politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Rochester and Strood is being presented as solely a CON-UKI

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Rochester and Strood is being presented as solely a CON-UKIP battle – but what about Labour?

After Labour’s pitiful performances at the Heywood and Newark by-elections it is easy to dismiss their chances entirely in the Rochester and Strood by-election on November 20th. The national party has not given the impression that this is a priority and recent form does not bode well.

Read the full story here

chestnut

A seat they really should be fighting to win. It is supposed to be one of those where they exploit the divide to the right and storm through the gap.

audreyanne

Good thread. My impression is that they aren't really going to try though? If so I find that extraordinary: I agree with Mike they really should be going for it. They are the official opposition after all, and a by election should be theirs.

They are also playing into Conservative hands because if UKIP wins and the Labour share drops the Tories can blame Labour.

dugarbandier

Wonder how the labour party accounts are looking. maybe they are short of cash?

Innocent_Abroad

Sounds like an "under the radar" campaign to me - ground troops and no media stunts; get your own vote out and don't worry about the uncommitted. A longstanding Labour ploy. If they beat the Tories they'll be happy, even if Reckless beats them.

DavidL

The Tories would rather Labour won this than UKIP. The priority here is to stop UKIP's momentum and demonstrate to right thinking voters the consequences of split votes.

As I have commented before the swing against Labour in 2010 in this constituency was a whisker under 10%, almost exactly double the national swing. Was this because Reckless was a good candidate or was it that Labour is just fading away in so much of the south? I think the latter but this by election should be a good test of both possibilities.

She looks a good candidate but you just don't get the impression Labour are going for this.

Paul_Mid_Beds

All the more odd that Labour don't seem to be throwing the kitchen sink at this one. However good the candidate, it does help if the national party gets behind them and provides resources and well known visitors, which seems from all I have heard to be singularly lacking in this case.

OldKingCole

DavidL said:

The Tories would rather Labour won this than UKIP. The priority here is to stop UKIP's momentum and demonstrate to right thinking voters the consequences of split votes.

As I have commented before the swing against Labour in 2010 in this constituency was a whisker under 10%, almost exactly double the national swing. Was this because Reckless was a good candidate or was it that Labour is just fading away in so much of the south? I think the latter but this by election should be a good test of both possibilities.

She looks a good candidate but you just don't get the impression Labour are going for this.

Or was it becasuse Marshall-Andrews had been an exceptional candidate and his personal vote had either left or stayed at home?

Tha Labour candidate this time isn’t the same as 2010.

OblitusSumMe

DavidL said:

The Tories would rather Labour won this than UKIP. The priority here is to stop UKIP's momentum and demonstrate to right thinking voters the consequences of split votes.

As I have commented before the swing against Labour in 2010 in this constituency was a whisker under 10%, almost exactly double the national swing. Was this because Reckless was a good candidate or was it that Labour is just fading away in so much of the south? I think the latter but this by election should be a good test of both possibilities.

She looks a good candidate but you just don't get the impression Labour are going for this.

Reckless was the Conservative candidate in 2001 and 2005, so the quality of his candidature was unlikely to have been a cause of a large swing in 2010.

PeterC

Labour just don't want to draw attention to themselves, their leader and their policies by fighting this by-election in a meaningful way. They hope to cruise through the GE on a vague sense of brand. I don't think it will work in the end - it certainly doesn't deserve to.

another_richard

Eight weeks after the Rotherham report and still these questions remain unanswered:

1) What is Home Secretary Theresa May doing about the South Yorkshire Police after the widespread reports of collaboration with child rapists.

2) When is Childrens Minister Edward Timpson going to place Rotherham Childrens Services into special measures.

3) What is Policing Minister Mike Penning doing to ensure the police's much hyped 'day of reckoning' with its 'wave after wave' of arrests takes place.

4) How much did the locally very well connected former Communities Minister Sayeeda Warsi know about what was happening and what did she chose to do about it.

5) Why has Prime Minister David Cameron shown no interest after his emphasis on 'Broken Britain' while Leader of the Opposition.

Innocent_Abroad

PeterC said:

Labour just don't want to draw attention to themselves, their leader and their policies by fighting this by-election in a meaningful way. They hope to cruise through the GE on a vague sense of brand. I don't think it will work in the end - it certainly doesn't deserve to.

