politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Four months before being elected Tory leader Margaret Thatc

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Four months before being elected Tory leader Margaret Thatcher was a 50-1 shot

The BBC Parliament Channel has been re-running the October 1974 General Election results programme as part of its intermittent series of playing back old elections. I love them and you learn so much simply from seeing how things were seen then.

Read the full story here

TGOHF

Huppert is 50-1 to be next LD leader ....

isam

123% book on six runners... with 10% tax as well?!

Morris_Dancer

No, but, in my defence, I wasn't born at the time.

Casino_Royale

You were out and about politically betting over 40 years ago?! I wasn't even born.

£50 on this would have been very tasty. But I guess most bookies (if they're anything like they are today) would have only allowed half a crown.

TGOHF

MT was leader for 15 years - doubt we will see that again.

Edit for hangover..

MikeSmithson

Casino_Royale said:

You were out and about politically betting over 40 years ago?! I wasn't even born.

£50 on this would have been very tasty. But I guess most bookies (if they're anything like they are today) would have only allowed half a crown.

Actually half a crowns no longer existed in 1974.. Decimalisation came in on February 11th 1971.

Casino_Royale

MikeSmithson said:

Casino_Royale said:

You were out and about politically betting over 40 years ago?! I wasn't even born.

£50 on this would have been very tasty. But I guess most bookies (if they're anything like they are today) would have only allowed half a crown.

Actually half a crowns no longer existed in 1974.. Decimalisation came in on February 11th 1971.

Yes, I know that. It was a figure of speech.

Financier

Lord Ashcroft's Defence

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2014/10/tale-two-elections-polls-snapshots-predictions/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=tale-two-elections-polls-snapshots-predictions&utm_source=Lord+Ashcroft+Polls&utm_campaign=6e34bbc130-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b70c7aec0a-6e34bbc130-71623245

dr_spyn

If Labour's private polling showed that when led by someone else other than Ed Miliband was the only way to secure a majority, would the Party really keep him in place?

hucks67

I think Thatcher was a strong conviction led PM and her government were pretty radical. But I don't think she left the Tories in a good position, as there is now a generation of people who dislike the Tories, because of the way she ran the country. Some people look back at the 1980's with affection, but the UK was in a pretty bad state, when it should been doing very well due to North Sea oil and the privatisation revenues.

Back to the present day and I would think most people would predict that Cameron will lose the election, he will resign and then within months Boris will become leader of the opposition. It should be pretty entertaining, with Boris facing Miliband at PMQ's. You can just imagine Bercow keep warning Boris to withdraw some language used and to ask questions, not make a speech.

audreyanne

I've just checked back on all by-elections since 2012 and in every single one Labour's share of the vote has been overstated: sometimes by nearly 20%. You know who I think is the worst offender, but ALL the pollsters are currently overstating Labour compared to how people are actually voting. Ashcroft claims he was right at Newark but even there he overstated them by 2.3%. The average overstating is above 5%.

I haven't got time to go back through 2012 as it's painstaking but a thread on this would be very interesting.

Shy non-Labour?

stodge

MikeSmithson said:

Actually half a crowns no longer existed in 1974.. Decimalisation came in on February 11th 1971.

Actually, I thought it was February 15th 1971, a Monday but that might be my dodgy recollection.

Morris_Dancer

Betting markets haven't got going so the pre-race piece will be a little while yet.

SimonStClare

1974 – A great year, although politics was yet to feature in it - I spent most of 74 lying in bed listening to Genesis albums and Pink Floyd’s ‘Dark Side of the Moon’ - somebody had to..!

Swiss_Bob

hucks67 said:

I think Thatcher was a strong conviction led PM and her government were pretty radical. But I don't think she left the Tories in a good position, as there is now a generation of people who dislike the Tories, because of the way she ran the country. Some people look back at the 1980's with affection, but the UK was in a pretty bad state, when it should been doing very well due to North Sea oil and the privatisation revenues.

Back to the present day and I would think most people would predict that Cameron will lose the election, he will resign and then within months Boris will become leader of the opposition. It should be pretty entertaining, with Boris facing Miliband at PMQ's. You can just imagine Bercow keep warning Boris to withdraw some language used and to ask questions, not make a speech.

If you look at what most PMs achieve then Thatcher makes them all look like Dwarves.

You can only do so much and what time and choices you make should be with regard to the future.

Look at London, the Big Bang, Canary Wharf, that paid for ten years of Labour profligacy before they finally blew it.

Don't think I don't feel for the loss of industry and jobs in the North, I have visited close family since I was a child and I am well aware that things could have been done in a better way but coal mining was dead, the car and motorcycle industry just didn't move with the times, or more accurately attempt to compete and the same could be said for a whole swathe of industries. The unions killed the companies and the jobs.

You had to live through the seventies to appreciate Thatcher.

audreyanne

And in the 2014 European elections 9 out of every 10 opinion polls overstated Labour's share of the vote.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/european-elections
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/events/vote2014/eu-uk-results

This phenomenon has been more extreme at the by-elections, especially at Heywood and Middleton.

So I ask again, is it shy non-Labour? Is this perhaps the core that UKIP have tapped into? Is it the working man who is Labour by background but who is placing his cross at the UKIP box but just doesn't wish to admit it?

We should try to get to the bottom of this because at Heywood and Middleton it nearly caused a sensation, and if there is a shy non-Labour voter that the opinion polls are getting wrong it could wreak havoc with the 2015 General Election results.

dr_spyn

£50 in 1974, could be worth c. £570 at current values, though the Bank of England figure is £454.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-1633409/Historic-inflation-calculator-value-money-changed-1900.html

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/education/Pages/resources/inflationtools/calculator/flash/default.aspx

numbercruncher

audreyanne said:

And in the European elections 9 out of every 10 opinion polls overstated Labour's share of the vote.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/european-elections
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/events/vote2014/eu-uk-results

So I ask again, is it shy non-Labour? Is this perhaps the core that UKIP have tapped into? It it the working man who is Labour by background but who is placing his cross at the UKIP box but just doesn't wish to admit it?

We should try to get to the bottom of this because at Heywood and Middleton it nearly caused a sensation, and if there is a shy non-Labour voter that the opinion polls are getting wrong it could wreak havoc with the 2015 General Election results.

I think I know what's happening... I'm writing a piece on this at the moment (should be coming next week)

audreyanne

Thanks numbercruncher: really look forward to it.

numbercruncher

audreyanne said:

I've just checked back on all by-elections since 2012 and in every single one Labour's share of the vote has been overstated: sometimes by nearly 20%. You know who I think is the worst offender, but ALL the pollsters are currently overstating Labour compared to how people are actually voting. Ashcroft claims he was right at Newark but even there he overstated them by 2.3%. The average overstating is above 5%.

