7% for the Greens! Must be a while since they were within 3% of third in any poll!
Could the greens be starting to take votes off Labour as well as LibDems?
Given the way they position themselves as more left than Labour, I'm amazed it has taken this long, if indeed that is what is happening. What odds Lucas keeps her seat though?
Yes, Wm Hill still go 20/1 against Costa to be Champs League top goal scorer, that's a great bet thanks and oddly generous given that Chelsea are a 7/1 shot to win. Each way 1-4 looks worthwhile imo. Corals are also offering the same odds if you can navigate their impossible website!
Aren't Coral only 3 places? That's still a good bet but 1/4 1234 is Golden
You're probably right - I couldn't actually find it on their site! Suarez at the same price looks quite tasty too, if you reckon that Barca will reach the final. That's with Laddies and 365 btw.
Leo Ulloa has scored 3 in 4 matches, against Everton, Arsenal and Stoke. 66/1 was worth a couple of quid each way. I agree Costa was good, definitely the best player for Arsenal the other week.
Ulloa was a decent bet on Saturday but I only got pennies on
He was one of my long standing favs for Brighton in the last two season, made decent money out of him... seems he can cut it in the Prem too
I am mangling the prem teams. Its Leicester that I know best, and very pleased so far, helped by a bit of schadenfreude for QPR.
My betfair bets have been fairly tightly limited recently, I can only get relatively small bets accepted. Shadsy still seems keen on taking my money though!
I dont think you want regional parliaments, you want assemblies on the London model for Greater Manchester, Merseyside, "South & West Yorkshire", West Midlands & "Tees, Wear & Tyneside.
A further English Assembly would have similar powers over all parts of England not part of Greater London or the "Metropolitan Counties" and would meet in Westminster Hall and comprise English MPs from non metroplitan county constituencies.
All the assemblies should have at least the powers of the Welsh assembly with powers devolved from Westminster.
I don't want too see England broken up into regions but it is time to stop the large cities and celtic fringes effectively ruling the rest of us.
It is baffling to me why Greater Manchester is still without a mayoralty. Bashing the heads together of the ten or so council leaders up there to get anything done is always going to be a very labour intensive, inefficient way of running a city.
I heard David Cameron's speech as I returned very bedraggled from some pretty damp canvassing. It was excellent and said many of the things that I have in my own small way been seeking to say on here.
This is a country that we should be rightly proud of. Scots should be proud of it too because they played more than their fair share in building it.
It is an element that has been missing from the campaign. Being British is something to be proud of and something none of us should have to give up. I just hope this plea to and from the heart by the PM of our country has not come too late.
We had the cameras with us tonight so the teams were more consolidated for TV purposes which made the GOTV aspect less productive than I would have liked but I got a few "undecideds" who were now voting no and none at all who had switched to Yes.
Glad to hear about the undecideds switching to no. Have you had any people joining the campaign locally in the last week, after the yes poll scare?
Morris_Dancer, thanks. I favour extensive devolution within England so that much more power is brought much closer to the peoples of England than at present. A dysfunctional English Parliament is no more attractive than the current dysfunctional British one.
OK, so I'm getting Lab 33.07, Con 31.89, UKIP 14.57, LD 8.27 for Ashcroft when looking at his tables. Why does he say the headline figures are 33, 33, 14 and 9?
Wow - UKIP in single figures, Greens at 7%. Both good numbers for the Tories for different reasons.
ICM are usually poor for UKIP. Their figures this year have been: 10, 11, 9, 11, 15, 16, 9, 10 and now 9 again. So apart from two big scores around the time of the Euro-elections, this current poll is very much in line with the rest (including those over the Summer).
I see the new voters registering for Yes just a touch hard to believe in totality. From a basic, non aligned standpoint.
Surely two things should be considered:
1) 16 and 17 year olds registering en masse now that they can. Would've thought nearly all of them would sign up. 2) It's a decision for everyone's future. Yes or no, surely everyone wants a say?
No slight on anyone. I personally, just find it hard to believe that nearly every new voter is a Yes on the extreme I've seen to the majority signing on the more considered side to sign up for Yes.
It may be the case that what I've just criticised becomes the case, and that's fine. Just from a logical standpoint, I can't see it because, it's a referendum on the future of a nation.
Surely everyone, wants a say, whatever way they vote, No and Yes?
I think about 10% of the population move house every year. The last time Electoral Roll was updated was last autumn, so at least some of the new registrations will be people updating their records and not wanting to miss out on this most important vote. It also means, I think, that a turnout rate above 90% is impossible because of people who no longer live there or have died. In which case an 80% turnout is effectively 90% - unless I have completely misunderstood the calculations - which is entirely possible
Just read the first few lines of Ferguson's idiocy on why an English Parliament would be terrible. For the sake of time (I should be working) and loathing I stopped reading, but did enjoy the very sensible comments by Mr. Slackbladder and Mr. T.
Well, we'll just have to disagree. The WLQ does need answering; on that, I think we can agree. And while I disagree with Ferguson's argument, which essentially comes down to that we shouldn't have an English parliament because the London media is lazy, I do think he's stumbled across something resembling the true problem.
An separate English parliament would too closely resemble the UK one to be anything other than a rival and near-duplicate; an English parliament comprising only English MPs of the UK parliament would cause too many tensions within Westminster with differing mandates and the ridiculous position that a government could win votes of confidence and pass budgets to stay in office and raise money, but had policies imposed upon it by the 'opposition' as to how to spend that money.
Westminster should have a single purpose: the Federal Parliament of the United Kingdom. Devolution, which must happen to rebalance the equation with Wales and N Ireland, never mind what happens in Scotland, should be to English regions. If there needs to be further discussion on where the borders should be, fine - but that doesn't change the central point.
The WLQ can be answered without either an English Parliament or regionalisation. All it needs is an EVEL in the current Parliament. This should have been a priority for the Tories from the start of this Parliament but I suspect they would not have run with this because of the effect it might have had on the Independence vote.
OK, so I'm getting Lab 33.07, Con 31.89, UKIP 14.57, LD 8.27 for Ashcroft when looking at his tables. Why does he say the headline figures are 33, 33, 14 and 9?
I think those numbers are before the recall adjustment...
Thanks, but does he not include the sample sizes in the table for headline percentages? I'd like to know the sample size (total) before plugging it into ELBOW.
'Peoples' of England is quite wrong. We are one people.
