash here. Germany is quite a deferential culture in many ways, but the establishment itself is quite libertarian - partly memories of the Stasi and partly going further back to Hitler make people like Merkel think that an allied power tapping her phone is disgusting.
By contrast in the Anglo-Saxon world there's a general feeling that it's unfortunate but it happens, shrug. When Gerry Adams discovered a bug in his car during the peace talks, he liaised with London to play it down - "we'll express shock, you don't comment, we'll move on" was the general flavour. Washington expects Merkel to take the same sort of line and is I think genuinely baffled that she won't.
IA It may well be another Tory-LD Coalition in my view, the rise of UKIP will prevent a Tory majority even if they win back lost defectors and the LDs have said they will vote down a Tory minority forcing another Coalition
I tend to agree with you Nick. I would not however choose the head of Amnesty. Amnesty's credibility has, to my mind, rather been damaged in relation to how they have treated their own internal whistleblowers over their association with M Begg's Caged Prisoners. That would not give the necessary confidence that they understand the issues re whistleblowing.
Someone like Mary Robinson, the ex-President of Ireland, a distinguished lawyer in her own right, would be a good choice.
Fair enough - I didn't know about the Amnesty controversy but that sounds like a snag. Mary R would be an interesting choice.
On another subject, since we don't seem to be getting a new thread for this morning:
There's an interesting cultural clash here. Germany is quite a deferential culture in many ways, but the establishment itself is quite libertarian - partly memories of the Stasi and partly going further back to Hitler make people like Merkel think that an allied power tapping her phone is disgusting.
By contrast in the Anglo-Saxon world there's a general feeling that it's unfortunate but it happens, shrug. When Gerry Adams discovered a bug in his car during the peace talks, he liaised with London to play it down - "we'll express shock, you don't comment, we'll move on" was the general flavour. Washington expects Merkel to take the same sort of line and is I think genuinely baffled that she won't.
WWIII - Germany and France are gradually openly sliding towards to the Russia/China side.
I've not followed the details of the paedophile issues - partly just because they're horrible, partly as I can't influence what happens next - and I wouldn't call myself wildly anti-establishment. But for the specific purpose of clearing up who did what and who covered up what, we need someone who isn't felt by anyone to be part of the establishment. That does make me wonder if Butler-Sloss is the right person - regardless of her merits and whether there's anything to worry about in the Times story. We need someone who gives public confidence after they've reported that we have now understood what happened, and that probably needs someone from outside the establishment - the head of Amnesty, say - rather than an elderly judge.
More seriously.
No, Nick. The job requires someone who is both trained as a lawyer and who has long experience of hearing child abuse cases in a judicial capacity, particularly in hearing and evaluating witness statements from vulnerable victims as well as from a powerful establishment; is familiar with the lobbying pressures brought to bear on public inquiry work of this nature; and understands how the major institutions of the country work.
Apart from Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss's age and family connections to the Attorney-General in the 1980s, she is perfectly qualified for the job. It would be difficult to propose any individual better qualified.
As she will chair a panel rather than sit alone, she can always delegate any task which might involve a perceived conflict of interest to another member. She stood down from the chair of the Princess Diana Coroner's Inquiry when a jury was added to the proceedings on the grounds that she lacked experience of jury trials. This shows that she is capable of realising her limitations and of making decisions accordingly.
On her age, this all rather depends how long the inquiry will go on. The subject matter could easily occupy a decade of inquiry process but I expect that, at present, Cameron and the Home Office are looking at a one year to eighteen months timescale. She should be fine for that.
Why should they [rUK] treat us any better than we [iScotland] treat them? As a small but significant example, the Cabinet Secretary for Education insists that we will still be able (contrary to basic principles of EU law) to charge fees to their students which we do not charge to our own students or those from any other EU country. Yet he also insists that our Universities must retain their present access to UK research funds, because that would be "rational".
I tend to agree with you Nick. I would not however choose the head of Amnesty. Amnesty's credibility has, to my mind, rather been damaged in relation to how they have treated their own internal whistleblowers over their association with M Begg's Caged Prisoners. That would not give the necessary confidence that they understand the issues re whistleblowing.
Someone like Mary Robinson, the ex-President of Ireland, a distinguished lawyer in her own right, would be a good choice.
By contrast in the Anglo-Saxon world there's a general feeling that it's unfortunate but it happens, shrug. When Gerry Adams discovered a bug in his car during the peace talks, he liaised with London to play it down - "we'll express shock, you don't comment, we'll move on" was the general flavour. Washington expects Merkel to take the same sort of line and is I think genuinely baffled that she won't.
Perhaps he's baffled because Germany funds and runs such excellent sigint and espionage services of their own. Who, incidentally, share information with America on a daily basis.
IA It may well be another Tory-LD Coalition in my view, the rise of UKIP will prevent a Tory majority even if they win back lost defectors and the LDs have said they will vote down a Tory minority forcing another Coalition
Lots of ifs but were that to happen one would hope that rather than forcing a coalition Cameron would seek a dissolution and a fresh election.
IA It may well be another Tory-LD Coalition in my view, the rise of UKIP will prevent a Tory majority even if they win back lost defectors and the LDs have said they will vote down a Tory minority forcing another Coalition
Lots of ifs but were that to happen one would hope that rather than forcing a coalition Cameron would seek a dissolution and a fresh election.
