Just saw Jeremy Browne on the Daily Politics - I wonder if he will hang on? Looks like a relatively decent chap and could probably overturn the 4 point Tory lead in the recent Lord Ashcroft poll
Surbiton The ironic thing is if anyone seems to meet the definition of autistic it is George Osborne, even he admitted he spent much of his youth committing facts to memory and he is hardly the most empathetic of people
Exactly. There was a proposal from some MPs many years ago (in my memory it was in the seventies, but I could be wrong) that the automatic annual uprating of tax thresholds in lines with the rise of average earnings should be enshrined in law. The proposal went further in that HMG could decide to not raise the thresholds for one year but only if it could get a majority of the commons to vote for it. Obviously the last would not have been difficult for most governments, but it would have forced them to be up-front and honest about what they were doing.
There are a bit less than five million taxpayers currently paying higher rate income tax. When Osborne took over the treasury the figure was a bit over 3 million. I would have lot more respect for the fellow if he had uprated the thresholds and increased the rates, at least that would have been open and honest, and made a nice change from the political machinations of the Brown Treasury.
Carswell comes across pretty daft, his libertarianism would dovetail with that. His focus on immaterial constitutional issues and support for extreme austerity suggests an inability to empathize and understand other people. Mildly autistic perhaps.
THe last sentence was totally unnecessary. I have a severely autistic son. So pardon me, if I do not join in with that kind of crass stupid, insensitive comment.
Another idiot called Osborne suggested the same about Gordon Brown.
It seems to me, for Tories, autism has become a word of abuse !
I don't think that @FalseFlag is a Tory. A Kipper possibly.
But more likely a Yedinaya Rossiya supporter (and maybe activist as well).
OK. I stand corrected. The sentiments expressed remain the same.
And I agree that the term "autistic" should purely be used in its technical sense. It shouldn't be an insult. But Tories don't have a monopoly on nastiness
Iif the 40% band is currently as stated (£41K) and given nominal income growth of 5% per annum* the equation 41 * (1.05 pow 5) equals 52.3275440625 according to Macrosoft's Calc (Vista).** The promise is as contemptible as R'Ed Milliband's miminum-wage promise!
I really think we have wasted billions on educating nothing more then thick people. Shame that only an elite can benefit despite the largesse....
* Real income growth of 2.7% coupled with 2.3% price-inflation. ** Projections are 2020.
It is I think even worse than that. I did some fag packet calculations the other day and by my reckoning the 40% threshold would have been comfortably over 50k by now if successive chancellors had not used the dishonest measure of fiscal drag to bring more and more people within its scope. The number of people paying 40% has risen by about 1 million under Conservative chancellor Osborne.
It is certainly a very limited promise.
But no fiscal drag is better than fiscal drag.
Correct. But when they said 'we are all in it together', thats what it meant. The LDs are happy to trumpet the increase in the basic allowance, but nor so keen to point out who paid for it. Where else is it possible to get the money? The ability to lift the allownces is based on cutting the deficit
Kodak is an example of brands having a limited shelf life when their category has a limited shelf life. Kodak was the number one brand in film photography -on the top of a declining iceberg, just like Olivetti in typewriters. There is little evidence to suggest that the name could have dominated digital photography, even if the company could.
Personally I've always thought they could have attempted to maintain the Kodak name in the digital era by having print shops where you could get your digital shots photo-shopped and nicely printed and framed. 'Turning pixels into pictures'. I think there was a slight window of opportunity there. Of course trends have left that idea behind now, as people mainly take pictures to share on SM rather than to adorn their walls or keep in albums.
Kodak invented digital technology and had a patent on it.
Using a trusted brand name to introduce a novel technology that is a marked improvement on the core business - there is no reason to believe that Kodak wouldn't have been able to transfer the brands.
As for your retail idea, that's what they do with Kodak Pictures and Kodak Express.
In factual terms, no. However, a brand exists only in the mind, as a perception. In the mind, Kodak = film. They were lucky that they dominated the film category with that name -it's something that every brand name aspires to and they made a lot of money out of it for a lot of decades as film dominated consumer photography. But all good things must come to an end. If tissues suddenly go out of vogue because we're all using solar-powered nose dryers, don't expect 'Kleenex' to be the number one name in solar-powered nose dryers, because it won't happen. By and large, a new category creates opportunities for new brand names.
Mark Littlewood (ex Lds media boss) writes in the Mail:
"Do you remember Kodak? Once a respected corporate giant, hugely successful in a competitive marketplace, the company’s fall from grace is now studied in business schools across the globe.
Kodak is widely seen as a perfect example of what not to do. Through a mixture of naivety, arrogance and managerial ineptitude, the company utterly failed to adapt to a rapidly changing world. As people moved towards digital technology rather than photographic film, away from handheld cameras and towards smartphone photography, Kodak refused to change. In 2012, Kodak filed for bankruptcy.....
In years to come, the Liberal Democrats might be used as a case study by political historians in much the same way. Nick Clegg is in severe danger of leading the Kodak party of British politics. The political and economic environment has changed enormously in the past four years and the Lib Dems have utterly failed to change with it.
From the height of Cleggmania in the election campaign of 2010, the Deputy Prime Minister now finds his personal ratings on the floor and his party a margin of error or two from ceasing to register in the opinion polls at all.....
What went wrong? Well, there has been a range of spectacularly bad tactical and campaigning missteps. But the heart of what went wrong for the Lib Dems is the same as what went wrong for Kodak. A failure to recognise – let alone adapt to – dramatic and deep changes in the world in which they operate."
He's completely wrong.
Kodak's failure was not one of a changing market. Or even one of innovation (for instance, they invented MS-DOS and digital film). But they chose not to adopt digital film for fear of cannibalising their core business.
Clegg now saying tax rises needed to tackle the deficit and Tories want to beat up on the poor. (Personally, I have a theory both Cameron and Clegg want the Tory LD coalition to continue and recognise the best way to do that is for Cameron to go right to win back Kippers and Clegg to go left to win back Labour support
So just when will Miliband and Labour address their deficiencies in every area other than the NHS? Running out of time!
I'm not convinced Labour really want to win 2015 (as a whole). I think they're still exhausted from the 2005-2010 parliament. Sure, the leadership want to, but the party rank and file? Hmm, I don't see any fire.
Let me advise Clegg. He needs to stop giving the impression that the coalition is near enough his ideal government. You have an 80% Tory cabinet and all bar two government departments, not even the biggest ones, are run by Tory secretaries of state. If the outcome is a government that Nick Clegg regards as near his ideal, then he looks like a Tory. It's all well and good to talk about restraining the Tories, but there's no way he can get everything he wants and if he does, it must mean he isn't that far from being a Tory himself.
So just when will Miliband and Labour address their deficiencies in every area other than the NHS? Running out of time!
I'm not convinced Labour really want to win 2015 (as a whole). I think they're still exhausted from the 2005-2010 parliament. Sure, the leadership want to, but the party rank and file? Hmm, I don't see any fire.
Other way round. Us lot in the trenches have fire in the belly. not sure the same can be said about the higher ups, especially with the residual Blairites still banging on.
Let me advise Clegg. He needs to stop giving the impression that the coalition is near enough his ideal government. You have an 80% Tory cabinet and all bar two government departments, not even the biggest ones, are run by Tory secretaries of state. If the outcome is a government that Nick Clegg regards as near his ideal, then he looks like a Tory. It's all well and good to talk about restraining the Tories, but there's no way he can get everything he wants and if he does, it must mean he isn't that far from being a Tory himself.
