I just don't see how labour can keep its coalition together. Look at the Gaza thing. I'm sure Ed's comments shored up the muslim vote, but what would it do for the WWC supporters? only confirm what they are already thinking. Vote UKIP.
If Ed gets tougher he's only going to upset the immigrant and metro supporters. As well as make the rest of the electorate p*ss themselves laughing.
And so we have the most ludicrous fudge that unravels at slightest examination.
Fascinating that the FT is producing an article about Dave's exit schedule and succession after winning next year. The fact that the chances of him winning next year are fairly remote anyway doesn't seem to matter. The media narrative in this country seems to be that Cameron is a winner and Miliband a loser, although only one of them has a fought an election as leader and he didn't win it.
What about another hung parliament like this one? What sort of bold offer would Dave make to the Lib Dems next time? In fact what sort of offer would he be allowed to make by his party? Some of whom we expect to be gunning for him the morning after the election if he does give them their promised majority.
Cameron won the popular vote, he gained the most MPs, saw the biggest increase in Tory MPs in one parliament.
You have a strange definition of winning.
If the results had been reversed, Lab would have won a majority of 100 plus.
You also neglect to mention, that Labour are publicly talking that Ed won't be allowed to fight a 2020 election if he doesn't win next year.
@FrankBooth If Dave stands down, will the Tories on here be calling for fresh elections like they did when Blair resigned?
IIRC most Tories on here said there shouldn't be a general election when Blair stood down, just like when Major replaced Thatcher and Callaghan replaced Wilson.
The only people calling for a fresh election were the Brownites so their man could have a mandate, I mean, we had Labour MPs writing
'Shortly there will be an election, in which Labour will increase its majority'
It's not immigration most Ukip voters need to worry about,it's their prostate gland.More research,better testing and regular NHS therapy-these sort of popular policy initiatives are the way to attract voters away from Ukip,not by fighting them on their own pre-prepared cricket pitch. As for the Tories,Johnson enters fray and,what else,bangs on about Europe.He must know his old mate Dave is going to lose and he smells blood,these Old Etonians know no mercy.
"How much further can it fall? Are we past peak UKIP? Will they now plumb back to the depths of the 3% they managed to attract in 2010? Or is this merely a Summer blip, addressed by renewed vigour in Autumn? Both circumstances have their pitfalls for Labour.
Some strategists at Labour HQ are banking on this being a blip. They believe that if UKIP poll 9% or more next year, they will have taken enough votes from the Tories to ensure Miliband enters Number 10. By their reckoning, if UKIP’s vote continues to drop, a Tory resurgence will spell trouble for Labour.
In an interview yesterday, however, Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls said he was “not comfortable” with UKIP getting 9% in “the medium or long term”, suggesting there are deep disagreements at the top of the party about how much of a threat Nigel Farage’s party are to Labour. He’s right to be uncomfortable.Balls is right to be uncomfortable: too many in our Party are deluding themselves about UKIP. They are going to be very, very damaging to us.
A quick glance at Lord Ashcoft’s recent marginal polling should be enough of a warning. Not only are UKIP on track to win some of our main target seats, there are some constituencies where they are attracting so many swing voters that they split the anti-Tory vote, leaving the Conservatives in place.
I can only assume that those who advocate a 9% UKIP vote must be blinkered by London-centric view of politics. On the morning of May 23rd, having stayed up through the night for LabourList’s election liveblog, I was reflecting on a poor night so far for Labour."
I really couldn't care less whether Cameron or Miliband is PM this time next year, but Labours approach to winning by doing little other than look at the stats/electoral system flaws needed to gain power is cynical to say the least, and it makes me kind of hope they fail.
Oh but you will - Cam = PM means a referendum.. Ed means none meaning you can moan endlessly.
"How much further can it fall? Are we past peak UKIP? Will they now plumb back to the depths of the 3% they managed to attract in 2010? Or is this merely a Summer blip, addressed by renewed vigour in Autumn? Both circumstances have their pitfalls for Labour.
Some strategists at Labour HQ are banking on this being a blip. They believe that if UKIP poll 9% or more next year, they will have taken enough votes from the Tories to ensure Miliband enters Number 10. By their reckoning, if UKIP’s vote continues to drop, a Tory resurgence will spell trouble for Labour.
In an interview yesterday, however, Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls said he was “not comfortable” with UKIP getting 9% in “the medium or long term”, suggesting there are deep disagreements at the top of the party about how much of a threat Nigel Farage’s party are to Labour. He’s right to be uncomfortable.Balls is right to be uncomfortable: too many in our Party are deluding themselves about UKIP. They are going to be very, very damaging to us.
A quick glance at Lord Ashcoft’s recent marginal polling should be enough of a warning. Not only are UKIP on track to win some of our main target seats, there are some constituencies where they are attracting so many swing voters that they split the anti-Tory vote, leaving the Conservatives in place.
I can only assume that those who advocate a 9% UKIP vote must be blinkered by London-centric view of politics. On the morning of May 23rd, having stayed up through the night for LabourList’s election liveblog, I was reflecting on a poor night so far for Labour."
I really couldn't care less whether Cameron or Miliband is PM this time next year, but Labours approach to winning by doing little other than look at the stats/electoral system flaws needed to gain power is cynical to say the least, and it makes me kind of hope they fail.
Oh but you will - Cam = PM means a referendum.. Ed means none meaning you can moan endlessly.
Fascinating that the FT is producing an article about Dave's exit schedule and succession after winning next year. The fact that the chances of him winning next year are fairly remote anyway doesn't seem to matter. The media narrative in this country seems to be that Cameron is a winner and Miliband a loser, although only one of them has a fought an election as leader and he didn't win it.
What about another hung parliament like this one? What sort of bold offer would Dave make to the Lib Dems next time? In fact what sort of offer would he be allowed to make by his party? Some of whom we expect to be gunning for him the morning after the election if he does give them their promised majority.
Cameron won the popular vote, he gained the most MPs, saw the biggest increase in Tory MPs in one parliament.
You have a strange definition of winning.
If the results had been reversed, Lab would have won a majority of 100 plus.
You also neglect to mention, that Labour are publicly talking that Ed won't be allowed to fight a 2020 election if he doesn't win next year.
FPTP is a system that is supposed to give decisive results. If you can't get a majority under FPTP I'd suggests that shows you haven't 'won'. As for popular vote, it's as irrelevant to determining the winner as number of shots on target is to who wins the Premier League. British elections are about seats not votes - as I''d have a thought a supporter of a FPTP/anti-PR party would realise.
As for the biggest increase in the number of MPs - again irrelevant to victory. So what if Cameron did a lot better than Howard who won fewer seats in 2005 than Labour in 1983. After 3 dire elections there was a lot of room for improvement. But that's a comment on the Conservative party itself not the British electorate.
"How much further can it fall? Are we past peak UKIP? Will they now plumb back to the depths of the 3% they managed to attract in 2010? Or is this merely a Summer blip, addressed by renewed vigour in Autumn? Both circumstances have their pitfalls for Labour.
Some strategists at Labour HQ are banking on this being a blip. They believe that if UKIP poll 9% or more next year, they will have taken enough votes from the Tories to ensure Miliband enters Number 10. By their reckoning, if UKIP’s vote continues to drop, a Tory resurgence will spell trouble for Labour.
In an interview yesterday, however, Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls said he was “not comfortable” with UKIP getting 9% in “the medium or long term”, suggesting there are deep disagreements at the top of the party about how much of a threat Nigel Farage’s party are to Labour. He’s right to be uncomfortable.Balls is right to be uncomfortable: too many in our Party are deluding themselves about UKIP. They are going to be very, very damaging to us.
A quick glance at Lord Ashcoft’s recent marginal polling should be enough of a warning. Not only are UKIP on track to win some of our main target seats, there are some constituencies where they are attracting so many swing voters that they split the anti-Tory vote, leaving the Conservatives in place.
I can only assume that those who advocate a 9% UKIP vote must be blinkered by London-centric view of politics. On the morning of May 23rd, having stayed up through the night for LabourList’s election liveblog, I was reflecting on a poor night so far for Labour."
I really couldn't care less whether Cameron or Miliband is PM this time next year, but Labours approach to winning by doing little other than look at the stats/electoral system flaws needed to gain power is cynical to say the least, and it makes me kind of hope they fail.
Oh but you will - Cam = PM means a referendum.. Ed means none meaning you can moan endlessly.