What does deserve to work, Peter? Snake-oil of the Blair or Cameron type? The spirit of Wedgwood Benn? Racism? (No, I've no idea either...)

another_richard

With government debt now more than £1.45 TRILLION plus plenty more off balance sheet Cameron was caught lying again in his conference speech about 'paying down debts':

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-2779516/Cameron-rebuked-debt-claims.html

DavidL

OblitusSumMe said:

DavidL said:

The Tories would rather Labour won this than UKIP. The priority here is to stop UKIP's momentum and demonstrate to right thinking voters the consequences of split votes.

As I have commented before the swing against Labour in 2010 in this constituency was a whisker under 10%, almost exactly double the national swing. Was this because Reckless was a good candidate or was it that Labour is just fading away in so much of the south? I think the latter but this by election should be a good test of both possibilities.

She looks a good candidate but you just don't get the impression Labour are going for this.

Reckless was the Conservative candidate in 2001 and 2005, so the quality of his candidature was unlikely to have been a cause of a large swing in 2010.

It is quite hard to trace the history of this seat through the boundary and name changes but that seems a good point. I also acknowledge that OldKingCole's point about Marshall-Andrews. I remember him saying on live TV that he had lost his seat and then finding that he had hung on. He was a popular and good candidate.

But the trend to bit part status of Labour in the south (outwith London of course) is clear and unmistakable, as bad in many ways as the Tories in Scotland. Not throwing the kitchen sink at a by election in a seat like this will not help.

Innocent_Abroad

another_richard said:

With government debt now more than £1.45 TRILLION plus plenty more off balance sheet Cameron was caught lying again in his conference speech about 'paying down debts':

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-2779516/Cameron-rebuked-debt-claims.html

If you get your economic information from that source, all you'll get is a headache.

Casino_Royale

No.

felix

I too am amazed that Labour are not expected to do well. However, I suspect that a candidate called Khan is unlikely to come close there. I think that the typical voter in this part of Kent is more likely to support a traditional left or right candidate - whatever her abilities Ms Khan is unlikely to have resonance in the rather febrile atmosphere there at the moment.

I think Reckless will probably win although I find it hard to think of a worse role model for an MP.

rottenborough

DavidL said:

OblitusSumMe said:

DavidL said:

The Tories would rather Labour won this than UKIP. The priority here is to stop UKIP's momentum and demonstrate to right thinking voters the consequences of split votes.

As I have commented before the swing against Labour in 2010 in this constituency was a whisker under 10%, almost exactly double the national swing. Was this because Reckless was a good candidate or was it that Labour is just fading away in so much of the south? I think the latter but this by election should be a good test of both possibilities.

She looks a good candidate but you just don't get the impression Labour are going for this.

Reckless was the Conservative candidate in 2001 and 2005, so the quality of his candidature was unlikely to have been a cause of a large swing in 2010.

It is quite hard to trace the history of this seat through the boundary and name changes but that seems a good point. I also acknowledge that OldKingCole's point about Marshall-Andrews. I remember him saying on live TV that he had lost his seat and then finding that he had hung on. He was a popular and good candidate.

But the trend to bit part status of Labour in the south (outwith London of course) is clear and unmistakable, as bad in many ways as the Tories in Scotland. Not throwing the kitchen sink at a by election in a seat like this will not help.

Morning all,

I met Bob Marshalls-Andrews on a train once. Seemed a lovely guy and very genuine about the things he had wanted to change in the world. I say 'had' as this was before 2010 and he was, if i remember correctly, very glad to be getting out.

felix

The whole Labour strategy for 2015 is extraordinarily depressing- no policy, no ideas, no mission. If they do win the economy will tank and UKIP could easily sweep the board in less than 5 years. It's all a bit of a mess.

Millsy

"But in the only polling that’s been done, the Survation survey, Labour was holding up pretty well"

Not really, Mike. If the poll is any guide Labour are down 3% on 2010 (not a good year remember) and down 17% on 2005 (Medway).

Millsy

In that pic at the top of the page - couldn't they find anyone shorter to stand next to the candidate? Do people vote for short politicians?

rottenborough

felix said:

The whole Labour strategy for 2015 is extraordinarily depressing- no policy, no ideas, no mission. If they do win the economy will tank and UKIP could easily sweep the board in less than 5 years. It's all a bit of a mess.

Not sure this is entirely fair. There is policy - plenty of it. Indeed, Steve Richards, I think it was, recently said there was more policy than any opposition he could recall. What's missing IMHO is some kind of narrative that links it all together, so you are right about mission. Ideas is a harder one, there does seem to be a general impression that ideas from front benchers are being suppressed. Of course, this could be because all the good stuff is being saved for 2015.