Cleggs's biggest mistake was not demanding a great office of state alongside his DPM-ship. The LDs could quite easily have claimed the foreign office. would have leant a bit of gravitas.
As it is, he was stuck with his rubbish constitutional reform role. Can anyone explain what constitutional reform Nick Clegg has actually managed to accomplish after 5 years? He was well and truly outplayed on that front, meaning he's not had much to do except circulate the TV studios looking pained,
A good week for the Tories, but how will thy convince the R&S voters to vote for them?
Say to Labour voters "You can't win here, so vote for your enemies at the next GE to give us a massive boost."
Say to Ukip voters "You're not very bright are you, vote for us you cretins." And "Vote Ukip, get Ed" doesn't work for this by election.
And how can Labour get tactical votes? Say to Tories exactly the same as the Tories say to Labpour voters (with as much chance of success)?
Perhaps the bookies have got this right?
The question is surely *should* they convince Rochester voters to vote for them -Around the time of Eastleigh UKIP was widely criticised for 'splitting the Tory vote'. Now we have a situation where the UKIP candidate is 10% ahead, he's essentially a Tory, yet the Conservatives are intent on torpedoing his chances of re-election, even if that means letting Labour in. Vote Conservative -Get Labour.
I am simply not convinced by this 'Reckless is the spawn of satan' nonsense I'm reading here. On the one hand he's meant to be an ambitious, lying, greasy pole climber, hence his defection to a growing party whilst the going's good, but on the other hand, he's a socially awkward serial rebel. Sorry, but you can't be both. We all know that the quickest route to preferment within the Tory party is to vote with the leadership. The truth is basically that Reckless is not as charismatic or as creative as Carswell, but on the other hand he is a principled man who takes his job of representing his constituents seriously.
Vote Conservative -Get Labour.
Reckless' campaign literature could just say that along with the infamous bar charts saying only UKIP can win here !
It may well do! And another thing -the more personal the attacks on Reckless, for instance attacking his integrity and making a huge thing that he lied (not sure what else he could possibly have done in the circumstances), the less well it will play with the electorate.
A BBC South Today piece on the by-election was focused on the attacks on Mr Reckless. Not good telly for the Conservatives.
Carswell comes across pretty daft, his libertarianism would dovetail with that. His focus on immaterial constitutional issues and support for extreme austerity suggests an inability to empathize and understand other people. Mildly autistic perhaps.
I see Damian McBride has joined us. What is pretty absurd (and damn offensive) is to attempt to smear Carswell in such a low minded manner. I'm sure those who have autism will think all the more of you for including them in this attack on Carswell.
Of course Carswell is one of the few Coalition MPs whose local association membership was growing before his defection and he has a strong reputation for interacting with his constituents. . Combine that with the clear outpouring of personal support for him in Clacton despite forcing an election on them and its clear Carswell is far more 'connected' with his constituents than the vast majority of MPs and in fact is the very opposite of your nasty minded smear.
Kodak is an example of brands having a limited shelf life when their category has a limited shelf life. Kodak was the number one brand in film photography -on the top of a declining iceberg, just like Olivetti in typewriters. There is little evidence to suggest that the name could have dominated digital photography, even if the company could.
Personally I've always thought they could have attempted to maintain the Kodak name in the digital era by having print shops where you could get your digital shots photo-shopped and nicely printed and framed. 'Turning pixels into pictures'. I think there was a slight window of opportunity there. Of course trends have left that idea behind now, as people mainly take pictures to share on SM rather than to adorn their walls or keep in albums.
Kodak invented digital technology and had a patent on it.
Using a trusted brand name to introduce a novel technology that is a marked improvement on the core business - there is no reason to believe that Kodak wouldn't have been able to transfer the brands.
As for your retail idea, that's what they do with Kodak Pictures and Kodak Express.
In factual terms, no. However, a brand exists only in the mind, as a perception. In the mind, Kodak = film. They were lucky that they dominated the film category with that name -it's something that every brand name aspires to and they made a lot of money out of it for a lot of decades as film dominated consumer photography. But all good things must come to an end. If tissues suddenly go out of vogue because we're all using solar-powered nose dryers, don't expect 'Kleenex' to be the number one name in solar-powered nose dryers, because it won't happen. By and large, a new category creates opportunities for new brand names.
Indeed. You may still hear the phrase "a Kodak moment" used as an expression long after the product itself has disappeared. Kleenex never had that market awareness but Hoover did - and the brand has now become the generic term for the item.
Clegg now saying tax rises needed to tackle the deficit and Tories want to beat up on the poor. (Personally, I have a theory both Cameron and Clegg want the Tory LD coalition to continue and recognise the best way to do that is for Cameron to go right to win back Kippers and Clegg to go left to win back Labour support
HYUFD
I think your theory is correct.
However Clegg and Alexander do not seem to me, to be the best to entice Labour support or Cameron and Osborne to entice kipper support. I think it would need a change at the top to achieve any meaningful change . As you can not put your cross against coalition, like you could in some 1930`s elections.
So just when will Miliband and Labour address their deficiencies in every area other than the NHS? Running out of time!
I'm not convinced Labour really want to win 2015 (as a whole). I think they're still exhausted from the 2005-2010 parliament. Sure, the leadership want to, but the party rank and file? Hmm, I don't see any fire.
Other way round. Us lot in the trenches have fire in the belly. not sure the same can be said about the higher ups, especially with the residual Blairites still banging on.
I agree also a few MPs like Mann who seem to pleasure in making it difficult to win.
Looking at the data the last two YouGov polls have been like the famous YES Indy Ref survey of a few weeks back. The raw numbers had NO/LAB ahead by a reasonable margin - it's the weighted numbers that reversed them.
My back of envelope calculations are that if the raw data had been responses to an Opinium poll then it would show a LAB lead of 4-5%.
The only other pollster to report since the DC speech, Populus, had comfortable LAB lead.
We'll see.
But isn't weighted data far more accurate in Voting Intention polling compared to the referendum when even the pollsters were admitting they could be really ballsing up?
If I may interrupt there. I wish to dispute the proposition that "even the pollsters were admitting they could be really ballsing up", and further dispute the associated proposition that "the pollsters ballsed up". The SindyRef polls showed a consistent "NO" lead some time out, which then narrowed as the debates were held and arguments were aired. As the lead narrowed some polls showed a much smaller lead and one a small "YES" lead, which is what you'd expect with a poll spread. As polling day approached the arguments were examined more finely and some people walked back, so the "NO" lead began to increase again, cumulating in the final polling day result.
In short, the polls were exactly right (within the poll spread) and gave a useful tracker of polling intention as time progressed. Which is what we wanted and needed.
(for avoidance of doubt I am not employed by a pollster and never have been)
YCity Indeed, but with the Tories now narrowly ahead they only need to win a few more kippers and the LDs only a few from Labour to give the Tories and LDs combined another majority even if the Tories themselves fall short
That's right. He has to be even or, at the very least, try to pretend he is. He and the Orange Bookers are forever attacking Labour.
Many red Liberals will not come back whatever happens. The betrayal has left wounds - some still fresh.
I agree, this will decimate Libdem seats, particuarly in the south even if Tories get less votes. Some will vote Labour, others will sit at home, a big slew will vote UKIP, only those who really despise the tories will still vote tactically. I think there will even be a couple of shocks in Scotland.