I haven't got time to go back through 2012 as it's painstaking but a thread on this would be very interesting.

Shy non-Labour?

Here is Lord Ashcroft's explanation (I have a different theory):

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2014/10/tale-two-elections-polls-snapshots-predictions/#more-6502

chestnut

audreyanne said:

I've just checked back on all by-elections since 2012 and in every single one Labour's share of the vote has been overstated: sometimes by nearly 20%. You know who I think is the worst offender, but ALL the pollsters are currently overstating Labour compared to how people are actually voting. Ashcroft claims he was right at Newark but even there he overstated them by 2.3%. The average overstating is above 5%.

I haven't got time to go back through 2012 as it's painstaking but a thread on this would be very interesting.

Shy non-Labour?

The Euros (final poll)

LABOUR

Opinium +0.4 (i.e. Labour 0.4 better than poll result)
YouGov -0.6
Comres - 1.6
Survation - 1.6
TNS - 2.6
ICM - 3.6

UKIP

ICM +2.5
YG +0.5
TNS - 3.5
Opinium -4.5
Survation - 4.5
Comres - 5.5

TORIES

Comres +3.9
TNS +2.9
Opinium +2.9
YouGov +1.9
Survation +0.9
ICM - 2.1

Certain pollsters seem to remarkably overstate or understate certain parties.

When betting on Rochester, using a Survation poll as a pulse-tester, compare to previous Survation by election polls in Newark and Clacton.

MikeSmithson

At GE2010 all polls understated LAB.

chestnut

MikeSmithson said:

At GE2010 all polls understated LAB.

So, perhaps a common theme would be the overstatement of the opposition, and understatement of the governing party (parties) ?

Swiss_Bob

SimonStClare said:

1974 – A great year, although politics was yet to feature in it - I spent most of 74 lying in bed listening to Genesis albums and Pink Floyd’s ‘Dark Side of the Moon’ - somebody had to..!

I'm with you on the Pink Floyd but Genesis?

First album I heard on a decent stereo, Deep Purple and Smoke on the Water. It blew my mind :-)

TGOHF

If LA is correct then Audreyanne has to consider how long before the vote polls were taken - is there a late swing away from Labour or crap polling ?

Roger

Sorry to be off topic (perhaps it balances audreyanne who posts the same post on every thread) but I'm getting seriously concerned by the UKIP effect. Listening to one of their spokesmen on 'Any Questions' I can't see any difference between them and Griffin's BNP.

I now think it's crucial that one of the mainstream parties takes them on. No more pussyfooting around. I suspect the Lib Dems and Greens have their hearts in the right place but they haven't got the muscle. The Tories sit on the fence. This is a job for Labour alone. If Ed doesn't step up to the plate this time then we might as well vote Tory as the lesser of two evils.

But these people have to be taken on. I know this site has now become replete with UKIPers Powellites and BNPers but it doesn't alter the basic truth that you are opposed by many many more than those who support you and Labour have to mobilize them.

TheScreamingEagles

Has anyone ever tipped and won a 50/1 political bet?

*Innocent Face*

Andy_Cooke

chestnut said:

MikeSmithson said:

At GE2010 all polls understated LAB.

So, perhaps a common theme would be the overstatement of the opposition, and understatement of the governing party (parties) ?

I think the main issue was the 'Cleggasm'. All polls overstated the Lib Dems. They all understated Labour. Most understated the Tories (three, I think, got the Tory share right; none overstated them)

Given the Lib Dem poll surge last time, I'd be wary of trying to derive any rules from it.

TheScreamingEagles

Everyone seems to forget about Robert Carr. Shadow Chancellor and acting Tory leader for a few days.

RodCrosby

chestnut said:

MikeSmithson said:

At GE2010 all polls understated LAB.

So, perhaps a common theme would be the overstatement of the opposition, and understatement of the governing party (parties) ?

Possibly, and the polls will overstate/understate at the extremes.

peter_from_putney

OGH: "Did you get on? I certainly didn’t."

Of course you didn't Mike ...... I mean who ever heard of anyone backing a 50/1 shot to become leader, that's strictly for the birds.
Oh wait .......

TGOHF

Roger said:

Sorry to be off topic (perhaps it balances audreyanne who posts the same post on every thread) but I'm getting seriously concerned by the UKIP effect. Listening to one of their spokesmen on 'Any Questions' I can't see any difference between them and Griffin's BNP.

I now think it's crucial that one of the mainstream parties takes them on. No more pussyfooting around. I suspect the Lib Dems and Greens have their hearts in the right place but they haven't got the muscle. The Tories sit on the fence. This is a job for Labour alone. If Ed doesn't step up to the plate this time then we might as well vote Tory as the lesser of two evils.

But these people have to be taken on. I know this site has now become replete with UKIPers Powellites and BNPers but it doesn't alter the basic truth that you are opposed by many many more than those who support you and Labour have to mobilize them.

You aren't alone Roger...

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/iainmartin1/100289281/who-will-speak-for-the-forgotten-85-the-people-who-dont-vote-for-ukip/

Swiss_Bob

Roger said:

Sorry to be off topic (perhaps it balances audreyanne who posts the same post on every thread) but I'm getting seriously concerned by the UKIP effect. Listening to one of their spokesmen on 'Any Questions' I can't see any difference between them and Griffin's BNP.

I now think it's crucial that one of the mainstream parties takes them on. No more pussyfooting around. I suspect the Lib Dems and Greens have their hearts in the right place but they haven't got the muscle. The Tories sit on the fence. This is a job for Labour alone. If Ed doesn't step up to the plate this time then we might as well vote Tory as the lesser of two evils.

But these people have to be taken on. I know this site has now become replete with UKIPers Powellites and BNPers but it doesn't alter the basic truth that you are opposed by many many more than those who support you and Labour have to mobilize them.

Bedwetter or here to smear?

This is a very English revolution, a few hurt feelings, some unkind words but otherwise political discourse as it has been in England for hundreds of years, no blood spilt.

audreyanne

MikeSmithson said:

At GE2010 all polls understated LAB.

I know Mike, so what has changed? Because something has.

TGOHF said:

If LA is correct then Audreyanne has to consider how long before the vote polls were taken - is there a late swing away from Labour or crap polling ?

Lord Ashcroft's H&M poll was taken just a few days before. He posted it this Monday: http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2014/10/labour-set-clear-win-heywood-middleton/

anotherDave

Roger said:

... it doesn't alter the basic truth that you [ukip] are opposed by many many more than those who support you and Labour have to mobilize them.

You could say that about all the parties. None of them are popular. In Heywood we saw UKIP attracting an anti-Labour vote.