MonikerDiCanio

27-year-old Miss Khan is an insultingly ludicrous candidate. Labour deserve to be wiped out in this by election.

OldKingCole

rottenborough said:

felix said:

The whole Labour strategy for 2015 is extraordinarily depressing- no policy, no ideas, no mission. If they do win the economy will tank and UKIP could easily sweep the board in less than 5 years. It's all a bit of a mess.

Not sure this is entirely fair. There is policy - plenty of it. Indeed, Steve Richards, I think it was, recently said there was more policy than any opposition he could recall. What's missing IMHO is some kind of narrative that links it all together, so you are right about mission. Ideas is a harder one, there does seem to be a general impression that ideas from front benchers are being suppressed. Of course, this could be because all the good stuff is being saved for 2015.

There was quite a good piece on Channel 4 the other night.

Millsy

When does the YouGov polling get worrying for Labour? And how far will the party fall? They are averaging less than 34% so far in October - down from 39% this time last year and up until February this year. The trend is definitely not their friend!

The Tories aren't doing any better but at least they are stagnant at around 32%/33%.

http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/67mgjr0dbp/YG-Archives-Pol-Trackers-Voting-Trends-with-UKIP-201014.pdf

SimonStClare

MonikerDiCanio said:

27-year-old Miss Khan is an insultingly ludicrous candidate. Labour deserve to be wiped out in this by election.

According to her ‘linkedIn’ profile, Khan appears to be eminently qualified, - having gone straight from Vice President (Birmingham) National Union of Students, to a series of Labour SPAD jobs.

I’m sure dipping her toe in the real world as an account manager for less than two years, means she is more than capable of representing the good citizens of R&S….

OldKingCole

MonikerDiCanio said:

27-year-old Miss Khan is an insultingly ludicrous candidate. Labour deserve to be wiped out in this by election.

That seems a tad harsh. Why do you say that? She’s local, seems sensible. Admittedly she’s young, has been a SPAD and works in PR but she seems to be working the area.

peter_from_putney

MonikerDiCanio said:

27-year-old Miss Khan is an insultingly ludicrous candidate. Labour deserve to be wiped out in this by election.

I take it from that comment Moniker that you don't exactly agree with OGH's views as regards Labour's prospects in this seat!

Financier

another_richard said:

Eight weeks after the Rotherham report and still these questions remain unanswered:

1) What is Home Secretary Theresa May doing about the South Yorkshire Police after the widespread reports of collaboration with child rapists.

2) When is Childrens Minister Edward Timpson going to place Rotherham Childrens Services into special measures.

3) What is Policing Minister Mike Penning doing to ensure the police's much hyped 'day of reckoning' with its 'wave after wave' of arrests takes place.

4) How much did the locally very well connected former Communities Minister Sayeeda Warsi know about what was happening and what did she chose to do about it.

5) Why has Prime Minister David Cameron shown no interest after his emphasis on 'Broken Britain' while Leader of the Opposition.

Did you listen to R4 about 715 this morning to the legal representative of Labour's and other interested parties trying to slag off Fiona Woolf, the new head of the child abuse inquiry and so delay the inquiry again?

Also in the Guardian on 18th of this month:

"A full and urgent investigation into the disappearance of key child sex abuse files is needed to address public suspicion of a cover-up, the influential Commons home affairs select committee has said.

The MPs’ demand comes from their follow-up inquiry into the response of authorities in Rotherham during which they heard evidence that the files of a council researcher detailing the extent of suffering had been stolen in 2002.

The Commons home affairs committee’s report, published on Saturdaysays this was not the first case wherein there were allegations that files relating to child sex exploitation had disappeared"

felix

SimonStClare said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

27-year-old Miss Khan is an insultingly ludicrous candidate. Labour deserve to be wiped out in this by election.

According to her ‘linkedIn’ profile, Khan appears to be eminently qualified, - having gone straight from Vice President (Birmingham) National Union of Students, to a series of Labour SPAD jobs.

I’m sure dipping her toe in the real world as an account manager for less than two years, means she is more than capable of representing the good citizens of R&S….

Spot on - this from Frank Field in today's Independent shows just how far Labour has moved itself away from core voters.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/former-labour-minister-frank-field-hits-out-at-ed-miliband-for-being-soft-on-immigration-9809122.html

CD13

So, after all Labour's protestations that austerity was counter productive because it depressed GDP and GDP was the be-all and end-all, and all we had to do was to spend our way out of the problem, what do we see?