Mr. Tyndall, I'm unconvinced English votes on English laws would work. An improvement on what we have now, but not, I fear, sufficient. Would a Labour PM reliant on Scottish MPs order them to hold back and risk defeat after defeat? I find it incredible.
Yes, Wm Hill still go 20/1 against Costa to be Champs League top goal scorer, that's a great bet thanks and oddly generous given that Chelsea are a 7/1 shot to win. Each way 1-4 looks worthwhile imo. Corals are also offering the same odds if you can navigate their impossible website!
Aren't Coral only 3 places? That's still a good bet but 1/4 1234 is Golden
You're probably right - I couldn't actually find it on their site! Suarez at the same price looks quite tasty too, if you reckon that Barca will reach the final.
My strategy is a player that dominates his team in terms of goal %, plays up front alone, takes pens and is absolute first choice
I don't think Costa will take CFC pens (Hazard?) but other than that he fits the bill, and Chelsea seem to be scoring a lot of goals this year (small sample I know)
Suarez is going to miss a couple of matches no? Also I don't think he will outscore Messi let alone players from other teams. Neymar is in the mix too..
My outsider would be Jackson Martinez of Porto at 80s
I see the new voters registering for Yes just a touch hard to believe in totality. From a basic, non aligned standpoint.
Surely two things should be considered:
1) 16 and 17 year olds registering en masse now that they can. Would've thought nearly all of them would sign up. 2) It's a decision for everyone's future. Yes or no, surely everyone wants a say?
No slight on anyone. I personally, just find it hard to believe that nearly every new voter is a Yes on the extreme I've seen to the majority signing on the more considered side to sign up for Yes.
It may be the case that what I've just criticised becomes the case, and that's fine. Just from a logical standpoint, I can't see it because, it's a referendum on the future of a nation.
Surely everyone, wants a say, whatever way they vote, No and Yes?
I think about 10% of the population move house every year. The last time Electoral Roll was updated was last autumn, so at least some of the new registrations will be people updating their records and not wanting to miss out on this most important vote. It also means, I think, that a turnout rate above 90% is impossible because of people who no longer live there or have died. In which case an 80% turnout is effectively 90% - unless I have completely misunderstood the calculations - which is entirely possible
7% for the Greens! Must be a while since they were within 3% of third in any poll!
How many seats are they contesting? Must be immense value to win a couple if they are anywhere near 7%
The Greens contested more seats in 2010 than they'd ever done before and it was still only about half the constituencies. But the 7% will be on the basis of candidates being available everywhere. In reality, if they had a similar number of candidates to last time, they'd do well to top 4%.
There is the very effective Greater Manchester Combined Authority in (Greater) Manchester, a follow on from AGMA.
Reality is it not democratic enough but they have been crying out for the devolution of powers for ages and ages, presumably this may soon be forthcoming along with increased democracy over how the Greater Manc Combined Authority is operated.
Though this panicked scrabbling round trying to offer some vague DevoMore option is desperate and pathetic.
Cameron completely screwed up with all this, and it could well lead to the break up of the nation he is Prime Minister of.
I'm more convinced than ever that Cameron will resign if it's Yes.
He'll be polite and let Miliband go first.
Ed's been utterly useless in Labour's heartlands FFS.
Correct. cameron has not presaided over anything. Those 'No' posters are clearly painted red and yellow. Labour created devolution Labour mismanaged and lost Scot, and Labour are running the No campaign
Caveat: some No stuff is royal blue and white - Tory?
Some of it's purple. Will Farage be walking the plank too?
In a Dundee Multi last week I found myself in the strange role of a translator for an Edinburgh student who is helping us.
We were confronted on the stairs by a large man wearing what appeared to be boxers.
"You've been littering" he hollered waving one of our leaflets, in a belligerent manner.
"Oh, I am sorry, did we drop one?" my hapless colleague replied.
"He means we put it through his letter box and he doesn't want it," I explained.
"At least it is the right colour for you lot," was the next riposte.
My colleague was completely confused by this one.
"He means that it is purple and we are like UKIP, " I explained.
At which point Mr Angry was persuaded to return the offending leaflet which was of course then recycled to what was hopefully a more grateful recipient.
I see the new voters registering for Yes just a touch hard to believe in totality. From a basic, non aligned standpoint.
Surely two things should be considered:
1) 16 and 17 year olds registering en masse now that they can. Would've thought nearly all of them would sign up. 2) It's a decision for everyone's future. Yes or no, surely everyone wants a say?
No slight on anyone. I personally, just find it hard to believe that nearly every new voter is a Yes on the extreme I've seen to the majority signing on the more considered side to sign up for Yes.
It may be the case that what I've just criticised becomes the case, and that's fine. Just from a logical standpoint, I can't see it because, it's a referendum on the future of a nation.
Surely everyone, wants a say, whatever way they vote, No and Yes?
I think about 10% of the population move house every year. The last time Electoral Roll was updated was last autumn, so at least some of the new registrations will be people updating their records and not wanting to miss out on this most important vote. It also means, I think, that a turnout rate above 90% is impossible because of people who no longer live there or have died. In which case an 80% turnout is effectively 90% - unless I have completely misunderstood the calculations - which is entirely possible
Have you considered the point that some of those 'new' voters are adults who dropped off the roll over the years through neglecting to register (e.g. after moves)? The classic example is the voter in a seat which is solid Labour (or has been) but with miserable turnout. The lefties and Greens in Yes have been encouraging such registrations, and so too the No campaign.
One argument - so it runs - is that part of this registration is due to disenchantment with the current setup, so if they have registered they are more likely to vote for change than bother confirming the status quo. On the other hand, the opposite could be argued, now that we are in a vote where everyone's vote counts and would make a difference. But we will see who is right come Friday.
'Peoples' of England is quite wrong. We are one people.
Mr. Tyndall, I'm unconvinced English votes on English laws would work. An improvement on what we have now, but not, I fear, sufficient. Would a Labour PM reliant on Scottish MPs order them to hold back and risk defeat after defeat? I find it incredible.
There must also be some areas of policy where London MPs vote on laws that do not affect London, it also being devolved?
I heard David Cameron's speech as I returned very bedraggled from some pretty damp canvassing. It was excellent and said many of the things that I have in my own small way been seeking to say on here.
This is a country that we should be rightly proud of. Scots should be proud of it too because they played more than their fair share in building it.
It is an element that has been missing from the campaign. Being British is something to be proud of and something none of us should have to give up. I just hope this plea to and from the heart by the PM of our country has not come too late.