RodCrosby

The bookies didn't know of Airey Neave's strategy to get Thatcher elected.

Depending on which Tory MP he canvassed he said:-

i) she can't win, but we need to give Ted a fright.
ii) she can't win, but she can damage Ted enough to open up the field for Whitelaw, etc...
iii) she can win...

Enough of them voted for different reasons for her to beat Heath on the first ballot...

peter_from_putney

TGOHF said:

Huppert is 50-1 to be next LD leader ....

..... and Justine Greening, my MP, is a 50/1 shot (with Hills) to become the next Tory Leader.

She has no chance in my humble opinion!

agingjb

If at some future general election there is very close result between Lab and Con, and UKIP have the sole balance of power, then will they be accepted into coalition with one or other of the larger parties, or will there be a Lab and Tory national government?

anotherDave

peter_from_putney said:

TGOHF said:

Huppert is 50-1 to be next LD leader ....

..... and Justine Greening, my MP, is a 50/1 shot (with Hills) to become the next Tory Leader.

She has no chance in my humble opinion!

I rather her than many of the other names that get put forward.

SimonStClare

Swiss_Bob said:

SimonStClare said:

1974 – A great year, although politics was yet to feature in it - I spent most of 74 lying in bed listening to Genesis albums and Pink Floyd’s ‘Dark Side of the Moon’ - somebody had to..!

I'm with you on the Pink Floyd but Genesis?

I know, but pocket money was tight and I was reliant on an older brother’s record collection. It did however spark a fandom for Peter Gabriel that lasted for yonks.

stodge

If memory serves, Thatcher wasn't going to stand at all but was going to back Keith Joseph who was seen as being the standard bearer of the Right and had a real chance of mobilising anti-Heath support.

Unfortunately, a speech on social issues just nine days after the election was widely criticised and put paid to his chances. His eclipse put Thatcher in with a chance and the move by Du Cann to force a challenge to Heath in January 1975 effectively meant that those close to Heath couldn't get involved until after Heath himself had been defeated - parallels with October 1990.

By the time the likes of Prior and Whitelaw got involved, Thatcher had the momentum having defeated Heath in the first ballot.

Richard_Tyndall

Swiss_Bob said:

Roger said:

Sorry to be off topic (perhaps it balances audreyanne who posts the same post on every thread) but I'm getting seriously concerned by the UKIP effect. Listening to one of their spokesmen on 'Any Questions' I can't see any difference between them and Griffin's BNP.

I now think it's crucial that one of the mainstream parties takes them on. No more pussyfooting around. I suspect the Lib Dems and Greens have their hearts in the right place but they haven't got the muscle. The Tories sit on the fence. This is a job for Labour alone. If Ed doesn't step up to the plate this time then we might as well vote Tory as the lesser of two evils.

But these people have to be taken on. I know this site has now become replete with UKIPers Powellites and BNPers but it doesn't alter the basic truth that you are opposed by many many more than those who support you and Labour have to mobilize them.

Bedwetter or here to smear?

This is a very English revolution, a few hurt feelings, some unkind words but otherwise political discourse as it has been in England for hundreds of years, no blood spilt.

Roger has no interest in anything but infantile smear. It has been his whole modus operandi for as long as he has been posting on this site.

RodCrosby

agingjb said:

If at some future general election there is very close result between Lab and Con, and UKIP have the sole balance of power, then will they be accepted into coalition with one or other of the larger parties, or will there be a Lab and Tory national government?

That's a good question.

Labour's experience of 1931 suggests (sans Wartime) they will never go into a grand coalition with the Tories.

Hard to see them getting into bed with UKIP either.

It's also a bit early to say whether UKIP are ministrable at all.

The Tories might, in the hope of swallowing them...

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Dave, indeed, Justine Greening = future Prime Minister.

isam

Roger said:

Sorry to be off topic (perhaps it balances audreyanne who posts the same post on every thread) but I'm getting seriously concerned by the UKIP effect. Listening to one of their spokesmen on 'Any Questions' I can't see any difference between them and Griffin's BNP.

I now think it's crucial that one of the mainstream parties takes them on. No more pussyfooting around. I suspect the Lib Dems and Greens have their hearts in the right place but they haven't got the muscle. The Tories sit on the fence. This is a job for Labour alone. If Ed doesn't step up to the plate this time then we might as well vote Tory as the lesser of two evils.

But these people have to be taken on. I know this site has now become replete with UKIPers Powellites and BNPers but it doesn't alter the basic truth that you are opposed by many many more than those who support you and Labour have to mobilize them.

You post the same on every thread as well though

In answer to the latest version of your nonsense, the other parties are already fighting UKIP dirty . The Tory party smear us at every opportunity, look at the treatment of Mark Reckless, or even Camerons "Loonoes, Fruitvakes etc", as do much of the press and tv, Labour MEPs tweet that we want to abort disabled babies etc

The Lib Dems tried to take UKIP on by sending Clegg to debate Farage, everywhere UKIP go Socialist Workers and Hope Not Hate try to disrupt us ( Hope not Hate members were in Clacton MacDonalds wearing UKIP badges on Thursday loudly talking about beheading Muslims in an attempt to get negative publicity for us by word of mouth)

Just because it isn't working, and you don't like it, doesn't mean it isn't happening

Swiss_Bob

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Dave, indeed, Justine Greening = future Prime Minister.

Just in case you didn't see my comment earlier. Thanks, 50% return on Bottas.

manofkent2014

Roger said:

Sorry to be off topic (perhaps it balances audreyanne who posts the same post on every thread) but I'm getting seriously concerned by the UKIP effect. Listening to one of their spokesmen on 'Any Questions' I can't see any difference between them and Griffin's BNP.

I now think it's crucial that one of the mainstream parties takes them on. No more pussyfooting around. I suspect the Lib Dems and Greens have their hearts in the right place but they haven't got the muscle. The Tories sit on the fence. This is a job for Labour alone. If Ed doesn't step up to the plate this time then we might as well vote Tory as the lesser of two evils.

But these people have to be taken on. I know this site has now become replete with UKIPers Powellites and BNPers but it doesn't alter the basic truth that you are opposed by many many more than those who support you and Labour have to mobilize them.

So you have yet to master the art of extracting your head from your nether regions before listening to radio shows? It can easily make the sounds indistinct! You should try harder.

You might learn something then like for example that UKIP had more BME keynote spokesman at their conference (including the Communities and Immigration spokespeople) than any of the other parties (Greens excepted).

audreyanne

Richard_Tyndall said:

Swiss_Bob said:

Roger said:

Sorry to be off topic (perhaps it balances audreyanne who posts the same post on every thread) but I'm getting seriously concerned by the UKIP effect. Listening to one of their spokesmen on 'Any Questions' I can't see any difference between them and Griffin's BNP.