"How much further can it fall? Are we past peak UKIP? Will they now plumb back to the depths of the 3% they managed to attract in 2010? Or is this merely a Summer blip, addressed by renewed vigour in Autumn? Both circumstances have their pitfalls for Labour.
Some strategists at Labour HQ are banking on this being a blip. They believe that if UKIP poll 9% or more next year, they will have taken enough votes from the Tories to ensure Miliband enters Number 10. By their reckoning, if UKIP’s vote continues to drop, a Tory resurgence will spell trouble for Labour.
In an interview yesterday, however, Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls said he was “not comfortable” with UKIP getting 9% in “the medium or long term”, suggesting there are deep disagreements at the top of the party about how much of a threat Nigel Farage’s party are to Labour. He’s right to be uncomfortable.Balls is right to be uncomfortable: too many in our Party are deluding themselves about UKIP. They are going to be very, very damaging to us.
A quick glance at Lord Ashcoft’s recent marginal polling should be enough of a warning. Not only are UKIP on track to win some of our main target seats, there are some constituencies where they are attracting so many swing voters that they split the anti-Tory vote, leaving the Conservatives in place.
I can only assume that those who advocate a 9% UKIP vote must be blinkered by London-centric view of politics. On the morning of May 23rd, having stayed up through the night for LabourList’s election liveblog, I was reflecting on a poor night so far for Labour."
I really couldn't care less whether Cameron or Miliband is PM this time next year, but Labours approach to winning by doing little other than look at the stats/electoral system flaws needed to gain power is cynical to say the least, and it makes me kind of hope they fail.
Oh but you will - Cam = PM means a referendum.. Ed means none meaning you can moan endlessly.
"Cam = PM means a referendum"
Does it? He is PM now
Yes.
I think you are wrong.. have a think
I am willing to bet you that Cameron will be PM in 2017 and there is no referendum...
@TheScreamingEagles Go look it up. The premise at the time was that Blair had said he would serve the full term, and in resigning, there were calls from some Tory politicians that a general election should be held on the basis he had broken his word. A call that was readily taken up by many on here.
Even though we invented tanks, we have be rubbish at them ever since.
British WW2 tanks were a complete disgrace. Even the Americans' borrowed Shermans were known by the Germans as 'Tommy cookers'.
Actually the British comnverted the Shermans into one of their most successful forms - the Firefly - which was the version the German's feared the most as it was the only one capable of knocking out Panthers and Tigers.
They also mostly used diesel versions as opposed to the US petrol driven versions which made them far less likely to catch fire of hit.
"How much further can it fall? Are we past peak UKIP? Will they now plumb back to the depths of the 3% they managed to attract in 2010? Or is this merely a Summer blip, addressed by renewed vigour in Autumn? Both circumstances have their pitfalls for Labour.
Some strategists at Labour HQ are banking on this being a blip. They believe that if UKIP poll 9% or more next year, they will have taken enough votes from the Tories to ensure Miliband enters Number 10. By their reckoning, if UKIP’s vote continues to drop, a Tory resurgence will spell trouble for Labour.
In an interview yesterday, however, Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls said he was “not comfortable” with UKIP getting 9% in “the medium or long term”, suggesting there are deep disagreements at the top of the party about how much of a threat Nigel Farage’s party are to Labour. He’s right to be uncomfortable.Balls is right to be uncomfortable: too many in our Party are deluding themselves about UKIP. They are going to be very, very damaging to us.
A quick glance at Lord Ashcoft’s recent marginal polling should be enough of a warning. Not only are UKIP on track to win some of our main target seats, there are some constituencies where they are attracting so many swing voters that they split the anti-Tory vote, leaving the Conservatives in place.
I can only assume that those who advocate a 9% UKIP vote must be blinkered by London-centric view of politics. On the morning of May 23rd, having stayed up through the night for LabourList’s election liveblog, I was reflecting on a poor night so far for Labour."
I really couldn't care less whether Cameron or Miliband is PM this time next year, but Labours approach to winning by doing little other than look at the stats/electoral system flaws needed to gain power is cynical to say the least, and it makes me kind of hope they fail.
Oh but you will - Cam = PM means a referendum.. Ed means none meaning you can moan endlessly.
"Cam = PM means a referendum"
Does it? He is PM now
Yes.
I think you are wrong.. have a think
No I'm pretty sure Cam is PM - perhaps someone will confirm - wikipedia ?
@TheScreamingEagles Go look it up. The premise at the time was that Blair had said he would serve the full term, and in resigning, there were calls from some Tory politicians that a general election should be held on the basis he had broken his word. A call that was readily taken up by many on here.
"How much further can it fall? Are we past peak UKIP? Will they now plumb back to the depths of the 3% they managed to attract in 2010? Or is this merely a Summer blip, addressed by renewed vigour in Autumn? Both circumstances have their pitfalls for Labour.
Some strategists at Labour HQ are banking on this being a blip. They believe that if UKIP poll 9% or more next year, they will have taken enough votes from the Tories to ensure Miliband enters Number 10. By their reckoning, if UKIP’s vote continues to drop, a Tory resurgence will spell trouble for Labour.
In an interview yesterday, however, Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls said he was “not comfortable” with UKIP getting 9% in “the medium or long term”, suggesting there are deep disagreements at the top of the party about how much of a threat Nigel Farage’s party are to Labour. He’s right to be uncomfortable.Balls is right to be uncomfortable: too many in our Party are deluding themselves about UKIP. They are going to be very, very damaging to us.
A quick glance at Lord Ashcoft’s recent marginal polling should be enough of a warning. Not only are UKIP on track to win some of our main target seats, there are some constituencies where they are attracting so many swing voters that they split the anti-Tory vote, leaving the Conservatives in place.
I can only assume that those who advocate a 9% UKIP vote must be blinkered by London-centric view of politics. On the morning of May 23rd, having stayed up through the night for LabourList’s election liveblog, I was reflecting on a poor night so far for Labour."
I really couldn't care less whether Cameron or Miliband is PM this time next year, but Labours approach to winning by doing little other than look at the stats/electoral system flaws needed to gain power is cynical to say the least, and it makes me kind of hope they fail.
Oh but you will - Cam = PM means a referendum.. Ed means none meaning you can moan endlessly.
"Cam = PM means a referendum"
Does it? He is PM now
Yes.
I think you are wrong.. have a think
No I'm pretty sure Cam is PM - perhaps someone will confirm - wikipedia ?
Less of the unfunny smugness... Ill bet you 6/4 Cameron is PM in 2017 and there is no referendum
@TheScreamingEagles Easier for you, as you are a mod? And I have given up doing google searches for PB atm as my browser is full of other more important stuff.
I just don't see how labour can keep its coalition together. Look at the Gaza thing. I'm sure Ed's comments shored up the muslim vote, but what would it do for the WWC supporters? only confirm what they are already thinking. Vote UKIP.
If Ed gets tougher he's only going to upset the immigrant and metro supporters. As well as make the rest of the electorate p*ss themselves laughing.
And so we have the most ludicrous fudge that unravels at slightest examination.
WWC people are generally NOT inclined to support children being shot at. Even if there’s a suggestion of human shields ....... that’s a comment, not my personal view ........ it wouldn’t make a lot of difference. Ed criticising the Israelis is likely to make the WWC agree with the Muslims. IMHO.
@TheScreamingEagles Easier for you, as you are a mod? And I have given up doing google searches for PB atm as my browser is full of other more important stuff.
Nope, not a mod, not for yonks.
You're the one making assertions, until you back up your assertions, we can dismiss your witterings.
"How much further can it fall? Are we past peak UKIP? Will they now plumb back to the depths of the 3% they managed to attract in 2010? Or is this merely a Summer blip, addressed by renewed vigour in Autumn? Both circumstances have their pitfalls for Labour.
Some strategists at Labour HQ are banking on this being a blip. They believe that if UKIP poll 9% or more next year, they will have taken enough votes from the Tories to ensure Miliband enters Number 10. By their reckoning, if UKIP’s vote continues to drop, a Tory resurgence will spell trouble for Labour.
In an interview yesterday, however, Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls said he was “not comfortable” with UKIP getting 9% in “the medium or long term”, suggesting there are deep disagreements at the top of the party about how much of a threat Nigel Farage’s party are to Labour. He’s right to be uncomfortable.Balls is right to be uncomfortable: too many in our Party are deluding themselves about UKIP. They are going to be very, very damaging to us.