My Guess of Liberal seats at risk:
Had it:
Solihull - to C Dorset Mid and Poole North - to C Norwich South - L Bradford E - L Wells - C St Austell - C Brent C - L Somerton & Frome - C Sutton and Cheam - C St Ives - C Manchester Withington - L Burnley - L Dunbartonshire E - L Chippenham - C Cheadle - C Cornwall N - C Eastbourne - C Taunton Deane - C Berwick upon Tweed - C Eastleigh - UKIP Argyll & Bute - C Aberdeen W & Kincardine - C Edinburgh West - L Torbay - C Cheltenham - C Brecon & Rad - C Devon North - C Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk - C Redcar - L Hornsey & Wood Green - L Portsmouth South - UKIP Cambridge - L Southport - C Gordon - SNP Thornbury & Yate - C Colchester - C Hazel Grove - C Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross - L Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey - SNP Bristol West - L Ceredigion - PC Norfolk North - C Westmoreland & Lonsdale - C Bath - C Leeds North West - C
Will Retain
Birmingham Yardley Carshalton & Wallington Cardiff Central Kingston & Surbiton Lewes Bermondsey & Old Southwark Twickenham Fife North East Yeovil Sheffield Hallam Ross, Skye and Lochaber Orkney and Shetland
Will gain
Oxford West & Abington (from C)
Overall
C gain = 30 L gain = 12 UKIP Gain =2 SNP Gain =2 PC Gain =1
Add in DUP gaining South Tyrone & Feremanagh from SF & Belfast East from Alliance & even if no other seats change hands in 2015 you get:
Conservative 336 Labour 270 Libdem 13 DUP 10 SNP = 8 SF = 4 UKIP = 2 Lady Hernon = 1 Others = 8
Conservative Majority = 22
Conservative Majority excluding SF who dont vote = 26
Thats the hill that Miliband has to climb in 2015. What cost the Conservatives victory in 2010 was the Libs retaining seats that they had won off the tories in the '90s and that had previously been safe tory seats.
So just when will Miliband and Labour address their deficiencies in every area other than the NHS? Running out of time!
I'm not convinced Labour really want to win 2015 (as a whole). I think they're still exhausted from the 2005-2010 parliament. Sure, the leadership want to, but the party rank and file? Hmm, I don't see any fire.
Other way round. Us lot in the trenches have fire in the belly. not sure the same can be said about the higher ups, especially with the residual Blairites still banging on.
Thanks and understood (I defer to your knowledge of the grassroots!) from an outsiders perspective, it is clear there is something there which is causing the party not to go 100% at 2015.
If Labour lose, I think it's hugely important for them to elect a leader who looks and sounds in tune with their supporters. The Islingtonista set talk about inequality and the Tories hurting the poor, but do so from a position of privilege themselves, where they have to come up with cringeworthy anecdotes about meeting people on Hampsted Heath! (Seriously, what was he thinking?!)
That's right. He has to be even or, at the very least, try to pretend he is. He and the Orange Bookers are forever attacking Labour.
Many red Liberals will not come back whatever happens. The betrayal has left wounds - some still fresh.
I agree, this will decimate Libdem seats, particuarly in the south even if Tories get less votes. Some will vote Labour, others will sit at home, a big slew will vote UKIP, only those who really despise the tories will still vote tactically. I think there will even be a couple of shocks in Scotland.
My Guess of Liberal seats at risk:
Had it:
Solihull - to C Dorset Mid and Poole North - to C Norwich South - L Bradford E - L Wells - C St Austell - C Brent C - L Somerton & Frome - C Sutton and Cheam - C St Ives - C Manchester Withington - L Burnley - L Dunbartonshire E - L Chippenham - C Cheadle - C Cornwall N - C Eastbourne - C Taunton Deane - C Berwick upon Tweed - C Eastleigh - UKIP Argyll & Bute - C Aberdeen W & Kincardine - C Edinburgh West - L Torbay - C Cheltenham - C Brecon & Rad - C Devon North - C Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk - C Redcar - L Hornsey & Wood Green - L Portsmouth South - UKIP Cambridge - L Southport - C Gordon - SNP Thornbury & Yate - C Colchester - C Hazel Grove - C Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross - L Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey - SNP Bristol West - L Ceredigion - PC Norfolk North - C Westmoreland & Lonsdale - C Bath - C Leeds North West - C
Will Retain
Birmingham Yardley Carshalton & Wallington Cardiff Central Kingston & Surbiton Lewes Bermondsey & Old Southwark Twickenham Fife North East Yeovil Sheffield Hallam Ross, Skye and Lochaber Orkney and Shetland
Will gain
Oxford West & Abington (from C)
Overall
C gain = 30 L gain = 12 UKIP Gain =2 SNP Gain =2 PC Gain =1
Add in DUP gaining South Tyrone & Feremanagh from SF & Belfast East from Alliance & even if no other seats change hands in 2015 you get:
Conservative 336 Labour 270 Libdem 13 DUP 10 SNP = 8 SF = 4 UKIP = 2 Lady Hernon = 1 Others = 8
Conservative Majority = 22
Conservative Majority excluding SF who dont vote = 26
Thats the hill that Miliband has to climb in 2015. What cost the Conservatives victory in 2010 was the Libs retaining seats that they had won off the tories in the '90s and that had previously been safe tory seats.
I would be very surprised if Sutton and Cheam went Tory..The results for the borough in May were the best for the Lib Dems anywhere in the UK.....
YCity Indeed, but with the Tories now narrowly ahead they only need to win a few more kippers and the LDs only a few from Labour to give the Tories and LDs combined another majority even if the Tories themselves fall short
If the Tories fall short , I can not imagine the Lib Dem party wanting another coalition with the Conservatives. The coalition would be with the Irish Unionist and unofficially with 2 or 3 labour MP`s like Kate Hoey and some Orange Bookers.
YC But the DUP have 8 MPs, UKIP maybe 3 at most plus 2/3 Labour MPs would not be enough so the Orange Bookers at least would be needed, so another coalition, based on largest party, unless LDs split
Kodak is an example of brands having a limited shelf life when their category has a limited shelf life. Kodak was the number one brand in film photography -on the top of a declining iceberg, just like Olivetti in typewriters. There is little evidence to suggest that the name could have dominated digital photography, even if the company could.
Personally I've always thought they could have attempted to maintain the Kodak name in the digital era by having print shops where you could get your digital shots photo-shopped and nicely printed and framed. 'Turning pixels into pictures'. I think there was a slight window of opportunity there. Of course trends have left that idea behind now, as people mainly take pictures to share on SM rather than to adorn their walls or keep in albums.
Kodak invented digital technology and had a patent on it.
Using a trusted brand name to introduce a novel technology that is a marked improvement on the core business - there is no reason to believe that Kodak wouldn't have been able to transfer the brands.
As for your retail idea, that's what they do with Kodak Pictures and Kodak Express.
In factual terms, no. However, a brand exists only in the mind, as a perception. In the mind, Kodak = film. They were lucky that they dominated the film category with that name -it's something that every brand name aspires to and they made a lot of money out of it for a lot of decades as film dominated consumer photography. But all good things must come to an end. If tissues suddenly go out of vogue because we're all using solar-powered nose dryers, don't expect 'Kleenex' to be the number one name in solar-powered nose dryers, because it won't happen. By and large, a new category creates opportunities for new brand names.