GDP is rising fast and the deficit is, if anything, rising.

It had the advantage of being a simplistic message but it buggered up their credibility no end. Now that we see it writ plain, it may not do Labour much good if we continue like this. How can they say "If we'd been in charge in 2010, things would have been different."

Yes, they would have been ... worse!

Scrapheap_as_was

QTWTAIN

[Deleted User]

A genuine question, not a troll: Is having a Muslim candidate in Rochester the right profile in the right place for Labour?

After Rotherham and ISIS etc I wonder how the average bloke in the street's gut reaction to having a religion of peace candidate plays out in the ballot box. This lady looks strong - and would be a shoe-in in some locations, but Rochester? Hmm.....

(I'm also wonderng, not trolling, if Ed's Jewishness has any bearing whatever on the Muslim vote!)

felix

It's unfortunate that the political class has become so remote from voters real lives. This has even infected PB - otherwise how on earth would be get such a thread header that thinks yet another 'young professional politician' would seriously challenge UKIP in this part of Kent.

david_herdson

From the thread: "I don’t think that Labour will win but they just might and for betting purposes I’m not ruling it out."

They won't win if they don't try, and it sound as if they won't try which, as various people have pointed out, would be ludicrous given their past and presumably current strength in the constituency, and the split right-of-centre vote. (By 'won't try', I don't mean won't put in an effort: they will. They just won't put in the same effort as UKIP and the Tories).

felix

rottenborough said:

felix said:

The whole Labour strategy for 2015 is extraordinarily depressing- no policy, no ideas, no mission. If they do win the economy will tank and UKIP could easily sweep the board in less than 5 years. It's all a bit of a mess.

Not sure this is entirely fair. There is policy - plenty of it. Indeed, Steve Richards, I think it was, recently said there was more policy than any opposition he could recall. What's missing IMHO is some kind of narrative that links it all together, so you are right about mission. Ideas is a harder one, there does seem to be a general impression that ideas from front benchers are being suppressed. Of course, this could be because all the good stuff is being saved for 2015.

The policies are great for a party seeking to firm up it's metropolitan base where all the 'right thinking faux w/c chatter. It has got nothing to do with the UK.

Innocent_Abroad

david_herdson said:

From the thread: "I don’t think that Labour will win but they just might and for betting purposes I’m not ruling it out."

They won't win if they don't try, and it sound as if they won't try which, as various people have pointed out, would be ludicrous given their past and presumably current strength in the constituency, and the split right-of-centre vote. (By 'won't try', I don't mean won't put in an effort: they will. They just won't put in the same effort as UKIP and the Tories).

That may be because they have different strengths. It could even be that Miliband now knows that he is an electoral liability!

MarkSenior

There are a number of on the ground reports from Rochester/Strood on the Vote 2012 website . From these it is clear that Labour have got a decent on the ground campaign with plenty of foot soldiers in the field . From past experience this will be backed up with lots of telephone canvassing . What effect this will have on the voters though , I have no idea .

Alistair

The Ladbrokes over/under on SNP seats is 10.5

Over: 1.72
Under: 2.1

The Lib Dems suffered an apocalypse at the Holyrood election. I know I've cautioned against trying ot extrapolate Holyrood behaviour to Westminster elections but a Lib Dem apocalyse in Scotland for the GE would probably give the SNP enough seats to go over 10.5 even without touching Labour.

I'm tempted.

OldKingCole

We had a discussion here not long ago about whether having a local candidate mattered a lot, and in that context it’s noteworthy that both Tory possibilities are from Kent and one indeed a Medway councillor. So the Tories must think there’s an advantage!

Khan was born and grew up in the area so there should be some advantage there. Might be meeting Patrick’s understandable doubt head on!

MikeSmithson

Millsy said:

"But in the only polling that’s been done, the Survation survey, Labour was holding up pretty well"

Not really, Mike. If the poll is any guide Labour are down 3% on 2010 (not a good year remember) and down 17% on 2005 (Medway).

Don't you understand my analysis. If you take away the non 2010 voters then the overall pool on which the numbers are calculated would a lot smaller and LAB would be up a bit of 2010.

MikeSmithson

Remember that the leader in the first Ashcroft poll in Eastleigh finished third and that the 3rd in that poll very nearly did it.