A quick glance at Lord Ashcoft’s recent marginal polling should be enough of a warning. Not only are UKIP on track to win some of our main target seats, there are some constituencies where they are attracting so many swing voters that they split the anti-Tory vote, leaving the Conservatives in place.
I can only assume that those who advocate a 9% UKIP vote must be blinkered by London-centric view of politics. On the morning of May 23rd, having stayed up through the night for LabourList’s election liveblog, I was reflecting on a poor night so far for Labour."
I really couldn't care less whether Cameron or Miliband is PM this time next year, but Labours approach to winning by doing little other than look at the stats/electoral system flaws needed to gain power is cynical to say the least, and it makes me kind of hope they fail.
Oh but you will - Cam = PM means a referendum.. Ed means none meaning you can moan endlessly.
"Cam = PM means a referendum"
Does it? He is PM now
Yes.
I think you are wrong.. have a think
No I'm pretty sure Cam is PM - perhaps someone will confirm - wikipedia ?
Less of the unfunny smugness... Ill bet you 6/4 Cameron is PM in 2017 and there is no referendum
"How much further can it fall? Are we past peak UKIP? Will they now plumb back to the depths of the 3% they managed to attract in 2010? Or is this merely a Summer blip, addressed by renewed vigour in Autumn? Both circumstances have their pitfalls for Labour.
Some strategists at Labour HQ are banking on this being a blip. They believe that if UKIP poll 9% or more next year, they will have taken enough votes from the Tories to ensure Miliband enters Number 10. By their reckoning, if UKIP’s vote continues to drop, a Tory resurgence will spell trouble for Labour.
In an interview yesterday, however, Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls said he was “not comfortable” with UKIP getting 9% in “the medium or long term”, suggesting there are deep disagreements at the top of the party about how much of a threat Nigel Farage’s party are to Labour. He’s right to be uncomfortable.Balls is right to be uncomfortable: too many in our Party are deluding themselves about UKIP. They are going to be very, very damaging to us.
A quick glance at Lord Ashcoft’s recent marginal polling should be enough of a warning. Not only are UKIP on track to win some of our main target seats, there are some constituencies where they are attracting so many swing voters that they split the anti-Tory vote, leaving the Conservatives in place.
I can only assume that those who advocate a 9% UKIP vote must be blinkered by London-centric view of politics. On the morning of May 23rd, having stayed up through the night for LabourList’s election liveblog, I was reflecting on a poor night so far for Labour."
I really couldn't care less whether Cameron or Miliband is PM this time next year, but Labours approach to winning by doing little other than look at the stats/electoral system flaws needed to gain power is cynical to say the least, and it makes me kind of hope they fail.
Oh but you will - Cam = PM means a referendum.. Ed means none meaning you can moan endlessly.
"Cam = PM means a referendum"
Does it? He is PM now
Yes.
I think you are wrong.. have a think
No I'm pretty sure Cam is PM - perhaps someone will confirm - wikipedia ?
Less of the unfunny smugness... Ill bet you 6/4 Cameron is PM in 2017 and there is no referendum
"How much further can it fall? Are we past peak UKIP? Will they now plumb back to the depths of the 3% they managed to attract in 2010? Or is this merely a Summer blip, addressed by renewed vigour in Autumn? Both circumstances have their pitfalls for Labour.
Some strategists at Labour HQ are banking on this being a blip. They believe that if UKIP poll 9% or more next year, they will have taken enough votes from the Tories to ensure Miliband enters Number 10. By their reckoning, if UKIP’s vote continues to drop, a Tory resurgence will spell trouble for Labour.
In an interview yesterday, however, Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls said he was “not comfortable” with UKIP getting 9% in “the medium or long term”, suggesting there are deep disagreements at the top of the party about how much of a threat Nigel Farage’s party are to Labour. He’s right to be uncomfortable.Balls is right to be uncomfortable: too many in our Party are deluding themselves about UKIP. They are going to be very, very damaging to us.
A quick glance at Lord Ashcoft’s recent marginal polling should be enough of a warning. Not only are UKIP on track to win some of our main target seats, there are some constituencies where they are attracting so many swing voters that they split the anti-Tory vote, leaving the Conservatives in place.
I can only assume that those who advocate a 9% UKIP vote must be blinkered by London-centric view of politics. On the morning of May 23rd, having stayed up through the night for LabourList’s election liveblog, I was reflecting on a poor night so far for Labour."
I really couldn't care less whether Cameron or Miliband is PM this time next year, but Labours approach to winning by doing little other than look at the stats/electoral system flaws needed to gain power is cynical to say the least, and it makes me kind of hope they fail.
Oh but you will - Cam = PM means a referendum.. Ed means none meaning you can moan endlessly.
"Cam = PM means a referendum"
Does it? He is PM now
Yes.
I think you are wrong.. have a think
No I'm pretty sure Cam is PM - perhaps someone will confirm - wikipedia ?
Less of the unfunny smugness... Ill bet you 6/4 Cameron is PM in 2017 and there is no referendum
If you want you or your children to have a house or a job vote Conservative.
oops didn't mean to post at that point. Going on...
That is one of the ways that the tories must go after the ex Lib Dems and in particular the softer part of the Labour vote, those who are really not sure Ed is up to it.
Rod did say that around September we would get regular crossovers in the polling. YouGov has shown leads 3% or under for a few polls now and the Tories on 35 points as well. He was right that May would bring the first bout of crossover...
(Now we wait for tonight's inevitable YouGov showing a 9 point Labour lead!)
I think Charles has a good point, BUT, since those Lab/LD’s in the SW will have thought about their vote are they not likely to do as many Labour voters did after Iraq; vote the way they’ve done before, albeit with considerable personal reservations?
What is surprising to me is that there appears be no Tory>LD shift in those seats ....... eg Burnley, Hornsey & Wood Green ........ where a LD hold will reduce the chance of a Lab majority.
Unless no-one’s done the polling!
One of the reasons for "bias" in the system is that Tories almost never do tactical voting but anti-Tories do. My guess is that come polling day this will be the same again.
Doesn’t say much for the political acumen of the average Tory!
OGH is correct, Tories believe in what the party stands for through thick and thin. We do not do tactical voting. Hence in Scotland even when being a Tory was akin to having the plague, 300,000+ still voted Tory. In 2010 that had risen to 412,000 and a good chance that will reach 500,000 next year.
One of the reasons i'm pro independence is that it may eventually lead to a more balanced left/right spectrum in Scotland. I have more reasons, but this is one of them...
I would share your aspirations - but I think you have to steel yourself to the fact that an independent Scotland would be a lefty utopia for a long time. Or at least until reality strikes.
Only if by chance Labour were to get in power, so be after 2020 at least I would expect
"How much further can it fall? Are we past peak UKIP? Will they now plumb back to the depths of the 3% they managed to attract in 2010? Or is this merely a Summer blip, addressed by renewed vigour in Autumn? Both circumstances have their pitfalls for Labour.
Some strategists at Labour HQ are banking on this being a blip. They believe that if UKIP poll 9% or more next year, they will have taken enough votes from the Tories to ensure Miliband enters Number 10. By their reckoning, if UKIP’s vote continues to drop, a Tory resurgence will spell trouble for Labour.
A quick glance at Lord Ashcoft’s recent marginal polling should be enough of a warning. Not only are UKIP on track to win some of our main target seats, there are some constituencies where they are attracting so many swing voters that they split the anti-Tory vote, leaving the Conservatives in place.
I can only assume that those who advocate a 9% UKIP vote must be blinkered by London-centric view of politics. On the morning of May 23rd, having stayed up through the night for LabourList’s election liveblog, I was reflecting on a poor night so far for Labour."
I really couldn't care less whether Cameron or Miliband is PM this time next year, but Labours approach to winning by doing little other than look at the stats/electoral system flaws needed to gain power is cynical to say the least, and it makes me kind of hope they fail.
Oh but you will - Cam = PM means a referendum.. Ed means none meaning you can moan endlessly.
"Cam = PM means a referendum"
Does it? He is PM now
Yes.
I think you are wrong.. have a think
No I'm pretty sure Cam is PM - perhaps someone will confirm - wikipedia ?
Less of the unfunny smugness... Ill bet you 6/4 Cameron is PM in 2017 and there is no referendum
£200?
Is the bet void if no Cam PM ?
Yes
£50 yer on...
OK so I have £50 at 6/4 no Referendum, ie you have £75@4/6 there will be?
If you want you or your children to have a house or a job vote Conservative.
oops didn't mean to post at that point. Going on...