We had the cameras with us tonight so the teams were more consolidated for TV purposes which made the GOTV aspect less productive than I would have liked but I got a few "undecideds" who were now voting no and none at all who had switched to Yes.
Glad to hear about the undecideds switching to no. Have you had any people joining the campaign locally in the last week, after the yes poll scare?
Yes quite a number. Even the Labour MP from Dundee West turned up today. Nothing to do with the cameras of course
Though this panicked scrabbling round trying to offer some vague DevoMore option is desperate and pathetic.
Cameron completely screwed up with all this, and it could well lead to the break up of the nation he is Prime Minister of.
I'm more convinced than ever that Cameron will resign if it's Yes.
He'll be polite and let Miliband go first.
Ed's been utterly useless in Labour's heartlands FFS.
Correct. cameron has not presaided over anything. Those 'No' posters are clearly painted red and yellow. Labour created devolution Labour mismanaged and lost Scot, and Labour are running the No campaign
Caveat: some No stuff is royal blue and white - Tory?
Some of it's purple. Will Farage be walking the plank too?
In a Dundee Multi last week I found myself in the strange role of a translator for an Edinburgh student who is helping us.
We were confronted on the stairs by a large man wearing what appeared to be boxers.
"You've been littering" he hollered waving one of our leaflets, in a belligerent manner.
"Oh, I am sorry, did we drop one?" my hapless colleague replied.
"He means we put it through his letter box and he doesn't want it," I explained.
"At least it is the right colour for you lot," was the next riposte.
My colleague was completely confused by this one.
"He means that it is purple and we are like UKIP, " I explained.
At which point Mr Angry was persuaded to return the offending leaflet which was of course then recycled to what was hopefully a more grateful recipient.
Independent Scotland should not use pound, say 63% of English and Welsh Guardian/ICM poll finds popular support for Westminster parties' refusal to allow currency union in event of yes vote
I see the new voters registering for Yes just a touch hard to believe in totality. From a basic, non aligned standpoint.
Surely two things should be considered:
1) 16 and 17 year olds registering en masse now that they can. Would've thought nearly all of them would sign up. 2) It's a decision for everyone's future. Yes or no, surely everyone wants a say?
No slight on anyone. I personally, just find it hard to believe that nearly every new voter is a Yes on the extreme I've seen to the majority signing on the more considered side to sign up for Yes.
It may be the case that what I've just criticised becomes the case, and that's fine. Just from a logical standpoint, I can't see it because, it's a referendum on the future of a nation.
Surely everyone, wants a say, whatever way they vote, No and Yes?
I think about 10% of the population move house every year. The last time Electoral Roll was updated was last autumn, so at least some of the new registrations will be people updating their records and not wanting to miss out on this most important vote. It also means, I think, that a turnout rate above 90% is impossible because of people who no longer live there or have died. In which case an 80% turnout is effectively 90% - unless I have completely misunderstood the calculations - which is entirely possible
Have you considered the point that some of those 'new' voters are adults who dropped off the roll over the years through neglecting to register (e.g. after moves)? The classic example is the voter in a seat which is solid Labour (or has been) but with miserable turnout. The lefties and Greens in Yes have been encouraging such registrations, and so too the No campaign.
One argument - so it runs - is that part of this registration is due to disenchantment with the current setup, so if they have registered they are more likely to vote for change than bother confirming the status quo. On the other hand, the opposite could be argued, now that we are in a vote where everyone's vote counts and would make a difference. But we will see who is right come Friday.
So, with all these extra registered voters, Scotland may gain MPs in the next round of boundary changes? (assuming a No vote)
Indeed, unlike the rest of the country London has regulated buses and a local transport authority with additional powers relative to other places in England.
Should London MPs duck out of Westminster debates on transport in the regions of England?
'Peoples' of England is quite wrong. We are one people.
Mr. Tyndall, I'm unconvinced English votes on English laws would work. An improvement on what we have now, but not, I fear, sufficient. Would a Labour PM reliant on Scottish MPs order them to hold back and risk defeat after defeat? I find it incredible.
There must also be some areas of policy where London MPs vote on laws that do not affect London, it also being devolved?
Yes, Wm Hill still go 20/1 against Costa to be Champs League top goal scorer, that's a great bet thanks and oddly generous given that Chelsea are a 7/1 shot to win. Each way 1-4 looks worthwhile imo. Corals are also offering the same odds if you can navigate their impossible website!
Aren't Coral only 3 places? That's still a good bet but 1/4 1234 is Golden
You're probably right - I couldn't actually find it on their site! Suarez at the same price looks quite tasty too, if you reckon that Barca will reach the final.
My strategy is a player that dominates his team in terms of goal %, plays up front alone, takes pens and is absolute first choice
I don't think Costa will take CFC pens (Hazard?) but other than that he fits the bill, and Chelsea seem to be scoring a lot of goals this year (small sample I know)
Suarez is going to miss a couple of matches no? Also I don't think he will outscore Messi let alone players from other teams. Neymar is in the mix too..
My outsider would be Jackson Martinez of Porto at 80s
Yes Suarez will miss two games (hence the need for Barca to reach the final which they probably will), but consider how many he scored for Liverpool last season despite his lengthy suspension and if he isn't an automatic pick to play, then I'm not sure why Barca paid £80M for him!
I heard David Cameron's speech as I returned very bedraggled from some pretty damp canvassing. It was excellent and said many of the things that I have in my own small way been seeking to say on here.
This is a country that we should be rightly proud of. Scots should be proud of it too because they played more than their fair share in building it.
It is an element that has been missing from the campaign. Being British is something to be proud of and something none of us should have to give up. I just hope this plea to and from the heart by the PM of our country has not come too late.
We had the cameras with us tonight so the teams were more consolidated for TV purposes which made the GOTV aspect less productive than I would have liked but I got a few "undecideds" who were now voting no and none at all who had switched to Yes.
Glad to hear about the undecideds switching to no. Have you had any people joining the campaign locally in the last week, after the yes poll scare?
Yes quite a number. Even the Labour MP from Dundee West turned up today. Nothing to do with the cameras of course
Yes, Wm Hill still go 20/1 against Costa to be Champs League top goal scorer, that's a great bet thanks and oddly generous given that Chelsea are a 7/1 shot to win. Each way 1-4 looks worthwhile imo. Corals are also offering the same odds if you can navigate their impossible website!
Aren't Coral only 3 places? That's still a good bet but 1/4 1234 is Golden
You're probably right - I couldn't actually find it on their site! Suarez at the same price looks quite tasty too, if you reckon that Barca will reach the final.