I now think it's crucial that one of the mainstream parties takes them on. No more pussyfooting around. I suspect the Lib Dems and Greens have their hearts in the right place but they haven't got the muscle. The Tories sit on the fence. This is a job for Labour alone. If Ed doesn't step up to the plate this time then we might as well vote Tory as the lesser of two evils.

But these people have to be taken on. I know this site has now become replete with UKIPers Powellites and BNPers but it doesn't alter the basic truth that you are opposed by many many more than those who support you and Labour have to mobilize them.

Bedwetter or here to smear?

This is a very English revolution, a few hurt feelings, some unkind words but otherwise political discourse as it has been in England for hundreds of years, no blood spilt.

Roger has no interest in anything but infantile smear. It has been his whole modus operandi for as long as he has been posting on this site.

Thanks for the tipoff. I was going to respond to his jibe about my alleged monochromatic posting but I shan't bother with the man.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Dave, indeed, Justine Greening = future Prime Minister.

Didn't she rather blot her copybook over the west coast line fiasco? I'm only asking as I rather like her. I believe Michael Howard thought she was a bright prospect too.

logical_song

"Bedwetter or here to smear?"

Is that not a smear?

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Bob, I did indeed miss that.

Cheers. I dislike tipping odds-on things, but it did stand out after the P3 times. A tenth here or there doesn't say much, but he was seven-tenths clear.

Miss Anne, perhaps. She did want to actually cut aid, though, and was prevented from doing so.

Andy_Cooke

stodge said:

If memory serves, Thatcher wasn't going to stand at all but was going to back Keith Joseph who was seen as being the standard bearer of the Right and had a real chance of mobilising anti-Heath support.

Unfortunately, a speech on social issues just nine days after the election was widely criticised and put paid to his chances. His eclipse put Thatcher in with a chance and the move by Du Cann to force a challenge to Heath in January 1975 effectively meant that those close to Heath couldn't get involved until after Heath himself had been defeated - parallels with October 1990.

By the time the likes of Prior and Whitelaw got involved, Thatcher had the momentum having defeated Heath in the first ballot.

Despite this, we still hear "he who wields the knife never wears the crown". Because Whitelaw and Prior believed that, they missed their chance.

stodge

Even though I'm no supporter of UKIP, I really don't see why they couldn't or wouldn't be able to support either a Conservative or Labour minority. I've heard nothing in UKIP's policy platform that makes them beyond any kind of pale.

That said, UKIP won't get much if they are only bringing 5-10 MPs to the table so it may be a question of looking at where their policies converge with those of any prospective partner.

MarqueeMark

MikeSmithson said:

At GE2010 all polls understated LAB.

Maybe they are overcompensating for that now?

HurstLlama

"Justine Greening = future Prime Minister"

Only in your fevered dreams I suspect Mr. Dancer. I confess I had hopes for her until she went to DfID, where she seems to have become completely housetrained.

anotherDave

stodge said:

Even though I'm no supporter of UKIP, I really don't see why they couldn't or wouldn't be able to support either a Conservative or Labour minority. I've heard nothing in UKIP's policy platform that makes them beyond any kind of pale.

That said, UKIP won't get much if they are only bringing 5-10 MPs to the table so it may be a question of looking at where their policies converge with those of any prospective partner.

I think its pretty clear UKIP would only have one red line.

Pulpstar

I'd have had a great deal of difficulty getting on this market.

MarqueeMark

stodge said:

Even though I'm no supporter of UKIP, I really don't see why they couldn't or wouldn't be able to support either a Conservative or Labour minority. I've heard nothing in UKIP's policy platform that makes them beyond any kind of pale.

That said, UKIP won't get much if they are only bringing 5-10 MPs to the table so it may be a question of looking at where their policies converge with those of any prospective partner.

I appreciate it may be realistic for a party just getting into Parliament, but 9 target seats did seem a bit....well, playing it safe. 9 has them well down the queue, behind the LibDems, the SNP and the Unionists. Where's the ambition in that? How will that change the face of politics?

Swiss_Bob

logical_song said:

"Bedwetter or here to smear?"

Is that not a smear?

I'll leave other people to judge but it was Wodger who conflated UKIP with the BNP, a fückwitted bunch of National Socialists, most of whom were Labour party members, or since the party collapsed returned to the Labour party because they're not welcome in UKIP.

manofkent2014

stodge said:

Even though I'm no supporter of UKIP, I really don't see why they couldn't or wouldn't be able to support either a Conservative or Labour minority. I've heard nothing in UKIP's policy platform that makes them beyond any kind of pale.

That said, UKIP won't get much if they are only bringing 5-10 MPs to the table so it may be a question of looking at where their policies converge with those of any prospective partner.

Farage has indicated if the situation did arise then he would consider supply and confidence arrangements (with the Tories certainly). He doesn't see the need for anything more formal and today made clear he would not 'sell out' for a couple of ministerial jobs.....

Roger

TGOHF

" You aren't alone Roger...

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/iainmartin1/100289281/who-will-speak-for-the-forgotten-85-the-people-who-dont-vote-for-ukip/"

Thanks for drawing my attention to that article. Slightly comic but he makes some good points. He seems to think that because they represent no more than a dog and his bowl they can be lampooned and ignored. I don't think he's right.

Making what they represent mainstream reduces us all in the same way as people who decry 'political correctness' because they feel safe with their stereotypes makes us more ignorant

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Llama, my understanding is that she drew up a list of nonsense aid to be cut, but was told from the top (of government, not by civil servants) that was contrary to government policy.

Anyway, a chap can have fevered dreams about a 50/1 shot coming in.

anotherDave

MarqueeMark said:

stodge said:

Even though I'm no supporter of UKIP, I really don't see why they couldn't or wouldn't be able to support either a Conservative or Labour minority. I've heard nothing in UKIP's policy platform that makes them beyond any kind of pale.

That said, UKIP won't get much if they are only bringing 5-10 MPs to the table so it may be a question of looking at where their policies converge with those of any prospective partner.

I appreciate it may be realistic for a party just getting into Parliament, but 9 target seats did seem a bit....well, playing it safe. 9 has them well down the queue, behind the LibDems, the SNP and the Unionists. Where's the ambition in that? How will that change the face of politics?

9 reported target seats probably doesn't tell us much.

They're also said to be following a northern strategy with an eye to the 2020 election.

HurstLlama

Andy_Cooke said:

stodge said:

If memory serves, Thatcher wasn't going to stand at all but was going to back Keith Joseph who was seen as being the standard bearer of the Right and had a real chance of mobilising anti-Heath support.