That is one of the ways that the tories must go after the ex Lib Dems and in particular the softer part of the Labour vote, those who are really not sure Ed is up to it.
Yeah, I'm not sure the Coalition's record on housebuilding is going to be one they major on next year.
"In leaked documents, officials warn the last set of figures before the 2015 general election will reveal house building to have decreased by 4%."
...and I'd point out that when you rely on oil and gas you need to keep it flowing. Norway has a better record than the UK here. We have seen disasters such as Piper Alpha, investment delays when tax regimes were fiddled with (Gordon and George) and also simple operational fuk-ups. for="" example="" the="" gannet="" field="" is="" not="" producing="" right="" now="" (and="" has="" been="" out="" months)="" because="" of="" a="" stuck="" pig="" in="" export="" pipeline.="" us="" economy="" can="" absorb="" macondo.="" scotland="" couldn't...="">
Why do you think Scotland is the only country in the world that cannot handle being oil rich and needs some spivs in London to advise how to spend it, please advise. Banana republics manage it OK why not Scotland.
"David Cameron congratulated Mr Brown on coming Prime Minister, but repeated his call for immediate general election, saying his opposite number had "no mandate" to govern. "
I think Charles has a good point, BUT, since those Lab/LD’s in the SW will have thought about their vote are they not likely to do as many Labour voters did after Iraq; vote the way they’ve done before, albeit with considerable personal reservations?
What is surprising to me is that there appears be no Tory>LD shift in those seats ....... eg Burnley, Hornsey & Wood Green ........ where a LD hold will reduce the chance of a Lab majority.
Unless no-one’s done the polling!
One of the reasons for "bias" in the system is that Tories almost never do tactical voting but anti-Tories do. My guess is that come polling day this will be the same again.
Doesn’t say much for the political acumen of the average Tory!
OGH is correct, Tories believe in what the party stands for through thick and thin. We do not do tactical voting. Hence in Scotland even when being a Tory was akin to having the plague, 300,000+ still voted Tory. In 2010 that had risen to 412,000 and a good chance that will reach 500,000 next year.
One of the reasons i'm pro independence is that it may eventually lead to a more balanced left/right spectrum in Scotland. I have more reasons, but this is one of them...
"David Cameron congratulated Mr Brown on coming Prime Minister, but repeated his call for immediate general election, saying his opposite number had "no mandate" to govern. "
I think passing the baton to a favoured successor is fraught with difficulty. Personally in the unlikely event of a tory majority I would want Dave to go with six months to go of the Parliament and let the nation decide on the new person.
Its also worth remembering that the ascension of Gordon Brown was a walkover, he was unopposed (he never was much of a one for competitive elections). The tory leadership contest could be as much as a five or six way fight.
Rod did say that around September we would get regular crossovers in the polling. YouGov has shown leads 3% or under for a few polls now and the Tories on 35 points as well. He was right that May would bring the first bout of crossover...
(Now we wait for tonight's inevitable YouGov showing a 9 point Labour lead!)
I think Rod said we'd have consistent Tory leads from Jan 2015 onwards.
August 1964 was half-way between the outbreak of the First World War and the present day. Times had changed a lot since the war and have changed even more since.
The bodies of three civil rights workers in America were discovered, carrier jets were bombing North Vietnam, Gwynne Evans and Peter Allen became the last two people to be executed in Great Britain, Mary Poppins had its premiere, and “A hard day’s night” was the number one record. . DNA profiling was unknown, divorce rates were low, unmarried mothers were rare, and Phillip Larkin could still shock.
And I remember thinking what a foreign country August 1914 was.
@TheScreamingEagles Whatever they pay you for being a lawyer, it is obviously far to much. Dave calls for an election, and PB posters didn't take up the call? Just how likely do you think that scenario is? You and others may have disagreed (and correctly under our constitution) but there were several on here who did indeed support Dave's position.
If you want you or your children to have a house or a job vote Conservative.
oops didn't mean to post at that point. Going on...
That is one of the ways that the tories must go after the ex Lib Dems and in particular the softer part of the Labour vote, those who are really not sure Ed is up to it.
You mean people like tim?
I'm pretty sure that anyone who sorts out housebuilding gets his vote.
@TheScreamingEagles Whatever they pay you for being a lawyer, it is obviously far to much. Dave calls for an election, and PB posters didn't take up the call? Just how likely do you think that scenario is?
You and others may have indeed disagreed (and correctly under our constitution) but there were several on here who did indeed support Dave's position.
So again no evidence from you to back up your assertions.
If you want you or your children to have a house or a job vote Conservative.
oops didn't mean to post at that point. Going on...
That is one of the ways that the tories must go after the ex Lib Dems and in particular the softer part of the Labour vote, those who are really not sure Ed is up to it.
You mean people like tim?
I'm pretty sure that anyone who sorts out housebuilding gets his vote.
I think that was why he was such a persistent critic of the Coalition. I mean, seriously, anyone who thinks the Coalition has a good record on house building has to be smoking something strong.
...and I'd point out that when you rely on oil and gas you need to keep it flowing. Norway has a better record than the UK here. We have seen disasters such as Piper Alpha, investment delays when tax regimes were fiddled with (Gordon and George) and also simple operational fuk-ups. for="" example="" the="" gannet="" field="" is="" not="" producing="" right="" now="" (and="" has="" been="" out="" months)="" because="" of="" a="" stuck="" pig="" in="" export="" pipeline.="" us="" economy="" can="" absorb="" macondo.="" scotland="" couldn't...="">
Why do you think Scotland is the only country in the world that cannot handle being oil rich and needs some spivs in London to advise how to spend it, please advise. Banana republics manage it OK why not Scotland.
You're so unecessarily aggressive Malcolm. Did I say Scotland wouldn't be able to handle oil wealth? No. I said an independent Scotland could not plan its future national finances on the assumption of anything other than declining oil & gas incomes - which is tantamount to saying sooner rather than later it will not be oil rich. But Eck seems to be saying 'we'll have loadsamoney because of all the oil forever' - without giving a true and fair account of the revenue projections and declining nature of this part of the economy.
(and many banana republics that you refer to are in fact klepto-oil republics not banana republics - the clue is in the name - and manage their dependence on 'the devil's excrement' very badly. In fact I invite you to name a single banana republic that manages being oil rich 'OK'.)
If you want you or your children to have a house or a job vote Conservative.
oops didn't mean to post at that point. Going on...
That is one of the ways that the tories must go after the ex Lib Dems and in particular the softer part of the Labour vote, those who are really not sure Ed is up to it.
Yeah, I'm not sure the Coalition's record on housebuilding is going to be one they major on next year.
"In leaked documents, officials warn the last set of figures before the 2015 general election will reveal house building to have decreased by 4%."
Well either Markit are seriously wrong in their PMIs or that forecast turned out to be pants.
There is no question that housebuilding was painfully slow during and immediately after the credit crunch where demand for private sector housing collapsed with the supply of mortgages. But housebuilding has been on a strong upward trend now for about 15 months and this is starting to show in completions. My expectation is that by May next year the Coalition will indeed have a record to be proud of.
Whether this would be enough to win Tim's vote I am not so sure...
@TheScreamingEagles OK, I give up, none of the squawking parrots on PB supported Dave's position. You are correct, and I am wrong, I bow to your vastly superior intellect oh wise and infallible one. Now excuse me? I have to do some complex work on dates and events. something you seem incapable of. Though your ability to defend the highly unlikely is certainly impressive.
If you want you or your children to have a house or a job vote Conservative.
oops didn't mean to post at that point. Going on...
That is one of the ways that the tories must go after the ex Lib Dems and in particular the softer part of the Labour vote, those who are really not sure Ed is up to it.
You mean people like tim?
I'm pretty sure that anyone who sorts out housebuilding gets his vote.
I think that was why he was such a persistent critic of the Coalition. I mean, seriously, anyone who thinks the Coalition has a good record on house building has to be smoking something strong.
I guess it depends what you choose to use as a benchmark or which bit of history you compare it to.
If you want you or your children to have a house or a job vote Conservative.
oops didn't mean to post at that point. Going on...
That is one of the ways that the tories must go after the ex Lib Dems and in particular the softer part of the Labour vote, those who are really not sure Ed is up to it.
Yeah, I'm not sure the Coalition's record on housebuilding is going to be one they major on next year.
"In leaked documents, officials warn the last set of figures before the 2015 general election will reveal house building to have decreased by 4%."
If you want you or your children to have a house or a job vote Conservative.
oops didn't mean to post at that point. Going on...