My strategy is a player that dominates his team in terms of goal %, plays up front alone, takes pens and is absolute first choice
I don't think Costa will take CFC pens (Hazard?) but other than that he fits the bill, and Chelsea seem to be scoring a lot of goals this year (small sample I know)
Suarez is going to miss a couple of matches no? Also I don't think he will outscore Messi let alone players from other teams. Neymar is in the mix too..
My outsider would be Jackson Martinez of Porto at 80s
Yes Suarez will miss two games (hence the need for Barca to reach the final which they probably will), but consider how many he scored for Liverpool last season despite his lengthy suspension and if he isn't an automatic pick to play, then I'm not sure why Barca paid £80M for him!
I think the bet for you is "Barcelona to reach the final"!!! 3/1 with bwin
Indeed, unlike the rest of the country London has regulated buses and a local transport authority with additional powers relative to other places in England.
Should London MPs duck out of Westminster debates on transport in the regions of England?
'Peoples' of England is quite wrong. We are one people.
Mr. Tyndall, I'm unconvinced English votes on English laws would work. An improvement on what we have now, but not, I fear, sufficient. Would a Labour PM reliant on Scottish MPs order them to hold back and risk defeat after defeat? I find it incredible.
There must also be some areas of policy where London MPs vote on laws that do not affect London, it also being devolved?
That's a great example. Presumably the free bus passes vote was voted on by London MPs, when London's pensioners already got free bus travel?
I see the new voters registering for Yes just a touch hard to believe in totality. From a basic, non aligned standpoint.
Surely two things should be considered:
1) 16 and 17 year olds registering en masse now that they can. Would've thought nearly all of them would sign up. 2) It's a decision for everyone's future. Yes or no, surely everyone wants a say?
No slight on anyone. I personally, just find it hard to believe that nearly every new voter is a Yes on the extreme I've seen to the majority signing on the more considered side to sign up for Yes.
It may be the case that what I've just criticised becomes the case, and that's fine. Just from a logical standpoint, I can't see it because, it's a referendum on the future of a nation.
Surely everyone, wants a say, whatever way they vote, No and Yes?
I think about 10% of the population move house every year. The last time Electoral Roll was updated was last autumn, so at least some of the new registrations will be people updating their records and not wanting to miss out on this most important vote. It also means, I think, that a turnout rate above 90% is impossible because of people who no longer live there or have died. In which case an 80% turnout is effectively 90% - unless I have completely misunderstood the calculations - which is entirely possible
Have you considered the point that some of those 'new' voters are adults who dropped off the roll over the years through neglecting to register (e.g. after moves)? The classic example is the voter in a seat which is solid Labour (or has been) but with miserable turnout. The lefties and Greens in Yes have been encouraging such registrations, and so too the No campaign.
One argument - so it runs - is that part of this registration is due to disenchantment with the current setup, so if they have registered they are more likely to vote for change than bother confirming the status quo. On the other hand, the opposite could be argued, now that we are in a vote where everyone's vote counts and would make a difference. But we will see who is right come Friday.
So, with all these extra registered voters, Scotland may gain MPs in the next round of boundary changes? (assuming a No vote)
It's not as if they had more than 100%, I suppose - but 97% is very high. One does wonder about the census. And IIRC the average constituency population is rather higher than England, so it's hard to argue against a rseduction (except for the special case of the 2/3 Islands constituencies).
Just read the first few lines of Ferguson's idiocy on why an English Parliament would be terrible. For the sake of time (I should be working) and loathing I stopped reading, but did enjoy the very sensible comments by Mr. Slackbladder and Mr. T.
Well, we'll just have to disagree. The WLQ does need answering; on that, I think we can agree. And while I disagree with Ferguson's argument, which essentially comes down to that we shouldn't have an English parliament because the London media is lazy, I do think he's stumbled across something resembling the true problem.
An separate English parliament would too closely resemble the UK one to be anything other than a rival and near-duplicate; an English parliament comprising only English MPs of the UK parliament would cause too many tensions within Westminster with differing mandates and the ridiculous position that a government could win votes of confidence and pass budgets to stay in office and raise money, but had policies imposed upon it by the 'opposition' as to how to spend that money.
Westminster should have a single purpose: the Federal Parliament of the United Kingdom. Devolution, which must happen to rebalance the equation with Wales and N Ireland, never mind what happens in Scotland, should be to English regions. If there needs to be further discussion on where the borders should be, fine - but that doesn't change the central point.
The WLQ can be answered without either an English Parliament or regionalisation. All it needs is an EVEL in the current Parliament. This should have been a priority for the Tories from the start of this Parliament but I suspect they would not have run with this because of the effect it might have had on the Independence vote.
I dislike EVEL as a solution as you could easily have a situation where Labour ministers head all the departments but are incapable of getting any legislation through because while they have a majority at UK level, on which a vote of confidence is based, they have none in England. I don't think it would be a tenable situation.
Let Westminster deal with defence, the economy, foreign affairs, and matters of genuine UK-wide concern, and devolve the rest.
I see the new voters registering for Yes just a touch hard to believe in totality. From a basic, non aligned standpoint.
Surely two things should be considered:
1) 16 and 17 year olds registering en masse now that they can. Would've thought nearly all of them would sign up. 2) It's a decision for everyone's future. Yes or no, surely everyone wants a say?
No slight on anyone. I personally, just find it hard to believe that nearly every new voter is a Yes on the extreme I've seen to the majority signing on the more considered side to sign up for Yes.
It may be the case that what I've just criticised becomes the case, and that's fine. Just from a logical standpoint, I can't see it because, it's a referendum on the future of a nation.
Surely everyone, wants a say, whatever way they vote, No and Yes?
I think about 10% of the population move house every year. The last time Electoral Roll was updated was last autumn, so at least some of the new registrations will be people updating their records and not wanting to miss out on this most important vote. It also means, I think, that a turnout rate above 90% is impossible because of people who no longer live there or have died. In which case an 80% turnout is effectively 90% - unless I have completely misunderstood the calculations - which is entirely possible
Have you considered the point that some of those 'new' voters are adults who dropped off the roll over the years through neglecting to register (e.g. after moves)? The classic example is the voter in a seat which is solid Labour (or has been) but with miserable turnout. The lefties and Greens in Yes have been encouraging such registrations, and so too the No campaign.
One argument - so it runs - is that part of this registration is due to disenchantment with the current setup, so if they have registered they are more likely to vote for change than bother confirming the status quo. On the other hand, the opposite could be argued, now that we are in a vote where everyone's vote counts and would make a difference. But we will see who is right come Friday.