Electorates tend not to take kindly to being re asked a question to which they have just given their answer......
Why should they [rUK] treat us any better than we [iScotland] treat them? As a small but significant example, the Cabinet Secretary for Education insists that we will still be able (contrary to basic principles of EU law) to charge fees to their students which we do not charge to our own students or those from any other EU country. Yet he also insists that our Universities must retain their present access to UK research funds, because that would be "rational".
I'll probably get yelled at by Mr. G., for saying this but never mind.
An independent Scotland would be entitled to charge whatever fees it likes of whoever it likes. As an independent country it would not be bound by EU law or indeed any law other than its own. However, if the man thinks that Scottish universities will benefit from research grants funded by the rUK taxpayers he is off his head. Being independent means been independent.
HurstLlama/Carlotta Exactly, If the Tories are largest party but short of a majority and the LDs have suffered losses but not been wiped out voters can hardly complain if it is another Tory-LD coalition. This time those who voted LD know it is on the cards and if no party has won outright but the Tories are ahead that seems the logical conclusion of what they voted for
I think it is easier to predict the 2015 GE outcome by looking at the 2005 result and then deciding which seats Labour won't win. Rationale for this is that in 2010 Labour lost some seats because they had been in power for 13 years and now had Brown as leader, who was not as popular as Blair in parts of England. We sometimes tend to complicate matters, when actually most seats don't change hands and we are left with less than 100 seats which will decide the outcome of the election.
If Scotland does vote for independence, Cameron is going to be in trouble as the PM who lost the union. Yes Labour will lose MP's in 2016/17, whenever the date of separation is, but it will make them work harder in England/Wales to gain enough seats, so that the loss of Scottish MP's did not affect their majority. The Tories and Lib Dems could lose votes in England/Wales due to them losing the union. People who are unionists living in England/Wales won't be very happy.
IA It may well be another Tory-LD Coalition in my view, the rise of UKIP will prevent a Tory majority even if they win back lost defectors and the LDs have said they will vote down a Tory minority forcing another Coalition
Lots of ifs but were that to happen one would hope that rather than forcing a coalition Cameron would seek a dissolution and a fresh election.
Electorates tend not to take kindly to being re asked a question to which they have just given their answer......
Sounds plausible, but is it true?
I can't think of that many historical parallels (at Parliament level - there was that LibDem seat where the majority changed from about 10 votes to about 20,000 when it was rerun).
The three British ones that come to mind are 1974 (Lab minority gov, became majority in 2nd election), 1964/66 (very small Lab majority, became large one two years later) and 1950/51 (very small Lab majority overturned next year). The common feature seems to be that the party that gained ground in the first election is seen to have won the right to govern, and if there's another election they get a proper mandate.
That was in the back of my mind when I was in the "don't let's try too hard to hang on" camp in 2010 (not that I had any say in it as I was out myself) - I think people felt we were won out and a limp Lab-led coalition trying to hang on would have been decisively rejected a year later. The same is problably true if 2015 ends in a virtual tie - the Tories and LibDems will have lost lots of seats if that happens, and if they hung on and called a fresh election 6 months later, I don't think it would end well.
IA It may well be another Tory-LD Coalition in my view, the rise of UKIP will prevent a Tory majority even if they win back lost defectors and the LDs have said they will vote down a Tory minority forcing another Coalition
Lots of ifs but were that to happen one would hope that rather than forcing a coalition Cameron would seek a dissolution and a fresh election.
Electorates tend not to take kindly to being re asked a question to which they have just given their answer......
So people on here say. I am not sure what the evidence for that view actually is.
If Dame Butler-Sloss does have to step down, how about Rabbi Jonathan Sacks? Or Frank Field or Chris Mullin - he knows a bit about ferreting out cover-ups within the Establishment?
Nick Palmer The nature of the electoral system means that the Tories could never be largest party if it is a virtual tie anyway, they need to have a clear lead in the popular vote to win more seats than Labour. Cameron would only call another election if he then got close to the 7% lead over Labour he would need for a majority, which is highly unlikely on present trends
If Dame Butler-Sloss does have to step down, how about Rabbi Jonathan Sacks? Or Frank Field or Chris Mullin - he knows a bit about ferreting out cover-ups within the Establishment?
Another qualification Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss has for the job is that she chaired the Security Commission between 2000 and 2010 when it was dissolved in the bonfire of the quangos. The commission was set up to investigate breaches of security within the government and civil service. It was initially proposed by Harold Macmillan at the time of the Profumo Affair, implemented by Douglas-Home and then had its powers extended to investigate government leaks by Harold Wilson.
It's terms of reference were:
If so requested by the Prime Minister, to investigate and report upon the circumstances in which a breach of security is known to have occurred in the public service and upon any related failure of departmental security arrangements or neglect of duty; and, in the light of any such investigations, to advise whether any change in security arrangements is necessary or desirable.
So EB-S will be under no illusions about the capability and willingness of senior officials to break rules and will be fully familiar with "the establishment" then seeking to protect the breaches by frustrating external inquiry. In effect she has been the country's highest ranking "uncoverer-up in chief" for a decade.