That is one of the ways that the tories must go after the ex Lib Dems and in particular the softer part of the Labour vote, those who are really not sure Ed is up to it.
You mean people like tim?
I'm pretty sure that anyone who sorts out housebuilding gets his vote.
I think that was why he was such a persistent critic of the Coalition. I mean, seriously, anyone who thinks the Coalition has a good record on house building has to be smoking something strong.
I guess it depends what you choose to use as a benchmark or which bit of history you compare it to.
How about comparing it to the number of houses that we need to build?
If you want you or your children to have a house or a job vote Conservative.
oops didn't mean to post at that point. Going on...
That is one of the ways that the tories must go after the ex Lib Dems and in particular the softer part of the Labour vote, those who are really not sure Ed is up to it.
You mean people like tim?
I'm pretty sure that anyone who sorts out housebuilding gets his vote.
I think that was why he was such a persistent critic of the Coalition. I mean, seriously, anyone who thinks the Coalition has a good record on house building has to be smoking something strong.
Hmm
don't make me roll out those (in)famous govt tables a la ALP. Every govt for the past 30 years has been dreadful at (social) housebuilding.
It wasn't fantastic under New Lab and from a very low base it has increased under the Coalition.
Mr. Smarmeron, unless something's passed into PB folklore, such as Mr. Smithson's 50/1 tip on Obama, then it's not unreasonable to ask someone making a claim about PBers' views to back that up.
It's not immigration most Ukip voters need to worry about,it's their prostate gland.More research,better testing and regular NHS therapy-these sort of popular policy initiatives are the way to attract voters away from Ukip,not by fighting them on their own pre-prepared cricket pitch. As for the Tories,Johnson enters fray and,what else,bangs on about Europe.He must know his old mate Dave is going to lose and he smells blood,these Old Etonians know no mercy.
UKIP voters aren't very worried about the NHS.
Every over 60s male has to focus on the prostate gland,the biggest threat to your life,which means you may not want to be worried about such things but you have to be.Your health comes first and whether you like it or not,we need the NHS's help and take it too much for granted.The people who treat the prostate cancer may well be immigrants too.
How about comparing it to the number of houses that we need to build?
How about comparing it to the increase in population through immigration?
As with education and health, the last Labour Govt. opened the doors without making the required provision for more housing. It surprises me that this Govt. has coped as well as it has in these various areas, given it was passed a grenade with the pin pulled out.
If you want you or your children to have a house or a job vote Conservative.
oops didn't mean to post at that point. Going on...
That is one of the ways that the tories must go after the ex Lib Dems and in particular the softer part of the Labour vote, those who are really not sure Ed is up to it.
Yeah, I'm not sure the Coalition's record on housebuilding is going to be one they major on next year.
"In leaked documents, officials warn the last set of figures before the 2015 general election will reveal house building to have decreased by 4%."
Well either Markit are seriously wrong in their PMIs or that forecast turned out to be pants.
It's perfectly possible for both to be correct. They are in respect of different years.
Don't think so Neil although there are few things as confusing on this planet as housing statistics. The BBC were reporting a forecast that the number of houses built in 2014 would be down on 2013 and that this would be reported in February 2015, just in time for the election.
I think the basis for this was the Q2 preliminary figures on construction which show a contraction. On that Markit say:
"“Overall the survey adds to the view that construction companies have performed impressively so far this summer, which raises the likelihood that the sands of time could wash away the construction weakness seen in the preliminary second quarter GDP release."
They also say:
"“The house building sector is racing ahead this quarter with the fastest growth in construction of homes for over a decade. The industry as a whole continued its impressive growth, dipping slightly from last month’s high. The boom in house building also encouraged the fastest acceleration in employment the index has ever seen over its 17 year history."
So there is a conflict. Not for the first time the expectation is that construction will be revised upwards when the Q2 figures are revised. This has been the case ever since the upturn started and the revisals have generally been smaller than the likes of Markit would have expected.
FWIW I think Markit are probably right although they may be overplaying it a bit. Government schemes bridged the gap on mortgage availability quite well. Banks are now more flush with cash. Mortgage lending is still growing surprisingly modestly but I think that is being distorted by the drop in demand at the upper/top end, especially in London.
If you want you or your children to have a house or a job vote Conservative.
oops didn't mean to post at that point. Going on...
That is one of the ways that the tories must go after the ex Lib Dems and in particular the softer part of the Labour vote, those who are really not sure Ed is up to it.
You mean people like tim?
I'm pretty sure that anyone who sorts out housebuilding gets his vote.
I think that was why he was such a persistent critic of the Coalition. I mean, seriously, anyone who thinks the Coalition has a good record on house building has to be smoking something strong.
I guess it depends what you choose to use as a benchmark or which bit of history you compare it to.
How about comparing it to the number of houses that we need to build?
"How much further can it fall? Are we past peak UKIP? Will they now plumb back to the depths of the 3% they managed to attract in 2010? Or is this merely a Summer blip, addressed by renewed vigour in Autumn? Both circumstances have their pitfalls for Labour.
Some strategists at Labour HQ are banking on this being a blip. They believe that if UKIP poll 9% or more next year, they will have taken enough votes from the Tories to ensure Miliband enters Number 10. By their reckoning, if UKIP’s vote continues to drop, a Tory resurgence will spell trouble for Labour.
A quick glance at Lord Ashcoft’s recent marginal polling should be enough of a warning. Not only are UKIP on track to win some of our main target seats, there are some constituencies where they are attracting so many swing voters that they split the anti-Tory vote, leaving the Conservatives in place.
I can only assume that those who advocate a 9% UKIP vote must be blinkered by London-centric view of politics. On the morning of May 23rd, having stayed up through the night for LabourList’s election liveblog, I was reflecting on a poor night so far for Labour."
I really couldn't care less whether Cameron or Miliband is PM this time next year, but Labours approach to winning by doing little other than look at the stats/electoral system flaws needed to gain power is cynical to say the least, and it makes me kind of hope they fail.
Oh but you will - Cam = PM means a referendum.. Ed means none meaning you can moan endlessly.
"Cam = PM means a referendum"
Does it? He is PM now
Yes.
I think you are wrong.. have a think
No I'm pretty sure Cam is PM - perhaps someone will confirm - wikipedia ?
Less of the unfunny smugness... Ill bet you 6/4 Cameron is PM in 2017 and there is no referendum
£200?
Is the bet void if no Cam PM ?
Yes
£50 yer on...
OK so I have £50 at 6/4 no Referendum, ie you have £75@4/6 there will be?
@Morris_Dancer Find me an archive of PB from June 2007, any archive will do. As TSE well knows, it has never been an easy site to search at the best of times, which allows him to bleat inanities and moan about "evidence" like a guilty schoolboy caught red handed.
If you want you or your children to have a house or a job vote Conservative.
oops didn't mean to post at that point. Going on...
That is one of the ways that the tories must go after the ex Lib Dems and in particular the softer part of the Labour vote, those who are really not sure Ed is up to it.
You mean people like tim?
I'm pretty sure that anyone who sorts out housebuilding gets his vote.
I think that was why he was such a persistent critic of the Coalition. I mean, seriously, anyone who thinks the Coalition has a good record on house building has to be smoking something strong.
I guess it depends what you choose to use as a benchmark or which bit of history you compare it to.
How about comparing it to the number of houses that we need to build?
How about we compare it to the potential number of houses that could be built based on the availability of building materials ?
@Smarmeron I called for an early election when Brown usurped power and I won't be calling for one if DC resigns/is toppled because I despise Labour and am unashamedly biased about ensuring they are booted out/kept out at any convenient opportunity. I see it as a duty of those on the right to countermand the incessant bleeding heart lefty whining every time their beloved politburo isn't in power handing out IPhones and Nikes to layabouts and wasters and building a fraudulent client vote. If that helps
"How much further can it fall? Are we past peak UKIP? Will they now plumb back to the depths of the 3% they managed to attract in 2010? Or is this merely a Summer blip, addressed by renewed vigour in Autumn? Both circumstances have their pitfalls for Labour.
Some strategists at Labour HQ are banking on this being a blip. They believe that if UKIP poll 9% or more next year, they will have taken enough votes from the Tories to ensure Miliband enters Number 10. By their reckoning, if UKIP’s vote continues to drop, a Tory resurgence will spell trouble for Labour.