Indeed. You may still hear the phrase "a Kodak moment" used as an expression long after the product itself has disappeared. Kleenex never had that market awareness but Hoover did - and the brand has now become the generic term for the item.
Using the word doesn't pay the bills though!
I believe the term 'Kleenex moment' has some currency, though perhaps not an association Kleenex may want.
How do you explain to shareholders that instead of continuing to invest in your core product (e.g. film) that has provided all of your profits for decades, you want to invest in a new technology (digital photographs) that nobody wants (but will eventually kill you)?
My favourite is the market leader in steam powered drag line excavators (what?) who failed to invest in small hydraulic diggers (can you spell JCB?)
That's an interesting and useful summary, Paul. Thank you.
Your theoretical Parliament after the May GE has two UKIP seats, which is a perfectly plausible estimate. You have in mind though Eastleigh and Portsmouth South. Seems to me that if they win them, they are pretty much certain to win others, the most obvious being Thanet South, Clacton and Rochester. In fact there are probably another half dozen or so that then come into consideration, but you are kind of suggesting a minimum of five.
Sorry to quibble. I guess anybody can take you to task on individual constituencies when you are really trying to give the big picture, but it is a fairly surprising view to take.
Let me advise Clegg. He needs to stop giving the impression that the coalition is near enough his ideal government. You have an 80% Tory cabinet and all bar two government departments, not even the biggest ones, are run by Tory secretaries of state. If the outcome is a government that Nick Clegg regards as near his ideal, then he looks like a Tory. It's all well and good to talk about restraining the Tories, but there's no way he can get everything he wants and if he does, it must mean he isn't that far from being a Tory himself.
Cleggs's biggest mistake was not demanding a great office of state alongside his DPM-ship. The LDs could quite easily have claimed the foreign office. would have leant a bit of gravitas.
As it is, he was stuck with his rubbish constitutional reform role. Can anyone explain what constitutional reform Nick Clegg has actually managed to accomplish after 5 years? He was well and truly outplayed on that front, meaning he's not had much to do except circulate the TV studios looking pained,
That's right. He has to be even or, at the very least, try to pretend he is. He and the Orange Bookers are forever attacking Labour.
Many red Liberals will not come back whatever happens. The betrayal has left wounds - some still fresh.
I agree, this will decimate Libdem seats, particuarly in the south even if Tories get less votes. Some will vote Labour, others will sit at home, a big slew will vote UKIP, only those who really despise the tories will still vote tactically. I think there will even be a couple of shocks in Scotland.
My Guess of Liberal seats at risk:
[redacted for brevity]
Overall
C gain = 30 L gain = 12 UKIP Gain =2 SNP Gain =2 PC Gain =1
Add in DUP gaining South Tyrone & Feremanagh from SF & Belfast East from Alliance & even if no other seats change hands in 2015 you get:
Conservative 336 Labour 270 Libdem 13 DUP 10 SNP = 8 SF = 4 UKIP = 2 Lady Hernon = 1 Others = 8
Conservative Majority = 22
Conservative Majority excluding SF who dont vote = 26
Thats the hill that Miliband has to climb in 2015. What cost the Conservatives victory in 2010 was the Libs retaining seats that they had won off the tories in the '90s and that had previously been safe tory seats.
I genuinely appreciate people who give seat-by-seat breakdowns (it's so helpful!) but am I correct in thinking your analysis does not include seats that will be gained by Lab from Con? I think there will be several moving from C to Lab.
That's right. He has to be even or, at the very least, try to pretend he is. He and the Orange Bookers are forever attacking Labour.
Many red Liberals will not come back whatever happens. The betrayal has left wounds - some still fresh.
I agree, this will decimate Libdem seats, particuarly in the south even if Tories get less votes. Some will vote Labour, others will sit at home, a big slew will vote UKIP, only those who really despise the tories will still vote tactically. I think there will even be a couple of shocks in Scotland.
My Guess of Liberal seats at risk:
[redacted for brevity]
Overall
C gain = 30 L gain = 12 UKIP Gain =2 SNP Gain =2 PC Gain =1
Add in DUP gaining South Tyrone & Feremanagh from SF & Belfast East from Alliance & even if no other seats change hands in 2015 you get:
Conservative 336 Labour 270 Libdem 13 DUP 10 SNP = 8 SF = 4 UKIP = 2 Lady Hernon = 1 Others = 8
Conservative Majority = 22
Conservative Majority excluding SF who dont vote = 26
Thats the hill that Miliband has to climb in 2015. What cost the Conservatives victory in 2010 was the Libs retaining seats that they had won off the tories in the '90s and that had previously been safe tory seats.
I genuinely appreciate people who give seat-by-seat breakdowns (it's so helpful!) but am I correct in thinking your analysis does not include seats that will be gained by Lab from Con? I think there will be several moving from C to Lab.
Another big unknown in the number that may move from LAB to SNP, and indeed CON to UKIP.
That's right. He has to be even or, at the very least, try to pretend he is. He and the Orange Bookers are forever attacking Labour.
Many red Liberals will not come back whatever happens. The betrayal has left wounds - some still fresh.
I agree, this will decimate Libdem seats, particuarly in the south even if Tories get less votes. Some will vote Labour, others will sit at home, a big slew will vote UKIP, only those who really despise the tories will still vote tactically. I think there will even be a couple of shocks in Scotland.
My Guess of Liberal seats at risk:
Had it:
[snip]
Will Retain
Birmingham Yardley Carshalton & Wallington Cardiff Central Kingston & Surbiton Lewes Bermondsey & Old Southwark Twickenham Fife North East Yeovil Sheffield Hallam Ross, Skye and Lochaber Orkney and Shetland
Will gain
Oxford West & Abington (from C)
Overall
C gain = 30 L gain = 12 UKIP Gain =2 SNP Gain =2 PC Gain =1
Add in DUP gaining South Tyrone & Feremanagh from SF & Belfast East from Alliance & even if no other seats change hands in 2015 you get:
Conservative 336 Labour 270 Libdem 13 DUP 10 SNP = 8 SF = 4 UKIP = 2 Lady Hernon = 1 Others = 8
Conservative Majority = 22
Conservative Majority excluding SF who dont vote = 26
Thats the hill that Miliband has to climb in 2015. What cost the Conservatives victory in 2010 was the Libs retaining seats that they had won off the tories in the '90s and that had previously been safe tory seats.
I would be very surprised if Sutton and Cheam went Tory..The results for the borough in May were the best for the Lib Dems anywhere in the UK.....
I'd be very surprised if Birmingham Yardley is a LibDem hold. Only 3,000 majority over Labour. They'll easily lose that in switchers. Took decades for Libs to get this seat.
Anyone assuming that Sylvia Hermon will support a Tory government clearly hasnt read up on why she is an independent and not a UUP MP.
Taking the votes of the DUP for granted would also be foolish. They will probably be for sale to the highest bidder. And that's assuming there isnt a Northern Irish crisis at the time in which case no Government could be seen to be relying on the votes of one of the protagonists.
No12 In a choice between the Tories and Labour they will support the Tories on confidence and supply, but no formal pact
This seems to suggest they won't go for it. We should game this one through but at first glance I think saying they won't go for it means they won't go for it. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-27129817
Edit: Sorry, you're talking about the DUP, assumed it was the LibDems.