So, with all these extra registered voters, Scotland may gain MPs in the next round of boundary changes? (assuming a No vote)
And IIRC the average constituency population is rather higher than England
I heard David Cameron's speech as I returned very bedraggled from some pretty damp canvassing. It was excellent and said many of the things that I have in my own small way been seeking to say on here.
This is a country that we should be rightly proud of. Scots should be proud of it too because they played more than their fair share in building it.
It is an element that has been missing from the campaign. Being British is something to be proud of and something none of us should have to give up. I just hope this plea to and from the heart by the PM of our country has not come too late.
Well said David - I've yet to hear Cameron's speech, but the one major theme missing from the Better-Together campaign imho, has been why exactly, being together would be better.
We've had 300 years of shared history to be proud of, but I've heard very little mention of it from those running things north of the border - glad to hear Cameron has gone some way to rectifying that.
Not sure I am following that. Glasgow City is polling no (slightly to my surprise) and Aberdeen City will poll no (although Aberdeenshire ex the city is one of yes's strongest areas).
I have no idea why you are so obsessed about it frankly. It seems to be yourself, Watcher and Saddened who go on about it endlessly. Hugh is Tim, I am Reggie, who cares? Write about something else.
Indeed, unlike the rest of the country London has regulated buses and a local transport authority with additional powers relative to other places in England.
Should London MPs duck out of Westminster debates on transport in the regions of England?
'Peoples' of England is quite wrong. We are one people.
Mr. Tyndall, I'm unconvinced English votes on English laws would work. An improvement on what we have now, but not, I fear, sufficient. Would a Labour PM reliant on Scottish MPs order them to hold back and risk defeat after defeat? I find it incredible.
There must also be some areas of policy where London MPs vote on laws that do not affect London, it also being devolved?
That's a great example. Presumably the free bus passes vote was voted on by London MPs, when London's pensioners already got free bus travel?
I heard David Cameron's speech as I returned very bedraggled from some pretty damp canvassing. It was excellent and said many of the things that I have in my own small way been seeking to say on here.
This is a country that we should be rightly proud of. Scots should be proud of it too because they played more than their fair share in building it.
It is an element that has been missing from the campaign. Being British is something to be proud of and something none of us should have to give up. I just hope this plea to and from the heart by the PM of our country has not come too late.
Well said David - I've yet to hear Cameron's speech, but the one major theme missing from the Better-Together campaign imho, has been why exactly, being together would be better.
We've had 300 years of shared history to be proud of, but I've heard very little mention of it from those running things north of the border - glad to hear Cameron has gone some way to rectifying that.
'Peoples' of England is quite wrong. We are one people.
Mr. Tyndall, I'm unconvinced English votes on English laws would work. An improvement on what we have now, but not, I fear, sufficient. Would a Labour PM reliant on Scottish MPs order them to hold back and risk defeat after defeat? I find it incredible.
It would not be a choice. For it to work it would need a law that proscribed MPs from Scottish seats voting on any laws or issues that were devolved to Holyrood.
NB, this is a possible running total lead after each declaration, for YES to win by the narrowest of margins.
We see that YES should roar into the lead in the early declarations, but then gradually weaken so that NO build an even bigger lead, only for it all to be upset by Glasgow near the end.
Not a prediction, nor a prediction of the declaration order, but I expect the post-mortem graph on Friday to have many similarities to mine, whatever the result...
NB, this is a possible running total lead after each declaration, for YES to win by the narrowest of margins.
We see that YES should roar into the lead in the early declarations, but then gradually weaken so that NO build an even bigger lead, only for it all to be upset by Glasgow near the end.
Not a prediction, nor a prediction of the declaration order, but I expect the post-mortem graph on Friday to have many similarities to mine, whatever the result...
Great stuff Rod and a very possible betting opportunity opens up if the declaration order is anything like you are suggesting, giving as you say the YES vote a substantial early lead and therefore quite possibly unduly swaying the betting odds that way ..... hmm interesting!
New settlement for devolution should seek to reduce the number of politicians. Devolved Parliaments and Assemblies should be staffed by UK MPs. Why do we need to elect different politicians to do the same thing. Scottish MPs must have very little to do in the Commons, on days that there are no UK issues MPs should decide on local issues. A proportionally elected Lords could do the same, then there enough members of devolved legislatures to provide scrutiny.
Personally I think we should look at the system from scratch. For example, I think there should be a UK wide exams system independently run so we can truly compare which country has the best education system. There could be other areas that are already devolved, that may need a UK wide oversight to make sure we all get the services we pay for.
Just read the first few lines of Ferguson's idiocy on why an English Parliament would be terrible. For the sake of time (I should be working) and loathing I stopped reading, but did enjoy the very sensible comments by Mr. Slackbladder and Mr. T.
Well, we'll just have to disagree. The WLQ does need answering; on that, I think we can agree. And while I disagree with Ferguson's argument, which essentially comes down to that we shouldn't have an English parliament because the London media is lazy, I do think he's stumbled across something resembling the true problem.
An separate English parliament would too closely resemble the UK one to be anything other than a rival and near-duplicate; an English parliament comprising only English MPs of the UK parliament would cause too many tensions within Westminster with differing mandates and the ridiculous position that a government could win votes of confidence and pass budgets to stay in office and raise money, but had policies imposed upon it by the 'opposition' as to how to spend that money.
Westminster should have a single purpose: the Federal Parliament of the United Kingdom. Devolution, which must happen to rebalance the equation with Wales and N Ireland, never mind what happens in Scotland, should be to English regions. If there needs to be further discussion on where the borders should be, fine - but that doesn't change the central point.
The WLQ can be answered without either an English Parliament or regionalisation. All it needs is an EVEL in the current Parliament. This should have been a priority for the Tories from the start of this Parliament but I suspect they would not have run with this because of the effect it might have had on the Independence vote.
I dislike EVEL as a solution as you could easily have a situation where Labour ministers head all the departments but are incapable of getting any legislation through because while they have a majority at UK level, on which a vote of confidence is based, they have none in England. I don't think it would be a tenable situation.
Let Westminster deal with defence, the economy, foreign affairs, and matters of genuine UK-wide concern, and devolve the rest.
Sorry but for me the Balkanisation of England would be the very worst thing we could do. Adding yet another useless tier of government is a ludicrous idea, as is the idea that we should do so just to deal with the Scottish problem when there are much simpler and more constructive ways to do this.