I think it is easier to predict the 2015 GE outcome by looking at the 2005 result and then deciding which seats Labour won't win. Rationale for this is that in 2010 Labour lost some seats because they had been in power for 13 years and now had Brown as leader, who was not as popular as Blair in parts of England. We sometimes tend to complicate matters, when actually most seats don't change hands and we are left with less than 100 seats which will decide the outcome of the election.
If Scotland does vote for independence, Cameron is going to be in trouble as the PM who lost the union. Yes Labour will lose MP's in 2016/17, whenever the date of separation is, but it will make them work harder in England/Wales to gain enough seats, so that the loss of Scottish MP's did not affect their majority. The Tories and Lib Dems could lose votes in England/Wales due to them losing the union. People who are unionists living in England/Wales won't be very happy.
I've backed the Conservatives in alot of constituencies, but I've taken £15 of 11-4 on Labour in Reading West
They won it in 2005 (Quite handsomely actually)
Labour did very well in both Reading seats in the local elections. Survation polled the seat and it was favourable for Labour. It corresponds to ~ 360 Labour seats, which I don't think they'll get as they'll do less well in other areas but anyway if you're looking at a pro-Labour bet based off 2005 results it fits.
DecrepitJohn Miliband is nothing like Wilson, Wilson was a charismatic opportunist and brilliant intellect, born and raised in Yorkshire. In many ways Cameron resembles Wilson far more than the decent but dull Home, he is also a charismatic opportunist who, like Wilson, is far more interested in power and getting elected than what he actually does with it and also led his party into power after 13 years in opposition by the narrowest of margins. Miliband is far closer to a Gaitskill, ie a north London, social democratic intellectual, than he is to Wilson. Gaitskill of course ultimately lost to an Old Etonian, Cameron's hero Macmillan (who was himself basically a Liberal in Tory clothing like Dave and had his own version of UKIP in the League of Empire Loyalists)
Interesting but flawed analysis. I do not see Cameron as being analogous to Wilson - though indeed to be fair to Wilson he was undoubtedly the possessor of a brilliant mind. Macmillan was no more a 'liberal' than Churchill or Eden. He was a mainstream one-nation conservative. He experienced two wars and a great depression (not to mention post WW2 austerity) , something which no doubt coloured his opinions - a bit like Whitelaw for instance. I see no reason why simply being decent means you must be 'liberal'.
F1: apparently McLaren thought Perez was unco-operative, overbearing and arrogant, and the Sauber engineers didn't like his attitude either.
When deciding on drivers, money and speed matter more (I would suggest), but it doesn't paint Perez in a good light (echoes his on-track performance, sometimes, though). Di Resta may have been able to stay with Force India if he hadn't blamed the team as a first response whenever anything went wrong (until contract negotiations were needed).
Speaking of the Scot, he's trying to return to the sport. He's definitely got the pace, but, alas, money matters a lot now as well.
Interesting article. To be honest I don't know what I think. I agree that we are dangerously focused on a rather narrow-range result, where a shrunken LibDem party still holds the balance. But I've been posting lists of possible vote-switching events for the last year and they've been passing with little effect. Not convinced that many of David's have the potential to shift lots of votes where a booming economy, the phone-hacking trial and many other things have had near-zilch impact. A reshuffle? Shrug.
Reshuffles have the potential to influence events when they go wrong, not so much because of the changes themselves but because of the damage they can do to relations between senior ministers, between ministers and the PM, or between the PM and former ministers who were sacked or resigned in a huff.
IA It may well be another Tory-LD Coalition in my view, the rise of UKIP will prevent a Tory majority even if they win back lost defectors and the LDs have said they will vote down a Tory minority forcing another Coalition
Lots of ifs but were that to happen one would hope that rather than forcing a coalition Cameron would seek a dissolution and a fresh election.
Electorates tend not to take kindly to being re asked a question to which they have just given their answer......
That depends on whether or not the previous answer was "erm, not sure". I don't think there'd be too much kickback if a badly hung parliament lasted only a few months.
Flightpath Of course Cameron, like Wilson sold a few changes at EU level as a 'renegotiation' and grounds to stay in at a subsequent referendum. Macmillan was certainly more liberal and less nationalistic than Churchill and Eden after Suez on the issue of decolonisation, hence the rise of the League of Empire Loyalists, and he was also a corporatist and more accepting of the postwar economic consensus than Churchill. He also tried to take the UK into the EU, just as Cameron is trying to keep us there
"A former social services official has said his warnings about the threat of a Westminster-based paedophile network were ignored because “there were too many of them over there"."
Flightpath Of course Cameron, like Wilson sold a few changes at EU level as a 'renegotiation' and grounds to stay in at a subsequent referendum. Macmillan was certainly more liberal and less nationalistic than Churchill and Eden after Suez on the issue of decolonisation, hence the rise of the League of Empire Loyalists, and he was also a corporatist and more accepting of the postwar economic consensus than Churchill. He also tried to take the UK into the EU, just as Cameron is trying to keep us there
None of which makes him a 'liberal'. Since there was a post war economic consensus then by definition and like everyone else he accepted it.