Neil You are right on Hermon, but the DUP will go with the most unionist party, they cannot be taken for granted, but they are closer to the Tories as the SDLP are to Labour, they will not vote down a Tory government, but they will not form a pact with one either
That's an interesting and useful summary, Paul. Thank you.
Your theoretical Parliament after the May GE has two UKIP seats, which is a perfectly plausible estimate. You have in mind though Eastleigh and Portsmouth South. Seems to me that if they win them, they are pretty much certain to win others, the most obvious being Thanet South, Clacton and Rochester. In fact there are probably another half dozen or so that then come into consideration, but you are kind of suggesting a minimum of five.
Sorry to quibble. I guess anybody can take you to task on individual constituencies when you are really trying to give the big picture, but it is a fairly surprising view to take.
Hi Peter,
Yes I agree. However (for reasons of time and avoiding complication) I assumed that all other seats (other than changes involving Liberals or DUP) would remain with their current incumbents. The point I was trying to get across was that the Liberal vote collapse means the tories could do worse than this time viz a viz labour and still get a majority or be able to govern with the unionists.
The inbuilt labour advantage seems to be significantly due in part to Liberals holding formerly safe tory seats and this bias will be much reduced in 2015.
Tim Sutton Council also includes the Carshalton and Wallington seat which has the entire Roundshaw council estate & the LB Suton portion of the vast St Helier council estate so is much safer Lib Dem and I've got them down to keep. Sutton & Cheam was 22,000 (Lib) to 20,000 (Tory) and covers a wealthy area of Surrey that is deemed part of Greater London plus Worcester park.
The Tories arent more unionist than Labour. Both parties have the same policy in relation to Northern Ireland. The DUP will go with whoever gives them the best deal if they find themselves in a position to decide who gets first go at government.
"There are perhaps ten seats where UKIP are credible local contenders, including a top tier of four where they may be considered local favourites ... Beyond this is a lower tier of around 25 seats where UKIP could pull off a win if everything breaks in their favour."
Neil The DUP are also more Eurosceptic like the Tories and on most issues are closer to the Tories than Labour not just the Union, but as you say we would have to see
That's right. He has to be even or, at the very least, try to pretend he is. He and the Orange Bookers are forever attacking Labour.
Many red Liberals will not come back whatever happens. The betrayal has left wounds - some still fresh.
I agree, this will decimate Libdem seats, particuarly in the south even if Tories get less votes. Some will vote Labour, others will sit at home, a big slew will vote UKIP, only those who really despise the tories will still vote tactically. I think there will even be a couple of shocks in Scotland.
My Guess of Liberal seats at risk:
[redacted for brevity]
Overall
C gain = 30 L gain = 12 UKIP Gain =2 SNP Gain =2 PC Gain =1
Add in DUP gaining South Tyrone & Feremanagh from SF & Belfast East from Alliance & even if no other seats change hands in 2015 you get:
Conservative 336 Labour 270 Libdem 13 DUP 10 SNP = 8 SF = 4 UKIP = 2 Lady Hernon = 1 Others = 8
Conservative Majority = 22
Conservative Majority excluding SF who dont vote = 26
Thats the hill that Miliband has to climb in 2015. What cost the Conservatives victory in 2010 was the Libs retaining seats that they had won off the tories in the '90s and that had previously been safe tory seats.
I genuinely appreciate people who give seat-by-seat breakdowns (it's so helpful!) but am I correct in thinking your analysis does not include seats that will be gained by Lab from Con? I think there will be several moving from C to Lab.
Another big unknown in the number that may move from LAB to SNP, and indeed CON to UKIP.
That's right. He has to be even or, at the very least, try to pretend he is. He and the Orange Bookers are forever attacking Labour.
Many red Liberals will not come back whatever happens. The betrayal has left wounds - some still fresh.
I agree, this will decimate Libdem seats, particuarly in the south even if Tories get less votes. Some will vote Labour, others will sit at home, a big slew will vote UKIP, only those who really despise the tories will still vote tactically. I think there will even be a couple of shocks in Scotland.
My Guess of Liberal seats at risk:
[redacted for brevity]
Overall
C gain = 30 L gain = 12 UKIP Gain =2 SNP Gain =2 PC Gain =1
Add in DUP gaining South Tyrone & Feremanagh from SF & Belfast East from Alliance & even if no other seats change hands in 2015 you get:
Conservative 336 Labour 270 Libdem 13 DUP 10 SNP = 8 SF = 4 UKIP = 2 Lady Hernon = 1 Others = 8
Conservative Majority = 22
Conservative Majority excluding SF who dont vote = 26
Thats the hill that Miliband has to climb in 2015. What cost the Conservatives victory in 2010 was the Libs retaining seats that they had won off the tories in the '90s and that had previously been safe tory seats.
I genuinely appreciate people who give seat-by-seat breakdowns (it's so helpful!) but am I correct in thinking your analysis does not include seats that will be gained by Lab from Con? I think there will be several moving from C to Lab.
Indeed you are correct. I only considered seats changes involving Libdems and DUP (due to time)
And you are correct that several will move from C to Lab. The poitn I was trying to make is that Labour need to win shedloads of tory seats to win the next election, it is a huge mountain to climb.
With the above Scenario, even if Labour won 20 seats off the tories, The tories would still be able to have an effective majority with DUP supply and confidence.
For the record I also think that UKIP will win up to 5 or 6 other seats off the tories (including Rochester & Clapton) and, Tories will win two or three of the SNP rural seats and the SNP will win several Scottish Labour seats.
That's an interesting and useful summary, Paul. Thank you.
Your theoretical Parliament after the May GE has two UKIP seats, which is a perfectly plausible estimate. You have in mind though Eastleigh and Portsmouth South. Seems to me that if they win them, they are pretty much certain to win others, the most obvious being Thanet South, Clacton and Rochester. In fact there are probably another half dozen or so that then come into consideration, but you are kind of suggesting a minimum of five.
Sorry to quibble. I guess anybody can take you to task on individual constituencies when you are really trying to give the big picture, but it is a fairly surprising view to take.
Hi Peter,
Yes I agree. However (for reasons of time and avoiding complication) I assumed that all other seats (other than changes involving Liberals or DUP) would remain with their current incumbents. The point I was trying to get across was that the Liberal vote collapse means the tories could do worse than this time viz a viz labour and still get a majority or be able to govern with the unionists.
The inbuilt labour advantage seems to be significantly due in part to Liberals holding formerly safe tory seats and this bias will be much reduced in 2015.
Tim Sutton Council also includes the Carshalton and Wallington seat which has the entire Roundshaw council estate & the LB Suton portion of the vast St Helier council estate so is much safer Lib Dem and I've got them down to keep. Sutton & Cheam was 22,000 (Lib) to 20,000 (Tory) and covers a wealthy area of Surrey that is deemed part of Greater London plus Worcester park.
You mean the wealthier parts and Worcester Park that elected 100% Lib Dem councillors in May ?
That's right. He has to be even or, at the very least, try to pretend he is. He and the Orange Bookers are forever attacking Labour.
Many red Liberals will not come back whatever happens. The betrayal has left wounds - some still fresh.
I agree, this will decimate Libdem seats, particuarly in the south even if Tories get less votes. Some will vote Labour, others will sit at home, a big slew will vote UKIP, only those who really despise the tories will still vote tactically. I think there will even be a couple of shocks in Scotland.