Unfortunately, a speech on social issues just nine days after the election was widely criticised and put paid to his chances. His eclipse put Thatcher in with a chance and the move by Du Cann to force a challenge to Heath in January 1975 effectively meant that those close to Heath couldn't get involved until after Heath himself had been defeated - parallels with October 1990.

By the time the likes of Prior and Whitelaw got involved, Thatcher had the momentum having defeated Heath in the first ballot.

Despite this, we still hear "he who wields the knife never wears the crown". Because Whitelaw and Prior believed that, they missed their chance.

Thank goodness they did. Whitelaw was a brave man and a good man but his fault was to believe that others were as honourable as he was himself. He was far too nice to have made an effective party leader let alone prime minister. Prior I recall as yet another Conservative politician, nobody special.

Morris_Dancer

F1: hard finding value. Was tempted by Bottas for the win but decided against it. Got a few others in mind but I want the full Ladbrokes markets to be up before picking what I'll go for.

Swiss_Bob

Fat finger

manofkent2014

audreyanne said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Swiss_Bob said:

Roger said:

Sorry to be off topic (perhaps it balances audreyanne who posts the same post on every thread) but I'm getting seriously concerned by the UKIP effect. Listening to one of their spokesmen on 'Any Questions' I can't see any difference between them and Griffin's BNP.

I now think it's crucial that one of the mainstream parties takes them on. No more pussyfooting around. I suspect the Lib Dems and Greens have their hearts in the right place but they haven't got the muscle. The Tories sit on the fence. This is a job for Labour alone. If Ed doesn't step up to the plate this time then we might as well vote Tory as the lesser of two evils.

But these people have to be taken on. I know this site has now become replete with UKIPers Powellites and BNPers but it doesn't alter the basic truth that you are opposed by many many more than those who support you and Labour have to mobilize them.

Bedwetter or here to smear?

This is a very English revolution, a few hurt feelings, some unkind words but otherwise political discourse as it has been in England for hundreds of years, no blood spilt.

Roger has no interest in anything but infantile smear. It has been his whole modus operandi for as long as he has been posting on this site.

Thanks for the tipoff. I was going to respond to his jibe about my alleged monochromatic posting but I shan't bother with the man.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Dave, indeed, Justine Greening = future Prime Minister.

Didn't she rather blot her copybook over the west coast line fiasco? I'm only asking as I rather like her. I believe Michael Howard thought she was a bright prospect too.

Will she even have a seat after the GE? What has been fairly clear is that there is a bigger swing to Labour in London in elections than elsewhere. In the Euros they improved on their 2014 position by 15.4% the highest improvement in the country. Not only that it is probably the most UKIP resistant part of the country as well so likely will provide much less competition for the working class vote.

TGOHF

anotherDave said:

stodge said:

Even though I'm no supporter of UKIP, I really don't see why they couldn't or wouldn't be able to support either a Conservative or Labour minority. I've heard nothing in UKIP's policy platform that makes them beyond any kind of pale.

That said, UKIP won't get much if they are only bringing 5-10 MPs to the table so it may be a question of looking at where their policies converge with those of any prospective partner.

I think its pretty clear UKIP would only have one red line.

We won't support you unless you cancel the referendum Mr Cameron ?

surbiton

My fear:

The scenario A below is perfectly possible. So too is scenario B.Tories could form a coalition.

This has nothing to do with UKIP. It has more to do with the increase in SNP seats and LD's perfoming against the odds in individual seats.

c = coalition partners. Don't be shocked about the SNP and C in cahoots. SNP wants the Tories to give them Devo MAXXXX. Tories are only too willing in return for lower Scottish seats.


A

Con 260 c
LD 35 c
SNP 24 c
DUP 8 c
SF 5
SDLP 3
AP 1
Others 1
Labour 300
PC 3
UKIP 10

B

Con 270 c
LD 35 c
SNP 24 c
DUP 8
SF 5
SDLP 3
AP 1
Others 1
Labour 290
PC 3
UKIP 10

HurstLlama

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Llama, my understanding is that she drew up a list of nonsense aid to be cut, but was told from the top (of government, not by civil servants) that was contrary to government policy.

Anyway, a chap can have fevered dreams about a 50/1 shot coming in.

If that is true about Greening then I have even less respect for her. If she disagreed with the policy set for the department of which she is supposed to be in charge then her proper course would have been to resign. That she didn't indicates a serious weakness of character.

manofkent2014

MarqueeMark said:

stodge said:

Even though I'm no supporter of UKIP, I really don't see why they couldn't or wouldn't be able to support either a Conservative or Labour minority. I've heard nothing in UKIP's policy platform that makes them beyond any kind of pale.

That said, UKIP won't get much if they are only bringing 5-10 MPs to the table so it may be a question of looking at where their policies converge with those of any prospective partner.

I appreciate it may be realistic for a party just getting into Parliament, but 9 target seats did seem a bit....well, playing it safe. 9 has them well down the queue, behind the LibDems, the SNP and the Unionists. Where's the ambition in that? How will that change the face of politics?

Diane James has talked in terms of winning anything between 20 and 60 seats, however optimistic that may be. I think part of the strategy is to keep the other parties guessing for as long as possible.

Not only that but things seem to be continually changing (e.g. UKIPs relative potential strength in the Medway Towns was not identified until this years Euro elections). Heywood would only have become a target two days ago and no doubt will cause a reassessment of their Northern strategy.

It also depends on the funding. If they get more funding they will be able to target more seats.

So I wouldn't take any target as definite.

DavidL

Slightly off topic but another straw in the wind yesterday following the very poor construction figures: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11154749/Eurozone-recession-is-biggest-risk-to-UK-says-George-Osborne.html

There are two different factors at plays here. Firstly, Osborne is trying to make it clear that everything in the garden is not rosy so it is no time to let a bunch of incompetents take the wheel but secondly, there is undoubtedly a major slow down coming and UK growth has almost certainly peaked.

By May I suspect growth will have fallen to nearer half of what it is at the moment and the rate of increase of employment will have diminished. Tories who are hoping to be triumphalist about the economy in May are likely to be in for a disappointment. But the argument you need someone experienced and skilled to steer through the tricky waters may be stronger. Certainly Ed, what is this deficit issue, is not going to look like the answer.

What is worrying is whether this will be a squall or a storm. If it turns into another international storm we are going to be going into it with dangerous levels of borrowing. We need a lot of calm water yet to restore the ship.

saddened

Roger said:

Sorry to be off topic (perhaps it balances audreyanne who posts the same post on every thread) but I'm getting seriously concerned by the UKIP effect. Listening to one of their spokesmen on 'Any Questions' I can't see any difference between them and Griffin's BNP.