Independent Scotland should not use pound, say 63% of English and Welsh Guardian/ICM poll finds popular support for Westminster parties' refusal to allow currency union in event of yes vote
.....Which of course means the English and Welsh are much surer there shouldn't be a currency union than the Scots are on whether they should separate.
After a terrible week for Con last week with YouGov (average Lab lead 4.8), Ashcroft (7) and Opinium (8), today is much more encouraging - ICM (2), Populus (1) and Ashcroft (0).
I do not understand where the notion that if Scotland democratically votes Yes that Cameron ought to resign comes from. This is the result of years of build up and more due to devolution than anything else. Furthermore there is precedent for the UK breaking up, David Lloyd George agreed to let the Irish Free State go independent and he stayed in power until his coalition broke up over a year later.
It's giving large amounts of power to the constituent parts of England so that they can do something more useful with it than Westminster does. On the whole the people of Manchester have a much better idea of what is good for Manchester than the people of Kent have.
There used to by a moderator ruling asking us not to engage in tedious guessing games about which anonymous poster is really another anonymous poster. Could we have it back? Who cares if Fred is really George? It's one of those in-group things that puts off new posters.
Populus : L 35 C 34 ICM (Guardian): L 35 C 33 YG (The Sun/S Times) : L 35 C 32 Ipsos Mori (Standard) : L 33 C 34 Comres (IOS/S Mirror) : L 34 C 32 Comres (Independent) : L 35 C 28 Survation (Sunday Mail): L 35 C 31 Lord Ashcroft: L 33 C 33 Opinium (Observer): L 37 C 29
The two that give the worst Tory scores were two of the most adrift when calling their Euro vote correctly - 3.9 and 2.9 points out respectively.
It's giving large amounts of power to the constituent parts of England so that they can do something more useful with it than Westminster does. On the whole the people of Manchester have a much better idea of what is good for Manchester than the people of Kent have.
There used to by a moderator ruling asking us not to engage in tedious guessing games about which anonymous poster is really another anonymous poster. Could we have it back? Who cares if Fred is really George? It's one of those in-group things that puts off new posters.
After a terrible week for Con last week with YouGov (average Lab lead 4.8), Ashcroft (7) and Opinium (8), today is much more encouraging - ICM (2), Populus (1) and Ashcroft (0).
I was only thinking that myself .... quite a turnaround in a few days. YouGov still to come later this evening.
NB, this is a possible running total lead after each declaration, for YES to win by the narrowest of margins.
We see that YES should roar into the lead in the early declarations, but then gradually weaken so that NO build an even bigger lead, only for it all to be upset by Glasgow near the end.
Not a prediction, nor a prediction of the declaration order, but I expect the post-mortem graph on Friday to have many similarities to mine, whatever the result...
So, the Highlands and Islands go 'yes'? Weekend poll I saw seemed to show them definitely in 'No' camp, which I found odd.
Independent Scotland should not use pound, say 63% of English and Welsh Guardian/ICM poll finds popular support for Westminster parties' refusal to allow currency union in event of yes vote
.....Which of course means the English and Welsh are much surer there shouldn't be a currency union than the Scots are on whether they should separate.
It's almost as if it's the sovereign will of the people of the rUK.
There used to by a moderator ruling asking us not to engage in tedious guessing games about which anonymous poster is really another anonymous poster. Could we have it back? Who cares if Fred is really George? It's one of those in-group things that puts off new posters.
After a terrible week for Con last week with YouGov (average Lab lead 4.8), Ashcroft (7) and Opinium (8), today is much more encouraging - ICM (2), Populus (1) and Ashcroft (0).
I was only thinking that myself .... quite a turnaround in a few days. YouGov still to come later this evening.
Nothing much has happened in the last few days to justify a change - other than maybe Cameron visibility re Scotland.
So I don't think Con supporters should get their hopes up too much - a lot of the changes are probably just random variation. But at the same time it's mildly encouraging.
Just read the first few lines of Ferguson's idiocy on why an English Parliament would be terrible. For the sake of time (I should be working) and loathing I stopped reading, but did enjoy the very sensible comments by Mr. Slackbladder and Mr. T.
Well, we'll just have to disagree. The WLQ does need answering; on that, I think we can agree. And while I disagree with Ferguson's argument, which essentially comes down to that we shouldn't have an English parliament because the London media is lazy, I do think he's stumbled across something resembling the true problem.
An separate English parliament would too closely resemble the UK one to be anything other than a rival and near-duplicate; an English parliament comprising only English MPs of the UK parliament would cause too many tensions within Westminster with differing mandates and the ridiculous position that a government could win votes of confidence and pass budgets to stay in office and raise money, but had policies imposed upon it by the 'opposition' as to how to spend that money.
Westminster should have a single purpose: the Federal Parliament of the United Kingdom. Devolution, which must happen to rebalance the equation with Wales and N Ireland, never mind what happens in Scotland, should be to English regions. If there needs to be further discussion on where the borders should be, fine - but that doesn't change the central point.
The WLQ can be answered without either an English Parliament or regionalisation. All it needs is an EVEL in the current Parliament. This should have been a priority for the Tories from the start of this Parliament but I suspect they would not have run with this because of the effect it might have had on the Independence vote.
I dislike EVEL as a solution as you could easily have a situation where Labour ministers head all the departments but are incapable of getting any legislation through because while they have a majority at UK level, on which a vote of confidence is based, they have none in England. I don't think it would be a tenable situation.
Let Westminster deal with defence, the economy, foreign affairs, and matters of genuine UK-wide concern, and devolve the rest.
If Labour lack a majority in England why should they be able to pass English only legislation and why should they head English only departments?
The PM is a Tory but the head of Department for Welsh health care sure isn't. Why can't there be a Labour PM for UK wide issues but under EVEL a Tory government for devolved matters if that's the way people voted? Scotland and Wales have that situation.
NB, this is a possible running total lead after each declaration, for YES to win by the narrowest of margins.
We see that YES should roar into the lead in the early declarations, but then gradually weaken so that NO build an even bigger lead, only for it all to be upset by Glasgow near the end.
Not a prediction, nor a prediction of the declaration order, but I expect the post-mortem graph on Friday to have many similarities to mine, whatever the result...
So, the Highlands and Islands go 'yes'? Weekend poll I saw seemed to show them definitely in 'No' camp, which I found odd.
There used to by a moderator ruling asking us not to engage in tedious guessing games about which anonymous poster is really another anonymous poster. Could we have it back? Who cares if Fred is really George? It's one of those in-group things that puts off new posters.