My Guess of Liberal seats at risk:
[redacted for brevity]
Overall
C gain = 30 L gain = 12 UKIP Gain =2 SNP Gain =2 PC Gain =1
Add in DUP gaining South Tyrone & Feremanagh from SF & Belfast East from Alliance & even if no other seats change hands in 2015 you get:
Conservative 336 Labour 270 Libdem 13 DUP 10 SNP = 8 SF = 4 UKIP = 2 Lady Hernon = 1 Others = 8
Conservative Majority = 22
Conservative Majority excluding SF who dont vote = 26
Thats the hill that Miliband has to climb in 2015. What cost the Conservatives victory in 2010 was the Libs retaining seats that they had won off the tories in the '90s and that had previously been safe tory seats.
I genuinely appreciate people who give seat-by-seat breakdowns (it's so helpful!) but am I correct in thinking your analysis does not include seats that will be gained by Lab from Con? I think there will be several moving from C to Lab.
Indeed you are correct. I only considered seats changes involving Libdems and DUP (due to time)
And you are correct that several will move from C to Lab. The poitn I was trying to make is that Labour need to win shedloads of tory seats to win the next election, it is a huge mountain to climb.
With the above Scenario, even if Labour won 20 seats off the tories, The tories would still be able to have an effective majority with DUP supply and confidence.
For the record I also think that UKIP will win up to 5 or 6 other seats off the tories (including Rochester & Clapton) and, Tories will win two or three of the SNP rural seats and the SNP will win several Scottish Labour seats.
You are living in a fantasy world which bears no relation to reality
"There are perhaps ten seats where UKIP are credible local contenders, including a top tier of four where they may be considered local favourites ... Beyond this is a lower tier of around 25 seats where UKIP could pull off a win if everything breaks in their favour."
Boston & Skegness where the Tory MP is standing down and UKIP had their highest vote share in the Euros is only considered a moderate risk (the lowest level of risk identified in the report) and only 3 of the arguably 'at risk' Kent seats (it doesn't mention Rochester for example) are even mentioned as at risk from UKIP.
"There are perhaps ten seats where UKIP are credible local contenders, including a top tier of four where they may be considered local favourites ... Beyond this is a lower tier of around 25 seats where UKIP could pull off a win if everything breaks in their favour."
Boston & Skegness where the Tory MP is standing down and UKIP had their highest vote share in the Euros is only considered a moderate risk (the lowest level of risk identified in the report) and only 3 of the arguably 'at risk' Kent seats (it doesn't mention Rochester for example) are even mentioned as at risk from UKIP.
As I have mentioned before , the problem with Boston and Skegness is that there will be 2 rival UKIP candidates following the split into 2 groups of Lincs CC UKIP councillors .
"I actually think that Ed is such a narcissist that even if Labour lose the election he will try and hang on."
Hi Tyson. Good to see you again. I don't think it's impossible to win with a crap leader but in Miliband's case he doesn't seem able to define what the party is or what it stands for. Even though some of the Labour purists say the other Miliband was too Blairite and couldn't hold a banana he was at least articulate.
As you say Ed's narcissism could cost Labour dearly. Probably ten years or longer. Cameron's smart enough within five years to stop his party looking like Tories and then Labour lose their most important USP.
That's an interesting and useful summary, Paul. Thank you.
Your theoretical Parliament after the May GE has two UKIP seats, which is a perfectly plausible estimate. You have in mind though Eastleigh and Portsmouth South. Seems to me that if they win them, they are pretty much certain to win others, the most obvious being Thanet South, Clacton and Rochester. In fact there are probably another half dozen or so that then come into consideration, but you are kind of suggesting a minimum of five.
Sorry to quibble. I guess anybody can take you to task on individual constituencies when you are really trying to give the big picture, but it is a fairly surprising view to take.
Hi Peter,
Yes I agree. However (for reasons of time and avoiding complication) I assumed that all other seats (other than changes involving Liberals or DUP) would remain with their current incumbents. The point I was trying to get across was that the Liberal vote collapse means the tories could do worse than this time viz a viz labour and still get a majority or be able to govern with the unionists.
The inbuilt labour advantage seems to be significantly due in part to Liberals holding formerly safe tory seats and this bias will be much reduced in 2015.
Tim Sutton Council also includes the Carshalton and Wallington seat which has the entire Roundshaw council estate & the LB Suton portion of the vast St Helier council estate so is much safer Lib Dem and I've got them down to keep. Sutton & Cheam was 22,000 (Lib) to 20,000 (Tory) and covers a wealthy area of Surrey that is deemed part of Greater London plus Worcester park.
That's an interesting and useful summary, Paul. Thank you.
Your theoretical Parliament after the May GE has two UKIP seats, which is a perfectly plausible estimate. You have in mind though Eastleigh and Portsmouth South. Seems to me that if they win them, they are pretty much certain to win others, the most obvious being Thanet South, Clacton and Rochester. In fact there are probably another half dozen or so that then come into consideration, but you are kind of suggesting a minimum of five.
Sorry to quibble. I guess anybody can take you to task on individual constituencies when you are really trying to give the big picture, but it is a fairly surprising view to take.
Hi Peter,
Yes I agree. However (for reasons of time and avoiding complication) I assumed that all other seats (other than changes involving Liberals or DUP) would remain with their current incumbents. The point I was trying to get across was that the Liberal vote collapse means the tories could do worse than this time viz a viz labour and still get a majority or be able to govern with the unionists.
The inbuilt labour advantage seems to be significantly due in part to Liberals holding formerly safe tory seats and this bias will be much reduced in 2015.
Tim Sutton Council also includes the Carshalton and Wallington seat which has the entire Roundshaw council estate & the LB Suton portion of the vast St Helier council estate so is much safer Lib Dem and I've got them down to keep. Sutton & Cheam was 22,000 (Lib) to 20,000 (Tory) and covers a wealthy area of Surrey that is deemed part of Greater London plus Worcester park.
You mean the wealthier parts and Worcester Park that elected 100% Lib Dem councillors in May ?
He obviously didn't look at the Ashcroft poll from last week that had Burstow 18% ahead in Sutton and Cheam...Only issue for the LDs in that area is that in the locals they won a massive mandate on a really pitiful turnout. If turnout increases it will aid the blues.
I'm not so fatalistic about brands having a shelf-life in themselves. It's like Madonna - you can repeatedly reinvent yourself if the product is of a consistent quality.
Sometimes they become synonymous - like Hoover as you mention. Still it's Dyson that's selling - even if consumers call them hoovers.
I still refer to photocopies as Xeroxes. I can't remember the last time I saw a Xerox machine.
Look at how Nokia went from paper milling to mobile phones - then were overtaken by phones with a better UI. Sony is probably better know now for music publishing than stereos - or for their time making mobile phones. Or indeed the Walkman! Psion were another high-profile casualty in the tech space.
When a company loses it's drive, creativity/talks more to itself - it's doomed to decline. And it takes a charismatic leader to keep it happening. I doubt Apple will ever be the same without Jobs. Tesco will never quite match the Terry Leahy era. But it's up to new leaders to make them into something dynamic, rather than farming the base business into extinction.
Well, that's my 2p anyway! Spot the person who used to spend a lot of time in business development... and BT Labs...
Kodak invented digital technology and had a patent on it.