I now think it's crucial that one of the mainstream parties takes them on. No more pussyfooting around. I suspect the Lib Dems and Greens have their hearts in the right place but they haven't got the muscle. The Tories sit on the fence. This is a job for Labour alone. If Ed doesn't step up to the plate this time then we might as well vote Tory as the lesser of two evils.

But these people have to be taken on. I know this site has now become replete with UKIPers Powellites and BNPers but it doesn't alter the basic truth that you are opposed by many many more than those who support you and Labour have to mobilize them.

Why do you care you only visit as often as your tax avoidance allows. If you lived and paid tax here then your opinion may have some weight.

HurstLlama

manofkent2014 said:

MarqueeMark said:

stodge said:

Even though I'm no supporter of UKIP, I really don't see why they couldn't or wouldn't be able to support either a Conservative or Labour minority. I've heard nothing in UKIP's policy platform that makes them beyond any kind of pale.

That said, UKIP won't get much if they are only bringing 5-10 MPs to the table so it may be a question of looking at where their policies converge with those of any prospective partner.

I appreciate it may be realistic for a party just getting into Parliament, but 9 target seats did seem a bit....well, playing it safe. 9 has them well down the queue, behind the LibDems, the SNP and the Unionists. Where's the ambition in that? How will that change the face of politics?

Diane James has talked in terms of winning anything between 20 and 60 seats, however optimistic that may be. I think part of the strategy is to keep the other parties guessing for as long as possible.

Not only that but things seem to be continually changing (e.g. UKIPs relative potential strength in the Medway Towns was not identified until this years Euro elections). Heywood would only have become a target two days ago and no doubt will cause a reassessment of their Northern strategy.

It also depends on the funding. If they get more funding they will be able to target more seats.

So I wouldn't take any target as definite.

And people. Lots of people will support a party, fewer will join and fewer still will actually put on a rosette and tramp the streets. If the ground game is as important as people on here claim, and I am not convinced that it is, then UKIP may well struggle to find enough people.

manofkent2014

surbiton said:

My fear:

The scenario A below is perfectly possible. So too is scenario B.Tories could form a coalition.

This has nothing to do with UKIP. It has more to do with the increase in SNP seats and LD's perfoming against the odds in individual seats.

c = coalition partners. Don't be shocked about the SNP and C in cahoots. SNP wants the Tories to give them Devo MAXXXX. Tories are only too willing in return for lower Scottish seats.


A

Con 260 c
LD 35 c
SNP 24 c
DUP 8 c
SF 5
SDLP 3
AP 1
Others 1
Labour 300
PC 3
UKIP 10

B

Con 270 c
LD 35 c
SNP 24 c
DUP 8
SF 5
SDLP 3
AP 1
Others 1
Labour 290
PC 3
UKIP 10

You scenario needs the right answers to these questions? Would Cameron try to cling on and not stand down to the largest party? Would the Libdems not negotiate with Labour despite being the largest party? Would Labour and the Libdems be able to come to an agreement?

Swiss_Bob

Re Ind v WI. If you put some money on the WI then don't blame me if you haven't made money given the WI are now 1.8 from 3.1 when I tipped them.

surbiton

manofkent2014 said:

surbiton said:

My fear:

The scenario A below is perfectly possible. So too is scenario B.Tories could form a coalition.

This has nothing to do with UKIP. It has more to do with the increase in SNP seats and LD's perfoming against the odds in individual seats.

c = coalition partners. Don't be shocked about the SNP and C in cahoots. SNP wants the Tories to give them Devo MAXXXX. Tories are only too willing in return for lower Scottish seats.


A

Con 260 c
LD 35 c
SNP 24 c
DUP 8 c
SF 5
SDLP 3
AP 1
Others 1
Labour 300
PC 3
UKIP 10

B

Con 270 c
LD 35 c
SNP 24 c
DUP 8
SF 5
SDLP 3
AP 1
Others 1
Labour 290
PC 3
UKIP 10

You scenario needs the right answers to these questions? Would Cameron try to cling on and not stand down to the largest party? Would the Libdems not negotiate with Labour despite being the largest party? Would Labour and the Libdems be able to come to an agreement?

The scenario I envisage is no referendum [ or, a weak spineless one ]. Otherwise, LD will not play ball. All parties will be convinced of a IN win. That is why I have kept UKIP out.

Clegg, as leader, will always do a deal with the Tories. The LD will be too small in Scotland for SNP to worry about. SNP and CON need each other. Basically, shaft Labour !

RodCrosby

@surbiton

It is inconceivable that Con or Lab would form a UK coalition government with

i) any of the NI parties [the risk of fallout for the peace process]

ii) SNP, a regional separatist party [inconceivable the SNP would join, for the same reason]

More informal arrangements are perfectly possible though.

Morris_Dancer

F1: bah. Thought I had a decent bet, before remembering Magnussen and Hulkenberg have penalties...

manofkent2014

HurstLlama said:

manofkent2014 said:

MarqueeMark said:

stodge said:

Even though I'm no supporter of UKIP, I really don't see why they couldn't or wouldn't be able to support either a Conservative or Labour minority. I've heard nothing in UKIP's policy platform that makes them beyond any kind of pale.

That said, UKIP won't get much if they are only bringing 5-10 MPs to the table so it may be a question of looking at where their policies converge with those of any prospective partner.

I appreciate it may be realistic for a party just getting into Parliament, but 9 target seats did seem a bit....well, playing it safe. 9 has them well down the queue, behind the LibDems, the SNP and the Unionists. Where's the ambition in that? How will that change the face of politics?

Diane James has talked in terms of winning anything between 20 and 60 seats, however optimistic that may be. I think part of the strategy is to keep the other parties guessing for as long as possible.

Not only that but things seem to be continually changing (e.g. UKIPs relative potential strength in the Medway Towns was not identified until this years Euro elections). Heywood would only have become a target two days ago and no doubt will cause a reassessment of their Northern strategy.

It also depends on the funding. If they get more funding they will be able to target more seats.

So I wouldn't take any target as definite.

And people. Lots of people will support a party, fewer will join and fewer still will actually put on a rosette and tramp the streets. If the ground game is as important as people on here claim, and I am not convinced that it is, then UKIP may well struggle to find enough people.

Your guess is a good as mine. UKIP haven't had much of a ground game to get where they have got to but whether that will be different in the general election is unclear. However its fair to say that the other parties will be stretched as well and may not have the resources to fight the seats UKIP are targetting.