A quick glance at Lord Ashcoft’s recent marginal polling should be enough of a warning. Not only are UKIP on track to win some of our main target seats, there are some constituencies where they are attracting so many swing voters that they split the anti-Tory vote, leaving the Conservatives in place.
I can only assume that those who advocate a 9% UKIP vote must be blinkered by London-centric view of politics. On the morning of May 23rd, having stayed up through the night for LabourList’s election liveblog, I was reflecting on a poor night so far for Labour."
I really couldn't care less whether Cameron or Miliband is PM this time next year, but Labours approach to winning by doing little other than look at the stats/electoral system flaws needed to gain power is cynical to say the least, and it makes me kind of hope they fail.
Oh but you will - Cam = PM means a referendum.. Ed means none meaning you can moan endlessly.
"Cam = PM means a referendum"
Does it? He is PM now
Yes.
I think you are wrong.. have a think
No I'm pretty sure Cam is PM - perhaps someone will confirm - wikipedia ?
Less of the unfunny smugness... Ill bet you 6/4 Cameron is PM in 2017 and there is no referendum
£200?
Is the bet void if no Cam PM ?
Yes
£50 yer on...
OK so I have £50 at 6/4 no Referendum, ie you have £75@4/6 there will be?
The qualifier is that Cameron has to be PM
Er no - the 6/4 is in my favour surely ? Not 4/6.
No, no you are on at 4/6 that there will be a referendum if Cameron is PM
August 1964 was half-way between the outbreak of the First World War and the present day. Times had changed a lot since the war and have changed even more since.
The bodies of three civil rights workers in America were discovered, carrier jets were bombing North Vietnam, Gwynne Evans and Peter Allen became the last two people to be executed in Great Britain, Mary Poppins had its premiere, and “A hard day’s night” was the number one record. . DNA profiling was unknown, divorce rates were low, unmarried mothers were rare, and Phillip Larkin could still shock.
And I remember thinking what a foreign country August 1914 was.
Yes but 1964 was the dawn of 'permissiveness' - the beginning of consumerism - as well as a lot of seriously deranged people thinking that it was a pretty neat idea to put socialists into power.
WW2 began in 1939 and really the era of 1939 continued all the way through the 40's (half of which taken up by WW2 - and the other half taken up by recovering from it). You could argue we were still in the 1930's right the way up to at least 1955 or even1959. By that I mean austerity, rationing, War (Korea and Suez, Cold War- nuclear peril), lack of T.V., lack of cars, lack of consumerism - lack of 'individuality'. Consumerism and the growth to maturity of the baby boomers all came together in the 60's and the pace of change picked up.
In the case of 'permissiveness' and divorce we should remember that the divorce laws changed but that does not mean that there were not a great many unhappy couples before then or that infidelity was unknown. The Abortion Act was passed, but that does not mean that there were not abortions before then.
Have returned from a sojourn in the beautiful North West of Scotland and can report the following evidence for the upcoming referendum. Posters/billboards seen - 3 for Yes and Yes daubed on a telegraph poll in white paint. Nothing for No Anecdotal evidence - the prettier the barmaid, the more likely to be in favour of yes, the plainer, the more likely to tell me to mind my own business or say no (based on a sample of three). As such, I predict an 80% yes vote amongst Telegraph poll painters, hot barmaids and the people of NW Scotland. Glasgow and Edinburgh (passed either way) were too busy being full of idiots in cars to have opinions. Landslide for Eck, end of the UK, pretty barmaids know their stuff.
I can only assume that those who advocate a 9% UKIP vote must be blinkered by London-centric view of politics. On the morning of May 23rd, having stayed up through the night for LabourList’s election liveblog, I was reflecting on a poor night so far for Labour."
I really couldn't care less whether Cameron or Miliband is PM this time next year, but Labours approach to winning by doing little other than look at the stats/electoral system flaws needed to gain power is cynical to say the least, and it makes me kind of hope they fail.
Oh but you will - Cam = PM means a referendum.. Ed means none meaning you can moan endlessly.
"Cam = PM means a referendum"
Does it? He is PM now
Yes.
I think you are wrong.. have a think
No I'm pretty sure Cam is PM - perhaps someone will confirm - wikipedia ?
Less of the unfunny smugness... Ill bet you 6/4 Cameron is PM in 2017 and there is no referendum
£200?
Is the bet void if no Cam PM ?
Yes
£50 yer on...
OK so I have £50 at 6/4 no Referendum, ie you have £75@4/6 there will be?
The qualifier is that Cameron has to be PM
Er no - the 6/4 is in my favour surely ? Not 4/6.
No, no you are on at 4/6 that there will be a referendum if Cameron is PM
...and I'd point out that when you rely on oil and gas you need to keep it flowing. Norway has a better record than the UK here. We have seen disasters such as Piper Alpha, investment delays when tax regimes were fiddled with (Gordon and George) and also simple operational fuk-ups. for="" example="" the="" gannet="" field="" is="" not="" producing="" right="" now="" (and="" has="" been="" out="" months)="" because="" of="" a="" stuck="" pig="" in="" export="" pipeline.="" us="" economy="" can="" absorb="" macondo.="" scotland="" couldn't...="">
Why do you think Scotland is the only country in the world that cannot handle being oil rich and needs some spivs in London to advise how to spend it, please advise. Banana republics manage it OK why not Scotland.
You're so unecessarily aggressive Malcolm. Did I say Scotland wouldn't be able to handle oil wealth? No. I said an independent Scotland could not plan its future national finances on the assumption of anything other than declining oil & gas incomes - which is tantamount to saying sooner rather than later it will not be oil rich. But Eck seems to be saying 'we'll have loadsamoney because of all the oil forever' - without giving a true and fair account of the revenue projections and declining nature of this part of the economy.
(and many banana republics that you refer to are in fact klepto-oil republics not banana republics - the clue is in the name - and manage their dependence on 'the devil's excrement' very badly. In fact I invite you to name a single banana republic that manages being oil rich 'OK'.)
Patrick, where do you get asking someone a civil question as being aggressive, typical unionist excuse when asked to provide some reality of their obtuse positions. I genuinely would like to know the answer but have yet to ever have it explained. Salmond has never ever said there would be oil for ever. He very clearly said that the oil money should be used to better purpose than it has been previously by Westminster, ie fund new industries or just a fund a la Norway. In forty years there has been no benefit and if stuck with Westminster the same will eb true with eth next 40 years worth. There is not anybody with a true and fair account of the future revenue, several estimates are around and suspiciously the only negative one comes from the lapdogs of Westminster who have never had an accurate result of any forecast they have ever made. Spouting crap based on crap does not help your position.
PS: I doubt anyone in Scotland is not aware that oil will run out , but for sure it will not be in the next few years as the unionists are trying to peddle. The lies and untruths are all from the one side , Westminster , and they have form and lots of it.
I can only assume that those who advocate a 9% UKIP vote must be blinkered by London-centric view of politics. On the morning of May 23rd, having stayed up through the night for LabourList’s election liveblog, I was reflecting on a poor night so far for Labour."
I really couldn't care less whether Cameron or Miliband is PM this time next year, but Labours approach to winning by doing little other than look at the stats/electoral system flaws needed to gain power is cynical to say the least, and it makes me kind of hope they fail.
Oh but you will - Cam = PM means a referendum.. Ed means none meaning you can moan endlessly.
"Cam = PM means a referendum"
Does it? He is PM now
Yes.
I think you are wrong.. have a think
No I'm pretty sure Cam is PM - perhaps someone will confirm - wikipedia ?
Less of the unfunny smugness... Ill bet you 6/4 Cameron is PM in 2017 and there is no referendum
£200?
Is the bet void if no Cam PM ?
Yes
£50 yer on...
OK so I have £50 at 6/4 no Referendum, ie you have £75@4/6 there will be?
The qualifier is that Cameron has to be PM
Er no - the 6/4 is in my favour surely ? Not 4/6.
No, no you are on at 4/6 that there will be a referendum if Cameron is PM
I thought you said it was a certainty?
You offered the bet.. I'd accept at evens.
I said I'd take at 6/4 and you said £50!
This all started because you said "Cam=PM" meant a referendum.. now you don't think its a 60% chance?
Have returned from a sojourn in the beautiful North West of Scotland and can report the following evidence for the upcoming referendum. Posters/billboards seen - 3 for Yes and Yes daubed on a telegraph poll in white paint. Nothing for No Anecdotal evidence - the prettier the barmaid, the more likely to be in favour of yes, the plainer, the more likely to tell me to mind my own business or say no (based on a sample of three). As such, I predict an 80% yes vote amongst Telegraph poll painters, hot barmaids and the people of NW Scotland. Glasgow and Edinburgh (passed either way) were too busy being full of idiots in cars to have opinions. Landslide for Eck, end of the UK, pretty barmaids know their stuff.