Using a trusted brand name to introduce a novel technology that is a marked improvement on the core business - there is no reason to believe that Kodak wouldn't have been able to transfer the brands.
As for your retail idea, that's what they do with Kodak Pictures and Kodak Express.
In factual terms, no. However, a brand exists only in the mind, as a perception. In the mind, Kodak = film. They were lucky that they dominated the film category with that name -it's something that every brand name aspires to and they made a lot of money out of it for a lot of decades as film dominated consumer photography. But all good things must come to an end. If tissues suddenly go out of vogue because we're all using solar-powered nose dryers, don't expect 'Kleenex' to be the number one name in solar-powered nose dryers, because it won't happen. By and large, a new category creates opportunities for new brand names.
Indeed. You may still hear the phrase "a Kodak moment" used as an expression long after the product itself has disappeared. Kleenex never had that market awareness but Hoover did - and the brand has now become the generic term for the item.
Kodak is an example of brands having a limited shelf life when their category has a limited shelf life. Kodak was the number one brand in film photography -on the top of a declining iceberg, just like Olivetti in typewriters. There is little evidence to suggest that the name could have dominated digital photography, even if the company could.
Personally I've always thought they could have attempted to maintain the Kodak name in the digital era by having print shops where you could get your digital shots photo-shopped and nicely printed and framed. 'Turning pixels into pictures'. I think there was a slight window of opportunity there. Of course trends have left that idea behind now, as people mainly take pictures to share on SM rather than to adorn their walls or keep in albums.
Kodak invented digital technology and had a patent on it.
Using a trusted brand name to introduce a novel technology that is a marked improvement on the core business - there is no reason to believe that Kodak wouldn't have been able to transfer the brands.
As for your retail idea, that's what they do with Kodak Pictures and Kodak Express.
In factual terms, no. However, a brand exists only in the mind, as a perception. In the mind, Kodak = film. They were lucky that they dominated the film category with that name -it's something that every brand name aspires to and they made a lot of money out of it for a lot of decades as film dominated consumer photography. But all good things must come to an end. If tissues suddenly go out of vogue because we're all using solar-powered nose dryers, don't expect 'Kleenex' to be the number one name in solar-powered nose dryers, because it won't happen. By and large, a new category creates opportunities for new brand names.
Indeed. You may still hear the phrase "a Kodak moment" used as an expression long after the product itself has disappeared. Kleenex never had that market awareness but Hoover did - and the brand has now become the generic term for the item.
Using the word doesn't pay the bills though!
I believe the term 'Kleenex moment' has some currency, though perhaps not an association Kleenex may want.
How do you explain to shareholders that instead of continuing to invest in your core product (e.g. film) that has provided all of your profits for decades, you want to invest in a new technology (digital photographs) that nobody wants (but will eventually kill you)?
My favourite is the market leader in steam powered drag line excavators (what?) who failed to invest in small hydraulic diggers (can you spell JCB?)
When did this new tradition of party conferences taking place in big cities (as opposed to seaside resorts) start ?
For a political class which is increasingly dominated by metropolitan mindsets this "let's have a conference at the same sort of place we spend the rest of our time in" merely cuts them off even further from different experiences and alternative viewpoints.
Perhaps that's deemed to be an attraction.
There are several reasons. Seaside resorts were used because they had a lot of accommodation - from first class hotels to cheap B and Bs - and a big venue normally used for holiday variety shows. Then a number of resorts made enemies of the parties by their local policies ( Scarborough and anti-gays) or incompetence (Blackpool). Eventually only Brighton and Bournemouth were left. Some places saw a gap in the market and built a conference centre ( Harrogate) or hotels ( Birmingham). There are now about 7 or 8 options for the parties - although interestingly not London as far as I know.
Exactly - I live on the South Coast - a trip to Glasgow and back would cost a bomb and take a whole day in itself. I'd go as far as Birmingham and back. Even maybe Leeds.
Surely a Scottish LD mini-conference to rally the local troops would be much more effective? Locating a conf that's out of the boomerang range of many supporters is counter-productive. Symbolism is meaningless if hardly any attend.
Not the city - but the location for prospective attendees. Somewhere more central for the majority of their activist appeared to be a lot more realistic to get vital rare bums on seats.
If my Party were polling in the mid single digits - I'd not bother to drag myself to Glasgow either. It must be very disheartening for their supporters. I feel a bit sorry for them.
I would have gone if it were within a couple of hours by train or car, but to Glasgow and then back to work on Monday? Not possible. Having it in Scotland is understandable because of the Scottish LD seats under threat, but not practicable for many English or Welsh.
A very odd decision to focus 2 years running on a place where they have only 20% of their MPs and I guess under 10% of their members. But maybe they thought Scotland would be lost from the UK so why not have a swan song. If they do drop to 2 or so Scottish MPs, it would be a fitting tribute to the move.
Anyone seen numbers of the LD attendees? The figs from the first debate on OMOV indicated that the delegates may only have 400. Add to that the non-voting Members, SPADs, etc etc. and the lobbyists.
Liverpool was to be the venue this year. However I believe there was a double booking by Liverpool and a replacement had to be found. Glasgow was the only one available at short notice.
Comments
"... no fiscal drag is better than fiscal drag."
Exactly. There was a proposal from some MPs many years ago (in my memory it was in the seventies, but I could be wrong) that the automatic annual uprating of tax thresholds in lines with the rise of average earnings should be enshrined in law. The proposal went further in that HMG could decide to not raise the thresholds for one year but only if it could get a majority of the commons to vote for it. Obviously the last would not have been difficult for most governments, but it would have forced them to be up-front and honest about what they were doing.
There are a bit less than five million taxpayers currently paying higher rate income tax. When Osborne took over the treasury the figure was a bit over 3 million. I would have lot more respect for the fellow if he had uprated the thresholds and increased the rates, at least that would have been open and honest, and made a nice change from the political machinations of the Brown Treasury.
So just when will Miliband and Labour address their deficiencies in every area other than the NHS? Running out of time!
So did I, it was called education in those days.
As it is, he was stuck with his rubbish constitutional reform role. Can anyone explain what constitutional reform Nick Clegg has actually managed to accomplish after 5 years? He was well and truly outplayed on that front, meaning he's not had much to do except circulate the TV studios looking pained,
PS, If you read correctly you would know I support the real Rangers , "The Buffs". I have not been at a Glasgow Rangers game for about 40 years.
http://youtu.be/mEK52Pd9Pc0
Of course Carswell is one of the few Coalition MPs whose local association membership was growing before his defection and he has a strong reputation for interacting with his constituents. . Combine that with the clear outpouring of personal support for him in Clacton despite forcing an election on them and its clear Carswell is far more 'connected' with his constituents than the vast majority of MPs and in fact is the very opposite of your nasty minded smear.
Using the word doesn't pay the bills though!
I think your theory is correct.
However Clegg and Alexander do not seem to me, to be the best to entice Labour support or Cameron and Osborne to entice kipper support.
I think it would need a change at the top to achieve any meaningful change .
As you can not put your cross against coalition, like you could in some 1930`s elections.
In short, the polls were exactly right (within the poll spread) and gave a useful tracker of polling intention as time progressed. Which is what we wanted and needed.
(for avoidance of doubt I am not employed by a pollster and never have been)
Hope he is OK
Collided with a rescue vehicle.