Cameron has not even started any EU negotiations - so it is a flight of fancy to say he is like Wilson. The conservative party overwhelmingly supported membership of the then EEC and the fact that de Gaulle chose to veto it shows it was a different animal then anyway.
The move from a pre war Empire to a post war Commonwealth is hardly evidence of him being a Liberal. We may have made a better fist of the conversion but we were in no position economically militarily or morally to sustain an empire. Did France and Holland and Belgium hang on to their colonies? Dien Bien Phu was hardly a rivetting success for France.
Macmillan was a mainstream conservative. The Conservative party should continue to be mainstream and not caught up in the fractious infighting as we see with the Republicans and their 'tea party' antics. We need to renegotiate our EU membership because as Cameron has said we do not want to be part of an ever closer union. We can leave the crack pots to UKIP and as I say remain mainstream. You do not have to be a Liberal to be decent.
OnTopic "Will Scotland vote to secede? If so, how will that affect politics both across the UK and in Scotland in particular? If not, will that burst the SNP bubble and if so, to whose benefit?" If the Scots go (against my wishes) and vote No, why would that "burst the SNP bubble"? John Curtice pointed out that the SNP won the last Assembly election because they were viewed as a more competent Govt than Labour, not because of a desire to go independent. For the SNP fired up in the cauldron of this independence campaign, what if they really are strengthening their ground forces, attracting many new activists over? They then enter the GE with one aim. Reduce SLAB. By reducing SLAB the SNP make a future referendum in 10+ years more winnable. If SLAB's best Leader is Mrs Lamont, then the SNP have a very good chance of reducing SLAB next year by a third. "Johann Lamont is very, very angry about whatever it is she is angry about" Andrew Milligan/PA.
Chance of some serious payback for Syria vote by Barry here. Either complete refusal to meet or maybe meet him on The Muppet's set to make Ed feel at home.
Chance of some serious payback for Syria vote by Barry here. Either complete refusal to meet or maybe meet him on The Muppet's set to make Ed feel at home.
Don't know what the payback's supposed to be for. He (OK, mostly Kerry's gaffe and Putin's trolling but a win's a win) saved Obama from getting involved in another war he can't afford, backing a side that he currently wouldn't want to be lumbered with.
This stuff swirls around without any breakthrough such as a senior "live" politician charged. I wonder about the outcome of the investigation into that Labour peer. But are they senior enough and would others be dragged in? Maybe this is the minimum that should happen? http://liberalengland.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/man-with-severe-dementia-convicted-of.html The scandal would be if there was no trial if the evidence was as strong as is reported, but the victims may then use an MP to name the person.
Flightpath Powell etc were anti EEC entry and the fact that Cameron is committed to doing everything he can to retain EU membership is clear. Regardless of the merits or not of decolonisation, the liberal position is essentially anti nationalist and anti Empire and Imperialism by any definition.
Of course Obama never really had any commitment to take action in Syria, as he has shown no commitment to take action in Iraq, leaving Iran and Russia to fill in the gap. He even refused to provide arms to 'moderate' rebels in Syria despite Hillary's protestations as she discloses in her book. Obama's foreign policy is basically summarised as get US troops out of Bush's wars, move away from the Middle East towards the Pacific and waffle and show concern if necessary but ultimately prevaricate and do nothing, in this case Kerry, the classic blowhard, is an ideal accomplice. Miliband really did nothing to undermine Obama's Syrian policy as he never had one in the first place
Flightpath SLab already is at its lowest ebb after the SNP won a majority in 2011, doubt it can go much lower
The contrast between GE10 and Assy11 (constituency) was enormous.
At GE10 SNP got 6 seats with 20% of votes, at the Assy11 SNP got 45% and 53 (73%) of constituency seats. SLAB did the reverse with 41 (69%) of constituency seats and 42% of the vote at GE10 and at Assy11 SLAB had 15 seats with 31% of the vote.
That is why SLAB might lose a lot at GE15 even after they pick up a few LD seats. But are the SNP able to do it?
Of course Obama never really had any commitment to take action in Syria, as he has shown no commitment to take action in Iraq, leaving Iran and Russia to fill in the gap. He even refused to provide arms to 'moderate' rebels in Syria despite Hillary's protestations as she discloses in her book. Obama's foreign policy is basically summarised as get US troops out of Bush's wars, move away from the Middle East towards the Pacific and waffle and show concern if necessary but ultimately prevaricate and do nothing, in this case Kerry, the classic blowhard, is an ideal accomplice. Miliband really did nothing to undermine Obama's Syrian policy as he never had one in the first place
Yet somehow this waffler removed Gadaffi from power, caused the removal of actual WMDs from a Middle Eastern country, and has brought Iran seriously to the negotiating table.
Not really into SPOTY betting much, but worth mentioning the F1 title race could very well go down to the final track (Abu Dhabi, alas). That'd be (race day) 23 November, so that could get people focused on F1.
Must say I'm not convinced Hamilton will get SPOTY even if he wins the title. He might, but it's certainly not a shoe-in (shoo-in?).