Many of the UKIP targets will be clustered in along the eastern coastal region so its possible for them to share resources. Whether the other parties can do the same in seats which they would not previously have been planning to throw resources at is again anyone's guess.

chestnut

DavidL said:

Slightly off topic but another straw in the wind yesterday following the very poor construction figures: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11154749/Eurozone-recession-is-biggest-risk-to-UK-says-George-Osborne.html

There are two different factors at plays here. Firstly, Osborne is trying to make it clear that everything in the garden is not rosy so it is no time to let a bunch of incompetents take the wheel but secondly, there is undoubtedly a major slow down coming and UK growth has almost certainly peaked.

By May I suspect growth will have fallen to nearer half of what it is at the moment and the rate of increase of employment will have diminished. Tories who are hoping to be triumphalist about the economy in May are likely to be in for a disappointment. But the argument you need someone experienced and skilled to steer through the tricky waters may be stronger. Certainly Ed, what is this deficit issue, is not going to look like the answer.

What is worrying is whether this will be a squall or a storm. If it turns into another international storm we are going to be going into it with dangerous levels of borrowing. We need a lot of calm water yet to restore the ship.

The construction figure initially published in the last quarter said there was a 0.5% contraction, only for it be revised away. Perhaps the same will happen again?

Markit's latest PMI says that construction is in sharpest period of growth since the turn of the year.

markiteconomics.com/Survey/PressRelease.mvc/fef24c6229ee4893a0ae8addfc2ca92f

Unemployment should go below two million this month, while the claimant count is already below one million with nearly 700,000 job vacancies unfilled. Christmas recruitment should now hit full throttle as well.

Growth will undoubtedly recede soon and I think we're being readied for interest rate rises next year. Once they kick in, the economy will go backwards unless more money is left in the electorate's pockets, so tax thresholds will be raised.

That will mean heightened spending restraint, but the job vacancy figures imply that there would be somewhere for laid-off public sector employees to go other than the dole queue. The time seems to be right to trim the numbers on the public sector payroll.

I also note that no one seems to be pledging to continue with council tax freezes. The government preparing the ground to say that local authorities need to convince local tax payers of the need to raise bills?

DavidL

chestnut said:

DavidL said:

need a lot of calm water yet to restore the ship.

The construction figure initially published in the last quarter said there was a 0.5% contraction, only for it be revised away. Perhaps the same will happen again?

Markit's latest PMI says that construction is in sharpest period of growth since the turn of the year.

markiteconomics.com/Survey/PressRelease.mvc/fef24c6229ee4893a0ae8addfc2ca92f

Unemployment should go below two million this month, while the claimant count is already below one million with nearly 700,000 job vacancies unfilled. Christmas recruitment should now hit full throttle as well.

Growth will undoubtedly recede soon and I think we're being readied for interest rate rises next year. Once they kick in, the economy will go backwards unless more money is left in the electorate's pockets, so tax thresholds will be raised.

That will mean heightened spending restraint, but the job vacancy figures imply that there would be somewhere for laid-off public sector employees to go other than the dole queue. The time seems to be right to trim the numbers on the public sector payroll.

I also note that no one seems to be pledging to continue with council tax freezes. The government preparing the ground to say that local authorities need to convince local tax payers of the need to raise bills?

I agree that the ONS figures on construction are misleading and borderline useless but the mood music has got much darker of late. Partly because we have been growing faster (probably close to 4% on an annualised basis) we have been sucking in imports on a completely unsustainable level and struggling to increase our exports.

The economy needs a breather and if that coincides with a major contraction on government borrowing (your spot on CT is a good one) it could easily slide into something more serious.

Morris_Dancer

Betting post

F1: backed Kvyat to be top 6 at 2.7, after remembering Magnussen has a penalty. No hedge.

More detail and thoughts here: http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/russia-pre-race.html

manofkent2014

chestnut said:

DavidL said:

Slightly off topic but another straw in the wind yesterday following the very poor construction figures: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11154749/Eurozone-recession-is-biggest-risk-to-UK-says-George-Osborne.html

markiteconomics.com/Survey/PressRelease.mvc/fef24c6229ee4893a0ae8addfc2ca92f

Unemployment should go below two million this month, while the claimant count is already below one million with nearly 700,000 job vacancies unfilled. Christmas recruitment should now hit full throttle as well.

Growth will undoubtedly recede soon and I think we're being readied for interest rate rises next year. Once they kick in, the economy will go backwards unless more money is left in the electorate's pockets, so tax thresholds will be raised.

That will mean heightened spending restraint, but the job vacancy figures imply that there would be somewhere for laid-off public sector employees to go other than the dole queue. The time seems to be right to trim the numbers on the public sector payroll.

I also note that no one seems to be pledging to continue with council tax freezes. The government preparing the ground to say that local authorities need to convince local tax payers of the need to raise bills?

Putting aside I believe a good number of councils have already started increasing their council tax (mine has) am I right in thinking councils can only increase council tax by 1.99% without triggering a local referendum.

I also believe Labour have indicated they will keep the referendums

http://www.lgcplus.com/news/exclusive-labour-plans-to-keep-council-tax-referendums/5069012.article

So council tax rises will only be within inflation limits will they not?

dr_spyn

One for the cricket fans from twitter.

Josephine Cumbo ‏@JosephineCumbo 4m4 minutes ago
"The whinge in the willow" - best headline seen yet for a review of Kevin Pietersen's autobiography.

MikeK

HurstLlama said:

manofkent2014 said:

MarqueeMark said:

stodge said:

Even though I'm no supporter of UKIP, I really don't see why they couldn't or wouldn't be able to support either a Conservative or Labour minority. I've heard nothing in UKIP's policy platform that makes them beyond any kind of pale.

That said, UKIP won't get much if they are only bringing 5-10 MPs to the table so it may be a question of looking at where their policies converge with those of any prospective partner.

I appreciate it may be realistic for a party just getting into Parliament, but 9 target seats did seem a bit....well, playing it safe. 9 has them well down the queue, behind the LibDems, the SNP and the Unionists. Where's the ambition in that? How will that change the face of politics?

Diane James has talked in terms of winning anything between 20 and 60 seats, however optimistic that may be. I think part of the strategy is to keep the other parties guessing for as long as possible.

Not only that but things seem to be continually changing (e.g. UKIPs relative potential strength in the Medway Towns was not identified until this years Euro elections). Heywood would only have become a target two days ago and no doubt will cause a reassessment of their Northern strategy.

It also depends on the funding. If they get more funding they will be able to target more seats.

So I wouldn't take any target as definite.

And people. Lots of people will support a party, fewer will join and fewer still will actually put on a rosette and tramp the streets. If the ground game is as important as people on here claim, and I am not convinced that it is, then UKIP may well struggle to find enough people.