My Guess of Liberal seats at risk:
Had it:
Solihull - to C
Dorset Mid and Poole North - to C
Norwich South - L
Bradford E - L
Wells - C
St Austell - C
Brent C - L
Somerton & Frome - C
Sutton and Cheam - C
St Ives - C
Manchester Withington - L
Burnley - L
Dunbartonshire E - L
Chippenham - C
Cheadle - C
Cornwall N - C
Eastbourne - C
Taunton Deane - C
Berwick upon Tweed - C
Eastleigh - UKIP
Argyll & Bute - C
Aberdeen W & Kincardine - C
Edinburgh West - L
Torbay - C
Cheltenham - C
Brecon & Rad - C
Devon North - C
Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk - C
Redcar - L
Hornsey & Wood Green - L
Portsmouth South - UKIP
Cambridge - L
Southport - C
Gordon - SNP
Thornbury & Yate - C
Colchester - C
Hazel Grove - C
Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross - L
Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey - SNP
Bristol West - L
Ceredigion - PC
Norfolk North - C
Westmoreland & Lonsdale - C
Bath - C
Leeds North West - C
Will Retain
Birmingham Yardley
Carshalton & Wallington
Cardiff Central
Kingston & Surbiton
Lewes
Bermondsey & Old Southwark
Twickenham
Fife North East
Yeovil
Sheffield Hallam
Ross, Skye and Lochaber
Orkney and Shetland
Will gain
Oxford West & Abington (from C)
Overall
C gain = 30
L gain = 12
UKIP Gain =2
SNP Gain =2
PC Gain =1
Add in DUP gaining South Tyrone & Feremanagh from SF & Belfast East from Alliance & even if no other seats change hands in 2015 you get:
Conservative 336
Labour 270
Libdem 13
DUP 10
SNP = 8
SF = 4
UKIP = 2
Lady Hernon = 1
Others = 8
Conservative Majority = 22
Conservative Majority excluding SF who dont vote = 26
Conservative + DUP + Hernon + UKIP majority excl SF = 52
Thats the hill that Miliband has to climb in 2015. What cost the Conservatives victory in 2010 was the Libs retaining seats that they had won off the tories in the '90s and that had previously been safe tory seats.
If Labour lose, I think it's hugely important for them to elect a leader who looks and sounds in tune with their supporters. The Islingtonista set talk about inequality and the Tories hurting the poor, but do so from a position of privilege themselves, where they have to come up with cringeworthy anecdotes about meeting people on Hampsted Heath! (Seriously, what was he thinking?!)
The coalition would be with the Irish Unionist and unofficially with 2 or 3 labour MP`s like Kate Hoey and some Orange Bookers.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Innovators-Dilemma-Technologies-Management-Innovation-ebook/dp/B00E257S86/ref=sr_1_15
How do you explain to shareholders that instead of continuing to invest in your core product (e.g. film) that has provided all of your profits for decades, you want to invest in a new technology (digital photographs) that nobody wants (but will eventually kill you)?
My favourite is the market leader in steam powered drag line excavators (what?) who failed to invest in small hydraulic diggers (can you spell JCB?)
That's an interesting and useful summary, Paul. Thank you.
Your theoretical Parliament after the May GE has two UKIP seats, which is a perfectly plausible estimate. You have in mind though Eastleigh and Portsmouth South. Seems to me that if they win them, they are pretty much certain to win others, the most obvious being Thanet South, Clacton and Rochester. In fact there are probably another half dozen or so that then come into consideration, but you are kind of suggesting a minimum of five.
Sorry to quibble. I guess anybody can take you to task on individual constituencies when you are really trying to give the big picture, but it is a fairly surprising view to take.
So much churn is possible in this election.
Taking the votes of the DUP for granted would also be foolish. They will probably be for sale to the highest bidder. And that's assuming there isnt a Northern Irish crisis at the time in which case no Government could be seen to be relying on the votes of one of the protagonists.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-27129817
Edit: Sorry, you're talking about the DUP, assumed it was the LibDems.
Hi Peter,
Yes I agree. However (for reasons of time and avoiding complication) I assumed that all other seats (other than changes involving Liberals or DUP) would remain with their current incumbents. The point I was trying to get across was that the Liberal vote collapse means the tories could do worse than this time viz a viz labour and still get a majority or be able to govern with the unionists.
The inbuilt labour advantage seems to be significantly due in part to Liberals holding formerly safe tory seats and this bias will be much reduced in 2015.
Tim Sutton Council also includes the Carshalton and Wallington seat which has the entire Roundshaw council estate & the LB Suton portion of the vast St Helier council estate so is much safer Lib Dem and I've got them down to keep. Sutton & Cheam was 22,000 (Lib) to 20,000 (Tory) and covers a wealthy area of Surrey that is deemed part of Greater London plus Worcester park.
The Tories arent more unionist than Labour. Both parties have the same policy in relation to Northern Ireland. The DUP will go with whoever gives them the best deal if they find themselves in a position to decide who gets first go at government.
The Fabians recent report put UKIP's chances as:
"There are perhaps ten seats where UKIP are credible local contenders, including a top tier of four where they may be considered local favourites ... Beyond this is a lower tier of around 25 seats where UKIP could pull off a win if everything breaks in their favour."
http://www.fabians.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/RevoltOnTheLeft-Final4.pdf
And you are correct that several will move from C to Lab. The poitn I was trying to make is that Labour need to win shedloads of tory seats to win the next election, it is a huge mountain to climb.
With the above Scenario, even if Labour won 20 seats off the tories, The tories would still be able to have an effective majority with DUP supply and confidence.
For the record I also think that UKIP will win up to 5 or 6 other seats off the tories (including Rochester & Clapton) and, Tories will win two or three of the SNP rural seats and the SNP will win several Scottish Labour seats.
http://www.itv.com/news/wales/update/2014-10-05/wales-should-have-more-powers-says-nick-clegg/
Right. I'm sure allowing devolved Parliaments/Assemblies the right to borrow won't have any pitfalls at all...
The list is on page 28
http://www.fabians.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/RevoltOnTheLeft-Final4.pdf
"I actually think that Ed is such a narcissist that even if Labour lose the election he will try and hang on."
Hi Tyson. Good to see you again. I don't think it's impossible to win with a crap leader but in Miliband's case he doesn't seem able to define what the party is or what it stands for. Even though some of the Labour purists say the other Miliband was too Blairite and couldn't hold a banana he was at least articulate.
As you say Ed's narcissism could cost Labour dearly. Probably ten years or longer. Cameron's smart enough within five years to stop his party looking like Tories and then Labour lose their most important USP.
Sometimes they become synonymous - like Hoover as you mention. Still it's Dyson that's selling - even if consumers call them hoovers.
I still refer to photocopies as Xeroxes. I can't remember the last time I saw a Xerox machine.
Look at how Nokia went from paper milling to mobile phones - then were overtaken by phones with a better UI. Sony is probably better know now for music publishing than stereos - or for their time making mobile phones. Or indeed the Walkman! Psion were another high-profile casualty in the tech space.
When a company loses it's drive, creativity/talks more to itself - it's doomed to decline. And it takes a charismatic leader to keep it happening. I doubt Apple will ever be the same without Jobs. Tesco will never quite match the Terry Leahy era. But it's up to new leaders to make them into something dynamic, rather than farming the base business into extinction.
Well, that's my 2p anyway! Spot the person who used to spend a lot of time in business development... and BT Labs...
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4760/dutch-military-uniform