TCPolBetting But Westminster voting intention, if Scotland votes No, will have zero impact on any future referendum, which would be determined by Holyrood and the strength of the SNP performance there, already at a record high. If Scotland votes yes, next year's Westminster vote is irrelevant for Scotland anyway
Flightpath Of course Cameron, like Wilson sold a few changes at EU level as a 'renegotiation' and grounds to stay in at a subsequent referendum. Macmillan was certainly more liberal and less nationalistic than Churchill and Eden after Suez on the issue of decolonisation, hence the rise of the League of Empire Loyalists, and he was also a corporatist and more accepting of the postwar economic consensus than Churchill. He also tried to take the UK into the EU, just as Cameron is trying to keep us there
None of which makes him a 'liberal'. Since there was a post war economic consensus then by definition and like everyone else he accepted it.
Cameron has not even started any EU negotiations - so it is a flight of fancy to say he is like Wilson. The conservative party overwhelmingly supported membership of the then EEC and the fact that de Gaulle chose to veto it shows it was a different animal then anyway.
The move from a pre war Empire to a post war Commonwealth is hardly evidence of him being a Liberal. We may have made a better fist of the conversion but we were in no position economically militarily or morally to sustain an empire. Did France and Holland and Belgium hang on to their colonies? Dien Bien Phu was hardly a rivetting success for France.
Macmillan was a mainstream conservative. The Conservative party should continue to be mainstream and not caught up in the fractious infighting as we see with the Republicans and their 'tea party' antics. We need to renegotiate our EU membership because as Cameron has said we do not want to be part of an ever closer union. We can leave the crack pots to UKIP and as I say remain mainstream. You do not have to be a Liberal to be decent.
UKIP's positions on immigration and the EU are just as mainstream as the Conservatives. If not, more so. Slavish followers of the mainstream party like to just use this framing of "mainstream" vs "crackpots" because they can't deal with UKIP's actual arguments. If they could, Cameron wouldn't be running scared of debating them. He chickened out of the EU debate, and he's trying to chicken out of facing Farage in the general election one.
Of course Obama never really had any commitment to take action in Syria, as he has shown no commitment to take action in Iraq, leaving Iran and Russia to fill in the gap. He even refused to provide arms to 'moderate' rebels in Syria despite Hillary's protestations as she discloses in her book. Obama's foreign policy is basically summarised as get US troops out of Bush's wars, move away from the Middle East towards the Pacific and waffle and show concern if necessary but ultimately prevaricate and do nothing, in this case Kerry, the classic blowhard, is an ideal accomplice. Miliband really did nothing to undermine Obama's Syrian policy as he never had one in the first place
Yet somehow this waffler removed Gadaffi from power, caused the removal of actual WMDs from a Middle Eastern country, and has brought Iran seriously to the negotiating table.
Out of interest Socrates who are your favourite American politicians?
You seem to have a generally libertarian outlook but in some areas more classical liberal. And a penchant for Obama. What do you think of Rand Paul for instance?
TCPolBetting But Westminster voting intention, if Scotland votes No, will have zero impact on any future referendum, which would be determined by Holyrood and the strength of the SNP performance there, already at a record high. If Scotland votes yes, next year's Westminster vote is irrelevant for Scotland anyway
This is about party machines. The SNP's only real rival is SLAB. Reduce SLAB's: support, power base, union support and paid activists and the SNP will have a longer period in power. It will also reduce the main support group behind BT.
Of course Obama never really had any commitment to take action in Syria, as he has shown no commitment to take action in Iraq, leaving Iran and Russia to fill in the gap. He even refused to provide arms to 'moderate' rebels in Syria despite Hillary's protestations as she discloses in her book. Obama's foreign policy is basically summarised as get US troops out of Bush's wars, move away from the Middle East towards the Pacific and waffle and show concern if necessary but ultimately prevaricate and do nothing, in this case Kerry, the classic blowhard, is an ideal accomplice. Miliband really did nothing to undermine Obama's Syrian policy as he never had one in the first place
Oooh, Mr. HUYFD, how can you say the Obama never had a policy on Syria? He made it perfectly plain what his red lines in the sand were. When those lines were crossed he jolly well did ... nothing.
From Vietnam onwards the USA has demonstrated that it does not have the bottom for a fight. Kill enough Americans and they will declare victory and go home. Even the one time when the actually won the war they couldn't be bothered to actually finish it and left their local allies at the mercy of the supposed losers.
Not that we in the UK are any better but in the minds of the enemies of the West we don't count for much anyway.
Not really into SPOTY betting much, but worth mentioning the F1 title race could very well go down to the final track (Abu Dhabi, alas). That'd be (race day) 23 November, so that could get people focused on F1.
Must say I'm not convinced Hamilton will get SPOTY even if he wins the title. He might, but it's certainly not a shoe-in (shoo-in?).
Unless there's a hugely popular winner at the Commonwealth Games (as opposed to more of the same), Hamilton may be just about the only candidate, assuming your fellow Yorkshireman Joe Root doesn't sneak into the reckoning (btw .... it is "shoo in").