Why would someone constantly keep doing it though? It's annoying
NB, this is a possible running total lead after each declaration, for YES to win by the narrowest of margins.
We see that YES should roar into the lead in the early declarations, but then gradually weaken so that NO build an even bigger lead, only for it all to be upset by Glasgow near the end.
Not a prediction, nor a prediction of the declaration order, but I expect the post-mortem graph on Friday to have many similarities to mine, whatever the result...
So, the Highlands and Islands go 'yes'? Weekend poll I saw seemed to show them definitely in 'No' camp, which I found odd.
It's giving large amounts of power to the constituent parts of England so that they can do something more useful with it than Westminster does. On the whole the people of Manchester have a much better idea of what is good for Manchester than the people of Kent have.
I am afraid that if the way county and district councils are run is any measure then all you will be doing is wasting a huge amount of money.
It is utterly unnecessary when we can simply deal with the WLQ with EVEL.
Just read the first few lines of Ferguson's idiocy on why an English Parliament would be terrible. For the sake of time (I should be working) and loathing I stopped reading, but did enjoy the very sensible comments by Mr. Slackbladder and Mr. T.
Well, we'll just have to disagree. The WLQ does need answering; on that, I think we can agree. And while I disagree with Ferguson's argument, which essentially comes down to that we shouldn't have an English parliament because the London media is lazy, I do think he's stumbled across something resembling the true problem.
An separate English parliament would too closely resemble the UK one to be anything other than a rival and near-duplicate; an English parliament comprising only English MPs of the UK parliament would cause too many tensions within Westminster with differing mandates and the ridiculous position that a government could win votes of confidence and pass budgets to stay in office and raise money, but had policies imposed upon it by the 'opposition' as to how to spend that money.
Westminster should have a single purpose: the Federal Parliament of the United Kingdom. Devolution, which must happen to rebalance the equation with Wales and N Ireland, never mind what happens in Scotland, should be to English regions. If there needs to be further discussion on where the borders should be, fine - but that doesn't change the central point.
The WLQ can be answered without either an English Parliament or regionalisation. All it needs is an EVEL in the current Parliament. This should have been a priority for the Tories from the start of this Parliament but I suspect they would not have run with this because of the effect it might have had on the Independence vote.
I dislike EVEL as a solution as you could easily have a situation where Labour ministers head all the departments but are incapable of getting any legislation through because while they have a majority at UK level, on which a vote of confidence is based, they have none in England. I don't think it would be a tenable situation.
Let Westminster deal with defence, the economy, foreign affairs, and matters of genuine UK-wide concern, and devolve the rest.
If there's a Labour government which doesn't have a majority in the English committee, they can do what governments have done since time memorial: negotiate with MPs until they find a compromise that can pass. I don't see why it's such a big deal.
It's giving large amounts of power to the constituent parts of England so that they can do something more useful with it than Westminster does. On the whole the people of Manchester have a much better idea of what is good for Manchester than the people of Kent have.
We already have devolved government in England - in London. It works very well. Why not a similar system in Manchester?
If England wants to devolve power, that's fine. What's not fine is for the UK to directly devolve power to English regions. It's as if we said to Scotland "you're much bigger than Northern Ireland and Wales, we are going to split you into two before devolution".
It's giving large amounts of power to the constituent parts of England so that they can do something more useful with it than Westminster does. On the whole the people of Manchester have a much better idea of what is good for Manchester than the people of Kent have.
We already have devolved government in England - in London. It works very well. Why not a similar system in Manchester?
We have extremely limited devolved government in London. Effectively it is a glorified County Council. If Manchester want that then fine. But that will not deal with the WLQ. EVEL will deal with that and is the way we should go. Following the stupid unwanted regional government plan that was comprehensively rejected by the electorate last time is just a waste of time and money.
There used to by a moderator ruling asking us not to engage in tedious guessing games about which anonymous poster is really another anonymous poster. Could we have it back? Who cares if Fred is really George? It's one of those in-group things that puts off new posters.
When a poster claims that he can no longer post here because it's too right wing and unpleasant for him, but returns later the same day under a pseudonym to continue posting. Then rinses and repeats, frequently, I find that incredibly dishonest. If such blatant sock puppetry isn't stopped by the mods, then I feel it's fair enough to point it out.
There used to by a moderator ruling asking us not to engage in tedious guessing games about which anonymous poster is really another anonymous poster. Could we have it back? Who cares if Fred is really George? It's one of those in-group things that puts off new posters.
When a poster claims that he can no longer post here because it's too right wing and unpleasant for him, but returns later the same day under a pseudonym to continue posting. Then rinses and repeats, frequently, I find that incredibly dishonest. If such blatant sock puppetry isn't stopped by the mods, then I feel it's fair enough to point it out.
We already have devolved government in England - in London. It works very well. Why not a similar system in Manchester?
A ludicrous assertion. Compare the powers of the Greater London Authority with the Scottish Parliament. The former is a Crossmanite scheme of centralising the powers of local authorities, whereas the latter can make primary legislation. Creating seven equivalents to the GLA in the rest of England is no solution at all to the West Lothian question.
I remember a couple of hours of that day quite clearly. I was standing on the corner of Upper St and Canonbury Street in Islington visiting my grandparents who lived at 260 Upper St (with my parents of course) when there was a heavy drone of German aircraft coming nearer, it seemed. The time was about midday as we were due for lunch. Going upstairs into my grandma's kitchen, I looked out of the window to see high up overhead the contrails of planes like wheeling silver dots, now heading away from my eyesight. No bombs were dropped in my hearing, that I remember, but the all clear didn't sound until 5 o'clock. I was six years old.
Comments
That's with Laddies and 365 btw.
My betfair bets have been fairly tightly limited recently, I can only get relatively small bets accepted. Shadsy still seems keen on taking my money though!
I favour extensive devolution within England so that much more power is brought much closer to the peoples of England than at present. A dysfunctional English Parliament is no more attractive than the current dysfunctional British one.
'Peoples' of England is quite wrong. We are one people.
Mr. Tyndall, I'm unconvinced English votes on English laws would work. An improvement on what we have now, but not, I fear, sufficient. Would a Labour PM reliant on Scottish MPs order them to hold back and risk defeat after defeat? I find it incredible.
"There is no denominational risk."
That will come back to haunt you Alex, whatever the result.
What do we think? Brain cauterised oaf or cynical liar?