Who'd have thought malcolmg was a barmaid or more likely a telegraph pole ?!?
Have returned from a sojourn in the beautiful North West of Scotland and can report the following evidence for the upcoming referendum. Posters/billboards seen - 3 for Yes and Yes daubed on a telegraph poll in white paint. Nothing for No Anecdotal evidence - the prettier the barmaid, the more likely to be in favour of yes, the plainer, the more likely to tell me to mind my own business or say no (based on a sample of three). As such, I predict an 80% yes vote amongst Telegraph poll painters, hot barmaids and the people of NW Scotland. Glasgow and Edinburgh (passed either way) were too busy being full of idiots in cars to have opinions. Landslide for Eck, end of the UK, pretty barmaids know their stuff.
Woolie, sounds more scientific than some of the polls we see
If you want you or your children to have a house or a job vote Conservative.
oops didn't mean to post at that point. Going on...
That is one of the ways that the tories must go after the ex Lib Dems and in particular the softer part of the Labour vote, those who are really not sure Ed is up to it.
You mean people like tim?
I'm pretty sure that anyone who sorts out housebuilding gets his vote.
I think that was why he was such a persistent critic of the Coalition. I mean, seriously, anyone who thinks the Coalition has a good record on house building has to be smoking something strong.
I guess it depends what you choose to use as a benchmark or which bit of history you compare it to.
How about comparing it to the number of houses that we need to build?
Is it even possible to build that number of houses? Are there enough builders, bricklayers, plumbers and electrician in the country? To say nothing of the land, building materials and money required.
Net immigration is still running at over 200,000 per annum, people are living longer, there seem to be more and more single adult households. How many houses do we need to build? From memory I think the peak number of new homes in any one year was about 300,000 and that was in the sixties when tower blocks were going up all over the place. Even if we were able to reproduce that performance year after year would it be enough? I doubt it.
I don't know what its like where you are but down here we have a massive house building boom. Houses are being thrown up on every bit of land as fast as planning permission can be obtained. Land regarded as unsuitable a few years ago is now being built on and at high density with inadequate regard for parking, gardens or anything other than developers profits. Yet by your measure it still isn't enough and it never will be.
Have returned from a sojourn in the beautiful North West of Scotland and can report the following evidence for the upcoming referendum. Posters/billboards seen - 3 for Yes and Yes daubed on a telegraph poll in white paint. Nothing for No Anecdotal evidence - the prettier the barmaid, the more likely to be in favour of yes, the plainer, the more likely to tell me to mind my own business or say no (based on a sample of three). As such, I predict an 80% yes vote amongst Telegraph poll painters, hot barmaids and the people of NW Scotland. Glasgow and Edinburgh (passed either way) were too busy being full of idiots in cars to have opinions. Landslide for Eck, end of the UK, pretty barmaids know their stuff.
Who'd have thought malcolmg was a barmaid or more likely a telegraph pole ?!?
She was all woman. The pole was all pole, except the wires.
Have returned from a sojourn in the beautiful North West of Scotland and can report the following evidence for the upcoming referendum. Posters/billboards seen - 3 for Yes and Yes daubed on a telegraph poll in white paint. Nothing for No Anecdotal evidence - the prettier the barmaid, the more likely to be in favour of yes, the plainer, the more likely to tell me to mind my own business or say no (based on a sample of three). As such, I predict an 80% yes vote amongst Telegraph poll painters, hot barmaids and the people of NW Scotland. Glasgow and Edinburgh (passed either way) were too busy being full of idiots in cars to have opinions. Landslide for Eck, end of the UK, pretty barmaids know their stuff.
Woolie, sounds more scientific than some of the polls we see
It involved much probing questioning, and I've weighted the results according to bias towards pretty girls.
Even though we invented tanks, we have be rubbish at them ever since.
British WW2 tanks were a complete disgrace. Even the Americans' borrowed Shermans were known by the Germans as 'Tommy cookers'.
Actually the British comnverted the Shermans into one of their most successful forms - the Firefly - which was the version the German's feared the most as it was the only one capable of knocking out Panthers and Tigers.
They also mostly used diesel versions as opposed to the US petrol driven versions which made them far less likely to catch fire of hit.
The British Army is not reduced to 'a single tank regiment' - this seems a bit of ignorance on the part of the reporter. Two regiments are being merged ie, 1 and 2 Royal Tank Regiment, hence the confusion. I am more than happy to be corrected but my belief is that the reorganisation left a total of 3 tank regiments and about170 tanks, where before there were some 400. Some might say this is still too few. Personally I wonder if we really should be concentrating tanks at all, but that's another story.
You are right about the Firefly and generally speaking the numbers of Tigers and Panthers available to the Germans (as opposed to Mk IVs and SPGs) is generally overstated.
Comments
I just don't see how labour can keep its coalition together. Look at the Gaza thing. I'm sure Ed's comments shored up the muslim vote, but what would it do for the WWC supporters? only confirm what they are already thinking. Vote UKIP.
If Ed gets tougher he's only going to upset the immigrant and metro supporters. As well as make the rest of the electorate p*ss themselves laughing.
And so we have the most ludicrous fudge that unravels at slightest examination.
LOL, break point to the tories???
You have a strange definition of winning.
If the results had been reversed, Lab would have won a majority of 100 plus.
You also neglect to mention, that Labour are publicly talking that Ed won't be allowed to fight a 2020 election if he doesn't win next year.
If Dave stands down, will the Tories on here be calling for fresh elections like they did when Blair resigned?
Depends who the successor is...!?
The only people calling for a fresh election were the Brownites so their man could have a mandate, I mean, we had Labour MPs writing
'Shortly there will be an election, in which Labour will increase its majority'
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/conference/2007/09/labour-majority-increase
Did your nose grow Pinnochio?
British Army reduced to one single tank regiment
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-army-reduced-to-one-single-tank-regiment-9644238.html
You're the one making unsubstantiated claims.
I've substantiated my claims.
Does it? He is PM now
Even though we invented tanks, we have be rubbish at them ever since.
British WW2 tanks were a complete disgrace. Even the Americans' borrowed Shermans were known by the Germans as 'Tommy cookers'.
As for the biggest increase in the number of MPs - again irrelevant to victory. So what if Cameron did a lot better than Howard who won fewer seats in 2005 than Labour in 1983. After 3 dire elections there was a lot of room for improvement. But that's a comment on the Conservative party itself not the British electorate.
#Crossover possible on Friday?
I am willing to bet you that Cameron will be PM in 2017 and there is no referendum...
Ill take 6/4, bet VOID if Cameron not PM
we on?
Go look it up. The premise at the time was that Blair had said he would serve the full term, and in resigning, there were calls from some Tory politicians that a general election should be held on the basis he had broken his word.
A call that was readily taken up by many on here.
They also mostly used diesel versions as opposed to the US petrol driven versions which made them far less likely to catch fire of hit.
I'd like crossover too - but not quite just yet...
Shouldn't be too hard.
£200?
Easier for you, as you are a mod? And I have given up doing google searches for PB atm as my browser is full of other more important stuff.
IMHO.
Plus, all crossovers should be delayed until after September the 19th
You're the one making assertions, until you back up your assertions, we can dismiss your witterings.
UK Gov has committed £20 billion toward the costs of decommissioning in the North Sea http://ow.ly/zQm6G #indyref
Interesting. Trying to make North Sea oil a cost, not a benefit, of Independence.
If you want you or your children to have a house or a job vote Conservative.
oops didn't mean to post at that point. Going on...
That is one of the ways that the tories must go after the ex Lib Dems and in particular the softer part of the Labour vote, those who are really not sure Ed is up to it.
Rod did say that around September we would get regular crossovers in the polling. YouGov has shown leads 3% or under for a few polls now and the Tories on 35 points as well. He was right that May would bring the first bout of crossover...
(Now we wait for tonight's inevitable YouGov showing a 9 point Labour lead!)
The qualifier is that Cameron has to be PM
"In leaked documents, officials warn the last set of figures before the 2015 general election will reveal house building to have decreased by 4%."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28114463
Banana republics manage it OK why not Scotland.