Socrates It was Sarkozy and Cameron who pushed Gaddaffi's removal, with Obama reluctantly tagging along behind. On Iran, the jury is still out, though at the moment it is Iran which is the main bulwark against ISIS backing Assad and Al-Maliki, not Obama and the US
TCPolBet But SLAB cannot go much lower at Scottish Parliament elections after its abysmal 2011 performance, indeed if it is a No the pendulum will likely swing back a little towards Labour and away from Salmond even if the SNP holds on to power. If it is a Yes, Salmond would be judged on his record, less than brilliant, not anti Westminster rhetoric, which would also help a purely Scottish Labour Party
Socrates It was Sarkozy and Cameron who pushed Gaddaffi's removal, with Obama reluctantly tagging along behind. On Iran, the jury is still out, though at the moment it is Iran which is the main bulwark against ISIS backing Assad and Al-Maliki, not Obama and the US
Mr. HYUFD, if someone could explain how the removal of Gaddaffi was in the interests of the UK I would be grateful. What the *k Cameron though he was doing is quite beyond me.
Sorry TSE just annoyed my betting position has gone down the toilet on the test this morning. Going to head out on the bike at lunch, can't believe how long this partnership is going for.
He's been tremendously successful and has an unblemished record as a gentleman as well as a sportsman.
With Mercedes reliability somewhat suspect (2 DNFs for Hamilton, 1 and a limp across the line in Canada for Rosberg) the season could end up being surprisingly easy for one of the, but my suspicion is it will go down to Abu Dhabi. Another race or two like Bahrain would really fire the public's imagination (hard to believe that dog of a circuit produced such a fantastic race).
Incidentally, I watched the Senna documentary for the first time last night. Very well put together, but had a touch of the panegyric about it. Not being into the sport at the time, it's hard to say if Prost deserved his casting as villain.
Socrates It was Sarkozy and Cameron who pushed Gaddaffi's removal, with Obama reluctantly tagging along behind. On Iran, the jury is still out, though at the moment it is Iran which is the main bulwark against ISIS backing Assad and Al-Maliki, not Obama and the US
Mr. HYUFD, if someone could explain how the removal of Gaddaffi was in the interests of the UK I would be grateful. What the *k Cameron though he was doing is quite beyond me.
The reason given to oppose Gaddaffi was that he was bombing his own people.
Comments
IA - you are absolutely right and this is something that Labour does not want to acknowledge as it happened under their watch - remember ministers applauding ever improving results whilst ignoring the UK slipping down the PISA and other rankings - Welsh Labour have just woken up to this fact.
But many educationalists still refuse to admit the error of their theories and ways and present a vocal and influential barrier to education improvement and prefer to defend their theories than worry about the education of our children today so that they can compete in a global economy.
So the UK has a huge problem of hundreds of thousands of people who are under/uneducated and are unemployable in a global market.
Furthermore, many had been falsely classified under incapacity benefit and now they have been pushed onto the job-seekers allowance, are very angry and have no intention of seeking work as their life on benefits was OK and comfortable. Also many do not see why they should relocate to where the work is as they want to continue living where they are - and they see it is HMG's responsibility to pay them to bring up their own children.
So these people will not see the benefit of an improving economy, but will remain an underclass and the4 gap will grow between them and the rest.
What reasons are there to prefer Ed over Gordon ?
And why were people "falsely classified" onto IB? To keep down the numbers of people classified as unemployed.
My own preferred 2015 outcome would be for a resurgent LD party to gain seats and form part of the next government, moderating whoever forms the largest party. I also recognise that this is unlikely!
However a concerned voter.
Gordon was indecisive while Ed is capable of decisive action (such as running against his own brother)
Gordon was guilty of over borrowing and causing the countries deficit problem. Ed is innocent of this.
Gordon was a bully who crushed dissent, Ed is a listener who is willing to have internal policy differences debated openly in his team.
Gordon was Old Labour; Ed has some trade union support but also a more outward looking approach and is open to other ideas.
Gordon was parochial. Ed is the son of refugee immigrants and completely assimilated to British life. While others can talk about integration and what it means to the country, Ed has lived it.
Finally, I quite like Eds geekiness. This is a country sick of spin and PR, Cameron and Blair.
Mr. Foxinsox, I'd be inclined to agree on 'geekiness' (clunky term, I think Miliband comes across a bit weirder than that) except that he's not embracing his inner geek, as it were, and has instead adopted Blairite mannerisms and speech patterns.
The Scottish question has to be resolved first. Although No is likely to win it's not a foregone conclusion, and if Yes wins I strongly suspect (as I've said for a while) it'll be springtime for the SNP and Conservatives (ahem, north and south of the border, respectively).
Does Vanilla have an admin tick-box to allow a similar tag for those who wish?
Why do you want strap lines on posters ? Ban righties that don't share groupthink ? Ensure a fairness agenda and equality of posts for all ? What's next ? Weight ? religion ? inside leg ?
Although I think Labour made a mistake electing EdM, I think he will be PM with a small majority. There were better candidates around but they chose a fiercely ambitious man who grew up cocooned in a cloud of middle-class left-wingery. He may be a nice man in private but he comes over as a product of his upbringing. A little like a posh Tory but without the noblesse oblige they are often given credit for.
But after periods of austerity, the voters don't always vote in gratitude. They vote for a future potential not a past achievement. Churchill didn't receive the votes of a grateful nation in 1945. We have a deficit still of 100,000,000,000 pounds a year (and a debt approaching 1.5 trillion), yet there's an expectation that better times are ahead. Labour are good at spending money and that optimistic expectation may win enough over.
He'll not feature prominently in the GE campaign - he knows his limitations.