I don't think Costa will take CFC pens (Hazard?) but other than that he fits the bill, and Chelsea seem to be scoring a lot of goals this year (small sample I know)
Suarez is going to miss a couple of matches no? Also I don't think he will outscore Messi let alone players from other teams. Neymar is in the mix too..
My outsider would be Jackson Martinez of Porto at 80s
Reality is it not democratic enough but they have been crying out for the devolution of powers for ages and ages, presumably this may soon be forthcoming along with increased democracy over how the Greater Manc Combined Authority is operated.
We were confronted on the stairs by a large man wearing what appeared to be boxers.
"You've been littering" he hollered waving one of our leaflets, in a belligerent manner.
"Oh, I am sorry, did we drop one?" my hapless colleague replied.
"He means we put it through his letter box and he doesn't want it," I explained.
"At least it is the right colour for you lot," was the next riposte.
My colleague was completely confused by this one.
"He means that it is purple and we are like UKIP, " I explained.
At which point Mr Angry was persuaded to return the offending leaflet which was of course then recycled to what was hopefully a more grateful recipient.
It's life Jim but not as we know it.
One argument - so it runs - is that part of this registration is due to disenchantment with the current setup, so if they have registered they are more likely to vote for change than bother confirming the status quo. On the other hand, the opposite could be argued, now that we are in a vote where everyone's vote counts and would make a difference. But we will see who is right come Friday.
But I did.
Guardian Scotland @GdnScotland now
Exclusive: @ICMResearch @guardian polls shows @UKLabour #Westminster support dips 3pts to 35%; Tories up 2 to 33% http://gu.com/p/4xtaf/tw
Independent Scotland should not use pound, say 63% of English and Welsh
Guardian/ICM poll finds popular support for Westminster parties' refusal to allow currency union in event of yes vote
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/15/independent-scotland-not-use-pound-english-welsh-voters?CMP=twt_gu
The graph is a plausible scenario (for a narrow YES) given the suggested declaration order...
Now with labels.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/13331381/Indyref.PNG
Should London MPs duck out of Westminster debates on transport in the regions of England?
Sunil has already showed you the average leads in the past few weeks...
cheers.
Let Westminster deal with defence, the economy, foreign affairs, and matters of genuine UK-wide concern, and devolve the rest.
Put it in Manchester (Granada TV set?), Leeds, Liverpool, Sheffield or Newcastle, for two days a week.
Same MPs. Let them get there on an HS2 built more rapidly. Time it so they only need one overnight.
That will, I hope, distance it from London, and put the OMIGOD WHATABOUT MY HOUSE IN THE CHILTERNS Nimbys back in their place.
2 days will, I hope, limit the meaningless rabbitting on / abuse that is the basic tune of Holyrood for the last few years.
Amazing scenes.
What difference it will make is probably slim to nigh none but, it's something else to see.
We've had 300 years of shared history to be proud of, but I've heard very little mention of it from those running things north of the border - glad to hear Cameron has gone some way to rectifying that.
I have no idea why you are so obsessed about it frankly. It seems to be yourself, Watcher and Saddened who go on about it endlessly. Hugh is Tim, I am Reggie, who cares? Write about something else.
The source has been posted a few times.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BxVAehFCUAALnvR.jpg
twitter.com/cllrdmeikle/status/510385027721736192/photo/1
However, this type of democratic deficit is ignored by the London centric media and political elite.
When such issues favour London and the south they are ignored, when they favour the regions all hell breaks loose.
The GMCA could do the job of the London Assembly, then have a mayor. More democratic accountability and devolved powers...
BBC1: 10:35pm-6am, Scotland Decides with Huw Edwards
ITV: 10:40m-6am, Scotland Decides with Alastair Stewart
That's a good 20,000 from the town itself plus the surrounding areas which are beyond staunchly Unionist.
Though with over 300,000 in the region, my remark is relatively light of heart.
NB, this is a possible running total lead after each declaration, for YES to win by the narrowest of margins.
We see that YES should roar into the lead in the early declarations, but then gradually weaken so that NO build an even bigger lead, only for it all to be upset by Glasgow near the end.
Not a prediction, nor a prediction of the declaration order, but I expect the post-mortem graph on Friday to have many similarities to mine, whatever the result...
Personally I think we should look at the system from scratch. For example, I think there should be a UK wide exams system independently run so we can truly compare which country has the best education system. There could be other areas that are already devolved, that may need a UK wide oversight to make sure we all get the services we pay for.
Someone has a very, very, very green book.
Some will still say bluffing, Tory Toff and whatever else but the fact remains, he sure as sh*t ain't bluffing.
It's giving large amounts of power to the constituent parts of England so that they can do something more useful with it than Westminster does. On the whole the people of Manchester have a much better idea of what is good for Manchester than the people of Kent have.
ICM (Guardian): L 35 C 33
YG (The Sun/S Times) : L 35 C 32
Ipsos Mori (Standard) : L 33 C 34
Comres (IOS/S Mirror) : L 34 C 32
Comres (Independent) : L 35 C 28
Survation (Sunday Mail): L 35 C 31
Lord Ashcroft: L 33 C 33
Opinium (Observer): L 37 C 29
The two that give the worst Tory scores were two of the most adrift when calling their Euro vote correctly - 3.9 and 2.9 points out respectively.
You are right of course Brian.
We already have devolved government in England - in London. It works very well. Why not a similar system in Manchester?
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/james-forsyth/2014/09/pollsters-could-have-got-it-wrong-on-the-scottish-independence-referendum/
#MegaPollingMonday
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11081025/Scottish-independence-campaign-live.html
(and may have video - I'm on a glacial wifi connection...)
So I don't think Con supporters should get their hopes up too much - a lot of the changes are probably just random variation. But at the same time it's mildly encouraging.
The PM is a Tory but the head of Department for Welsh health care sure isn't. Why can't there be a Labour PM for UK wide issues but under EVEL a Tory government for devolved matters if that's the way people voted? Scotland and Wales have that situation.
The Western Isles go Yes, the Highlands go No.
It is utterly unnecessary when we can simply deal with the WLQ with EVEL.
I was standing on the corner of Upper St and Canonbury Street in Islington visiting my grandparents who lived at 260 Upper St (with my parents of course) when there was a heavy drone of German aircraft coming nearer, it seemed. The time was about midday as we were due for lunch. Going upstairs into my grandma's kitchen, I looked out of the window to see high up overhead the contrails of planes like wheeling silver dots, now heading away from my eyesight. No bombs were dropped in my hearing, that I remember, but the all clear didn't sound until 5 o'clock. I was six years old.