"David Cameron congratulated Mr Brown on coming Prime Minister, but repeated his call for immediate general election, saying his opposite number had "no mandate" to govern. "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/gordon-brown/1555760/Gordon-Brown-is-new-British-Prime-Minister.html
As for those on PB who were shouting support for Cameron's position, I really can't be bothered, Ask them to own up?
So you can't back up your assertion about PBers, I'm not surprised.
I think passing the baton to a favoured successor is fraught with difficulty. Personally in the unlikely event of a tory majority I would want Dave to go with six months to go of the Parliament and let the nation decide on the new person.
Its also worth remembering that the ascension of Gordon Brown was a walkover, he was unopposed (he never was much of a one for competitive elections). The tory leadership contest could be as much as a five or six way fight.
August 1964 was half-way between the outbreak of the First World War and the present day. Times had changed a lot since the war and have changed even more since.
The bodies of three civil rights workers in America were discovered, carrier jets were bombing North Vietnam, Gwynne Evans and Peter Allen became the last two people to be executed in Great Britain, Mary Poppins had its premiere, and “A hard day’s night” was the number one record.
.
DNA profiling was unknown, divorce rates were low, unmarried mothers were rare, and Phillip Larkin could still shock.
And I remember thinking what a foreign country August 1914 was.
Whatever they pay you for being a lawyer, it is obviously far to much.
Dave calls for an election, and PB posters didn't take up the call? Just how likely do you think that scenario is?
You and others may have disagreed (and correctly under our constitution) but there were several on here who did indeed support Dave's position.
I'm pretty sure that anyone who sorts out housebuilding gets his vote.
Imagine what will happen to people in receipt of tax credits but who find that they owe tax because of changes in personal circumstances.
If only all cases were as simple as you.
(and many banana republics that you refer to are in fact klepto-oil republics not banana republics - the clue is in the name - and manage their dependence on 'the devil's excrement' very badly. In fact I invite you to name a single banana republic that manages being oil rich 'OK'.)
There is no question that housebuilding was painfully slow during and immediately after the credit crunch where demand for private sector housing collapsed with the supply of mortgages. But housebuilding has been on a strong upward trend now for about 15 months and this is starting to show in completions. My expectation is that by May next year the Coalition will indeed have a record to be proud of.
Whether this would be enough to win Tim's vote I am not so sure...
OK, I give up, none of the squawking parrots on PB supported Dave's position.
You are correct, and I am wrong, I bow to your vastly superior intellect oh wise and infallible one.
Now excuse me? I have to do some complex work on dates and events. something you seem incapable of. Though your ability to defend the highly unlikely is certainly impressive.
I'm a thatcherite but if the proposed measures go through on the tories' watch I will never vote conservative again.
don't make me roll out those (in)famous govt tables a la ALP. Every govt for the past 30 years has been dreadful at (social) housebuilding.
It wasn't fantastic under New Lab and from a very low base it has increased under the Coalition.
ok here they are:
https://gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/live-tables-on-house-building
As with education and health, the last Labour Govt. opened the doors without making the required provision for more housing. It surprises me that this Govt. has coped as well as it has in these various areas, given it was passed a grenade with the pin pulled out.
Don't think so Neil although there are few things as confusing on this planet as housing statistics. The BBC were reporting a forecast that the number of houses built in 2014 would be down on 2013 and that this would be reported in February 2015, just in time for the election.
I think the basis for this was the Q2 preliminary figures on construction which show a contraction. On that Markit say:
"“Overall the survey adds to the view that construction
companies have performed impressively so far this
summer, which raises the likelihood that the sands of
time could wash away the construction weakness
seen in the preliminary second quarter GDP release."
They also say:
"“The house building sector is racing ahead this
quarter with the fastest growth in construction of
homes for over a decade. The industry as a whole
continued its impressive growth, dipping slightly from
last month’s high. The boom in house building also
encouraged the fastest acceleration in employment
the index has ever seen over its 17 year history."
So there is a conflict. Not for the first time the expectation is that construction will be revised upwards when the Q2 figures are revised. This has been the case ever since the upturn started and the revisals have generally been smaller than the likes of Markit would have expected.
FWIW I think Markit are probably right although they may be overplaying it a bit. Government schemes bridged the gap on mortgage availability quite well. Banks are now more flush with cash. Mortgage lending is still growing surprisingly modestly but I think that is being distorted by the drop in demand at the upper/top end, especially in London.
Would voters elect a government which has a policy to build houses on Hyde Park for immigrants?
Find me an archive of PB from June 2007, any archive will do.
As TSE well knows, it has never been an easy site to search at the best of times, which allows him to bleat inanities and moan about "evidence" like a guilty schoolboy caught red handed.
I called for an early election when Brown usurped power and I won't be calling for one if DC resigns/is toppled because I despise Labour and am unashamedly biased about ensuring they are booted out/kept out at any convenient opportunity.
I see it as a duty of those on the right to countermand the incessant bleeding heart lefty whining every time their beloved politburo isn't in power handing out IPhones and Nikes to layabouts and wasters and building a fraudulent client vote.
If that helps
I recall very much wanting no election in 2007, on the basis I thought Brown would win and inflict ID cards upon us.
I thought you said it was a certainty?
WW2 began in 1939 and really the era of 1939 continued all the way through the 40's (half of which taken up by WW2 - and the other half taken up by recovering from it). You could argue we were still in the 1930's right the way up to at least 1955 or even1959. By that I mean austerity, rationing, War (Korea and Suez, Cold War- nuclear peril), lack of T.V., lack of cars, lack of consumerism - lack of 'individuality'. Consumerism and the growth to maturity of the baby boomers all came together in the 60's and the pace of change picked up.
In the case of 'permissiveness' and divorce we should remember that the divorce laws changed but that does not mean that there were not a great many unhappy couples before then or that infidelity was unknown. The Abortion Act was passed, but that does not mean that there were not abortions before then.
20 hours
Posters/billboards seen - 3 for Yes and Yes daubed on a telegraph poll in white paint. Nothing for No
Anecdotal evidence - the prettier the barmaid, the more likely to be in favour of yes, the plainer, the more likely to tell me to mind my own business or say no (based on a sample of three).
As such, I predict an 80% yes vote amongst Telegraph poll painters, hot barmaids and the people of NW Scotland.
Glasgow and Edinburgh (passed either way) were too busy being full of idiots in cars to have opinions.
Landslide for Eck, end of the UK, pretty barmaids know their stuff.
Salmond has never ever said there would be oil for ever. He very clearly said that the oil money should be used to better purpose than it has been previously by Westminster, ie fund new industries or just a fund a la Norway. In forty years there has been no benefit and if stuck with Westminster the same will eb true with eth next 40 years worth.
There is not anybody with a true and fair account of the future revenue, several estimates are around and suspiciously the only negative one comes from the lapdogs of Westminster who have never had an accurate result of any forecast they have ever made.
Spouting crap based on crap does not help your position.
PS: I doubt anyone in Scotland is not aware that oil will run out , but for sure it will not be in the next few years as the unionists are trying to peddle. The lies and untruths are all from the one side , Westminster , and they have form and lots of it.
This all started because you said "Cam=PM" meant a referendum.. now you don't think its a 60% chance?
'From the leader of the opposition'.... What a plank
Net immigration is still running at over 200,000 per annum, people are living longer, there seem to be more and more single adult households. How many houses do we need to build? From memory I think the peak number of new homes in any one year was about 300,000 and that was in the sixties when tower blocks were going up all over the place. Even if we were able to reproduce that performance year after year would it be enough? I doubt it.
I don't know what its like where you are but down here we have a massive house building boom. Houses are being thrown up on every bit of land as fast as planning permission can be obtained. Land regarded as unsuitable a few years ago is now being built on and at high density with inadequate regard for parking, gardens or anything other than developers profits. Yet by your measure it still isn't enough and it never will be.
People will forever mock the guys in charge for their incompetence.
Two regiments are being merged ie, 1 and 2 Royal Tank Regiment, hence the confusion.
I am more than happy to be corrected but my belief is that the reorganisation left a total of 3 tank regiments and about170 tanks, where before there were some 400.
Some might say this is still too few. Personally I wonder if we really should be concentrating tanks at all, but that's another story.
You are right about the Firefly and generally speaking the numbers of Tigers and Panthers available to the Germans (as opposed to Mk IVs and SPGs) is generally overstated.
"the dead, they don't vote"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2711351/It-s-good-tax-dead-don-t-vote-jokes-Ed-Miliband-s-guru-friend-Lord-Glasman.html