All politicians should learn to embrace their inner geek. Ken was known for his newt fancying, Boris is unafraid of showing his Eton education. They were comfortable with themselves.
Ed does have a certain gaucheness that comes from his background. It is not nessecary to love football and bacon butties to prove oneself British. Tony Benn was a teetotal intellectual but represented a long British tradition of these things. The country is quite tolerant of personal eccentricity, indeed the embracement of eccentricity is a core British value!
Someone like Mary Robinson, the ex-President of Ireland, a distinguished lawyer in her own right, would be a good choice.
Also, I think I can add that should you meet Ed the odds on your liking him would be pretty high.
On another subject, since we don't seem to be getting a new thread for this morning:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/11/germany-us-john-kerry-talks-espionage
There's an interesting cultural clash here. Germany is quite a deferential culture in many ways, but the establishment itself is quite libertarian - partly memories of the Stasi and partly going further back to Hitler make people like Merkel think that an allied power tapping her phone is disgusting.
By contrast in the Anglo-Saxon world there's a general feeling that it's unfortunate but it happens, shrug. When Gerry Adams discovered a bug in his car during the peace talks, he liaised with London to play it down - "we'll express shock, you don't comment, we'll move on" was the general flavour. Washington expects Merkel to take the same sort of line and is I think genuinely baffled that she won't.
No, Nick. The job requires someone who is both trained as a lawyer and who has long experience of hearing child abuse cases in a judicial capacity, particularly in hearing and evaluating witness statements from vulnerable victims as well as from a powerful establishment; is familiar with the lobbying pressures brought to bear on public inquiry work of this nature; and understands how the major institutions of the country work.
Apart from Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss's age and family connections to the Attorney-General in the 1980s, she is perfectly qualified for the job. It would be difficult to propose any individual better qualified.
As she will chair a panel rather than sit alone, she can always delegate any task which might involve a perceived conflict of interest to another member. She stood down from the chair of the Princess Diana Coroner's Inquiry when a jury was added to the proceedings on the grounds that she lacked experience of jury trials. This shows that she is capable of realising her limitations and of making decisions accordingly.
On her age, this all rather depends how long the inquiry will go on. The subject matter could easily occupy a decade of inquiry process but I expect that, at present, Cameron and the Home Office are looking at a one year to eighteen months timescale. She should be fine for that.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/agenda-let-me-explain-why-i-am-a-unionist-and-will-vote-no-in-the-referendum.24707184
An independent Scotland would be entitled to charge whatever fees it likes of whoever it likes. As an independent country it would not be bound by EU law or indeed any law other than its own. However, if the man thinks that Scottish universities will benefit from research grants funded by the rUK taxpayers he is off his head. Being independent means been independent.
Maybe a Royal Commission would be in order? If Butler-Sloss is too "involved" why not have an investigation headed by Charles, Prince-of-Wales...?
If Scotland does vote for independence, Cameron is going to be in trouble as the PM who lost the union. Yes Labour will lose MP's in 2016/17, whenever the date of separation is, but it will make them work harder in England/Wales to gain enough seats, so that the loss of Scottish MP's did not affect their majority. The Tories and Lib Dems could lose votes in England/Wales due to them losing the union. People who are unionists living in England/Wales won't be very happy.
I can't think of that many historical parallels (at Parliament level - there was that LibDem seat where the majority changed from about 10 votes to about 20,000 when it was rerun).
The three British ones that come to mind are 1974 (Lab minority gov, became majority in 2nd election), 1964/66 (very small Lab majority, became large one two years later) and 1950/51 (very small Lab majority overturned next year). The common feature seems to be that the party that gained ground in the first election is seen to have won the right to govern, and if there's another election they get a proper mandate.
That was in the back of my mind when I was in the "don't let's try too hard to hang on" camp in 2010 (not that I had any say in it as I was out myself) - I think people felt we were won out and a limp Lab-led coalition trying to hang on would have been decisively rejected a year later. The same is problably true if 2015 ends in a virtual tie - the Tories and LibDems will have lost lots of seats if that happens, and if they hung on and called a fresh election 6 months later, I don't think it would end well.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28261524
It's terms of reference were:
If so requested by the Prime Minister, to investigate and report upon the circumstances in which a breach of security is known to have occurred in the public service and upon any related failure of departmental security arrangements or neglect of duty; and, in the light of any such investigations, to advise whether any change in security arrangements is necessary or desirable.
So EB-S will be under no illusions about the capability and willingness of senior officials to break rules and will be fully familiar with "the establishment" then seeking to protect the breaches by frustrating external inquiry. In effect she has been the country's highest ranking "uncoverer-up in chief" for a decade.
They won it in 2005 (Quite handsomely actually)
Labour did very well in both Reading seats in the local elections. Survation polled the seat and it was favourable for Labour. It corresponds to ~ 360 Labour seats, which I don't think they'll get as they'll do less well in other areas but anyway if you're looking at a pro-Labour bet based off 2005 results it fits.
Macmillan was no more a 'liberal' than Churchill or Eden. He was a mainstream one-nation conservative.
He experienced two wars and a great depression (not to mention post WW2 austerity) , something which no doubt coloured his opinions - a bit like Whitelaw for instance. I see no reason why simply being decent means you must be 'liberal'.