There is no doubt that UKIP will be stretched thin at the GE if it tries to pursue all and every target. That won't happen if the National Executive have any sense. My understanding is that there will be 30± seats where the main effort will be greatest. There will be a second 30± where a good but secondary effort will be made. UKIP will make the effort to stand in all the English and Welsh seats and 9/10 Scottish seats, these to be decided by December 31st.

The good news for UKIP is that besides momentum in by-elections, the YI (young independents) UKIPs youth wing, is growing at even faster rate than even for the main party.
Also there are local volunteers (of no affiliation) that have started appearing at the UKIP shop/HQ unasked but very welcome indeed. So I think that UKIP will get by.

MikeSmithson

I've got 33/1 with William Hill that UKIP will be part of a post GE15 coalition taken out in September last year.

RodCrosby

MikeSmithson said:

I've got 33/1 with William Hill that UKIP will be part of a post GE15 coalition taken out in September last year.

So, which UKIP personality is going to be a minister in the next government, Mike?

I'd be wanting 300/1...

MattW

RodCrosby said:

MikeSmithson said:

I've got 33/1 with William Hill that UKIP will be part of a post GE15 coalition taken out in September last year.

So, which UKIP personality is going to be a minister in the next government, Mike?

I'd be wanting 300/1...

Farage.

Minister for Scotlandshire.

Richard_Nabavi

On topic: On what a thin thread the future of the UK hung. It's a frightening thought. We could so easily have slipped into another decade, perhaps longer, of continued decline.

isam

Douglas Carswell retweeted this.. is it a spoof Sun account or has Schapps really said this?


Douglas Carswell retweeted

The Sun Newsdesk ‏@SunNewsdesk · 51m51 minutes ago
Voting Ukip puts Britain at greater risk from Ebola and terror attacks, Tory chairman Grant Shapps claims: http://bit.ly/Zk3bpF

RodCrosby

Richard_Nabavi said:

On topic: On what a thin thread the future of the UK hung. It's a frightening thought. We could so easily have slipped into another decade, perhaps longer, of continued decline.

You can thank the Ulster Unionists, SNP and Jeremy Thorpe for cooking Heath's goose in Feb 1974, ultimately for the rise of Thatcher...

Richard_Nabavi

RodCrosby said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

On topic: On what a thin thread the future of the UK hung. It's a frightening thought. We could so easily have slipped into another decade, perhaps longer, of continued decline.

You can thank the Ulster Unionists, SNP and Jeremy Thorpe for cooking Heath's goose in Feb 1974, ultimately for the rise of Thatcher...

And of course General Galtieri, without whose timely assistance she probably wouldn't have lasted very long.

taffys

Lord Tebbit seems to think 'only pride' stands between a UKIP/tory election pact.

I don;t see it myself.

MattW

RodCrosby said:

@surbiton

It is inconceivable that Con or Lab would form a UK coalition government with

i) any of the NI parties [the risk of fallout for the peace process]

ii) SNP, a regional separatist party [inconceivable the SNP would join, for the same reason]

More informal arrangements are perfectly possible though.

Hmm. Tories worked with them in Scotland.

But the SNP just became incredibly unpredictable, since they are 75% brand new members.

I don't think anyone knows what the SNP is now.

Perhaps we should start calling them the "Pretender Party".

RodCrosby

Richard_Nabavi said:

RodCrosby said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

On topic: On what a thin thread the future of the UK hung. It's a frightening thought. We could so easily have slipped into another decade, perhaps longer, of continued decline.

You can thank the Ulster Unionists, SNP and Jeremy Thorpe for cooking Heath's goose in Feb 1974, ultimately for the rise of Thatcher...

And of course General Galtieri, without whose timely assistance she probably wouldn't have lasted very long.

Yes, but if Heath had hung on in 1974, I suspect Thatcher would have been a footnote to history. Succeeded by Whitelaw, or defeated by Callaghan seem to be the most likely options...

AndreaParma_82

Heidi Allen wins South Cambrideshire Conservative selection.

It's the one who was suspected to have won SE Cambridgeshire selection if they had officers able to count.

logical_song

Swiss_Bob said:

logical_song said:

"Bedwetter or here to smear?"

Is that not a smear?

I'll leave other people to judge but it was Wodger who conflated UKIP with the BNP, a fückwitted bunch of National Socialists, most of whom were Labour party members, or since the party collapsed returned to the Labour party because they're not welcome in UKIP.

Maybe he saw this:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/hitler-praised-as-magnetic-and-forceful-speaker-by-ukip-mep-9659626.html
or
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/may/01/ukip-nazi-row-photoshops-hitler

isam

logical_song said:

Swiss_Bob said:

logical_song said:

"Bedwetter or here to smear?"

Is that not a smear?

I'll leave other people to judge but it was Wodger who conflated UKIP with the BNP, a fückwitted bunch of National Socialists, most of whom were Labour party members, or since the party collapsed returned to the Labour party because they're not welcome in UKIP.

Maybe he saw this:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/hitler-praised-as-magnetic-and-forceful-speaker-by-ukip-mep-9659626.html
or
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/may/01/ukip-nazi-row-photoshops-hitler

Haha the second one was a wind up to trick people like you!!! kerching!

logical_song

isam said:

logical_song said:

Swiss_Bob said:

logical_song said:

"Bedwetter or here to smear?"

Is that not a smear?

I'll leave other people to judge but it was Wodger who conflated UKIP with the BNP, a fückwitted bunch of National Socialists, most of whom were Labour party members, or since the party collapsed returned to the Labour party because they're not welcome in UKIP.

Maybe he saw this:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/hitler-praised-as-magnetic-and-forceful-speaker-by-ukip-mep-9659626.html
or
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/may/01/ukip-nazi-row-photoshops-hitler

Haha the second one was a wind up to trick people like you!!! kerching!

Maybe.
What about the first one?

Tell me how well you do on this quiz:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/quiz/2014/may/19/quiz-bnp-ukip-quotes-who-said-what

isam

logical_song said:

isam said:

logical_song said:

Swiss_Bob said:

logical_song said:

"Bedwetter or here to smear?"

Is that not a smear?

I'll leave other people to judge but it was Wodger who conflated UKIP with the BNP, a fückwitted bunch of National Socialists, most of whom were Labour party members, or since the party collapsed returned to the Labour party because they're not welcome in UKIP.

Maybe he saw this:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/hitler-praised-as-magnetic-and-forceful-speaker-by-ukip-mep-9659626.html
or
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/may/01/ukip-nazi-row-photoshops-hitler

Haha the second one was a wind up to trick people like you!!! kerching!

Maybe.
What about the first one?

Tell me how well you do on this quiz:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/quiz/2014/may/19/quiz-bnp-ukip-quotes-who-said-what

Give up mate you've shown how desperate you are already x