We can therefore safely say that Ed Miliband will never be Prime Minister. He's far too weird.
When deciding on drivers, money and speed matter more (I would suggest), but it doesn't paint Perez in a good light (echoes his on-track performance, sometimes, though). Di Resta may have been able to stay with Force India if he hadn't blamed the team as a first response whenever anything went wrong (until contract negotiations were needed).
Speaking of the Scot, he's trying to return to the sport. He's definitely got the pace, but, alas, money matters a lot now as well.
Is that enough of a difference to make band betting worthwhile ? Is it worth transforming Labour 376 seats from a winner to El Busto....
Note it isn't arbable due to betfair commission and the fact you can't back and lay at the same price.
I guess the implication is there is no value in the 9-2 Labour 326 - 350 band, hence there might be some in the next one up..
Hmmm...
Massive green on India, £17.97 red on the draw now.
"A former social services official has said his warnings about the threat of a Westminster-based paedophile network were ignored because “there were too many of them over there"."
Cameron has not even started any EU negotiations - so it is a flight of fancy to say he is like Wilson. The conservative party overwhelmingly supported membership of the then EEC and the fact that de Gaulle chose to veto it shows it was a different animal then anyway.
The move from a pre war Empire to a post war Commonwealth is hardly evidence of him being a Liberal. We may have made a better fist of the conversion but we were in no position economically militarily or morally to sustain an empire. Did France and Holland and Belgium hang on to their colonies? Dien Bien Phu was hardly a rivetting success for France.
Macmillan was a mainstream conservative. The Conservative party should continue to be mainstream and not caught up in the fractious infighting as we see with the Republicans and their 'tea party' antics. We need to renegotiate our EU membership because as Cameron has said we do not want to be part of an ever closer union. We can leave the crack pots to UKIP and as I say remain mainstream. You do not have to be a Liberal to be decent.
If the Scots go (against my wishes) and vote No, why would that "burst the SNP bubble"? John Curtice pointed out that the SNP won the last Assembly election because they were viewed as a more competent Govt than Labour, not because of a desire to go independent. For the SNP fired up in the cauldron of this independence campaign, what if they really are strengthening their ground forces, attracting many new activists over? They then enter the GE with one aim. Reduce SLAB. By reducing SLAB the SNP make a future referendum in 10+ years more winnable. If SLAB's best Leader is Mrs Lamont, then the SNP have a very good chance of reducing SLAB next year by a third.
"Johann Lamont is very, very angry about whatever it is she is angry about" Andrew Milligan/PA.
India +333.93
Draw -37.37
Current value -£6 or so...
Jimmy is doing my money here :P
http://liberalengland.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/man-with-severe-dementia-convicted-of.html
The scandal would be if there was no trial if the evidence was as strong as is reported, but the victims may then use an MP to name the person.
At GE10 SNP got 6 seats with 20% of votes, at the Assy11 SNP got 45% and 53 (73%) of constituency seats.
SLAB did the reverse with 41 (69%) of constituency seats and 42% of the vote at GE10 and at Assy11 SLAB had 15 seats with 31% of the vote.
That is why SLAB might lose a lot at GE15 even after they pick up a few LD seats. But are the SNP able to do it?
Thing is I know as soon as I trade out of my position (£12.75 loss now) bang will go the wicket.
Must say I'm not convinced Hamilton will get SPOTY even if he wins the title. He might, but it's certainly not a shoe-in (shoo-in?).
You seem to have a generally libertarian outlook but in some areas more classical liberal. And a penchant for Obama. What do you think of Rand Paul for instance?
From Vietnam onwards the USA has demonstrated that it does not have the bottom for a fight. Kill enough Americans and they will declare victory and go home. Even the one time when the actually won the war they couldn't be bothered to actually finish it and left their local allies at the mercy of the supposed losers.
Not that we in the UK are any better but in the minds of the enemies of the West we don't count for much anyway.
You might be right. But then, Giggs came totally out of left field in 2009. I wonder if someone like Gerard might not be a shock winner.
*beams*
Labour to present Ed Miliband as a dull but competent alternative to David Cameron
Party official concede that efforts to overhaul his geeky image have failed
Wife Justine Thornton to be given bigger profile during election campaign
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2689439/Labours-new-vote-winning-ploy-election-Present-Ed-Miliband-Mr-Normal.html
Sounds like the "Not Flash, Just Gordon" playbook is being dusted off.
He's been tremendously successful and has an unblemished record as a gentleman as well as a sportsman.
With Mercedes reliability somewhat suspect (2 DNFs for Hamilton, 1 and a limp across the line in Canada for Rosberg) the season could end up being surprisingly easy for one of the, but my suspicion is it will go down to Abu Dhabi. Another race or two like Bahrain would really fire the public's imagination (hard to believe that dog of a circuit produced such a fantastic race).
Incidentally, I watched the Senna documentary for the first time last night. Very well put together, but had a touch of the panegyric about it. Not being into the sport at the time, it's hard to say if Prost deserved his casting as villain.
So my attempts to trouser nearly 12k, have gone down the toilet.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BsV55AUIcAAe0Oi.jpg
I KNOW as soon as I cash out the wicket will go.