First Ashcroft poll Eastleigh. CON, LD, UKIP
Actual result. LD, UKIP, CON

david_herdson

MikeSmithson said:

Millsy said:

"But in the only polling that’s been done, the Survation survey, Labour was holding up pretty well"

Not really, Mike. If the poll is any guide Labour are down 3% on 2010 (not a good year remember) and down 17% on 2005 (Medway).

Don't you understand my analysis. If you take away the non 2010 voters then the overall pool on which the numbers are calculated would a lot smaller and LAB would be up a bit of 2010.

Do we know what the evidence is from Clacton or Newark as to how many of the non-voters from 2010 did subsequently turn out (or Heywood, though that's not as comparable a seat as the two the Tories won last time round)?

MarqueeMark

Financier said:

another_richard said:

Eight weeks after the Rotherham report and still these questions remain unanswered:

1) What is Home Secretary Theresa May doing about the South Yorkshire Police after the widespread reports of collaboration with child rapists.

2) When is Childrens Minister Edward Timpson going to place Rotherham Childrens Services into special measures.

3) What is Policing Minister Mike Penning doing to ensure the police's much hyped 'day of reckoning' with its 'wave after wave' of arrests takes place.

4) How much did the locally very well connected former Communities Minister Sayeeda Warsi know about what was happening and what did she chose to do about it.

5) Why has Prime Minister David Cameron shown no interest after his emphasis on 'Broken Britain' while Leader of the Opposition.

Did you listen to R4 about 715 this morning to the legal representative of Labour's and other interested parties trying to slag off Fiona Woolf, the new head of the child abuse inquiry and so delay the inquiry again?

Also in the Guardian on 18th of this month:

"A full and urgent investigation into the disappearance of key child sex abuse files is needed to address public suspicion of a cover-up, the influential Commons home affairs select committee has said.

The MPs’ demand comes from their follow-up inquiry into the response of authorities in Rotherham during which they heard evidence that the files of a council researcher detailing the extent of suffering had been stolen in 2002.

The Commons home affairs committee’s report, published on Saturdaysays this was not the first case wherein there were allegations that files relating to child sex exploitation had disappeared"

The paralysis in responding to what should have been the biggest political story since MPs expenses is truly remarkable.

My best guess? There is an uncomfortable overlap between the perpetrators of these rapes and intelligence assets reporting on home-grown Muslim terrorists. Started under the last Government, continued by this one. People have been blackmailed, made threats or promises on co-operating with MI5.

And now no-one at the top knows how the hell to play it. Neither Labour nor the Coalition want this discussed in public, especially not before a General Election where no-one in power in recent years is going to come out of this well. So it has been swept under what is now a very lumpy-looking carpet....

CD13

felix,

An interesting piece from Frank Field.

tim once declared his support for Frank - his local MP - despite disagreeing with his opinions. But I think Frank is just facing reality.

You can defend unlimited immigration, and there are good features that come from it, but it's more difficult if you're seen as posh and living in a cocoon away from the problems.

rottenborough

Alistair said:

The Ladbrokes over/under on SNP seats is 10.5

Over: 1.72
Under: 2.1

The Lib Dems suffered an apocalypse at the Holyrood election. I know I've cautioned against trying ot extrapolate Holyrood behaviour to Westminster elections but a Lib Dem apocalyse in Scotland for the GE would probably give the SNP enough seats to go over 10.5 even without touching Labour.

I'm tempted.

This is interesting potential bet. By my reckoning LibDems would need to lose 5 to SNP (if not touching Labour). That seems steep given the strong personal factors in many of their seats. Which ones do you see as more likely to fall?

murali_s

MonikerDiCanio said:

27-year-old Miss Khan is an insultingly ludicrous candidate. Labour deserve to be wiped out in this by election.

Reasons? She's probably the best candidate in the field. God knows what you think of the other candidates...

MikeSmithson

Wind power generated more than nuclear yesterday.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29715796

NickPalmer

OldKingCole said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

27-year-old Miss Khan is an insultingly ludicrous candidate. Labour deserve to be wiped out in this by election.

That seems a tad harsh. Why do you say that? She’s local, seems sensible. Admittedly she’s young, has been a SPAD and works in PR but she seems to be working the area.

There was a Tory a bit like that - worked in PR for a while, but mainly seemed interested in politics. Cameron, I think he was called. Wonder what happened to him.

Financier

MikeSmithson said:

Wind power generated more than nuclear yesterday.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29715796

Yes but we had to rely on French nuclear for much of September when the wind did not blow. Yesterday around here most of the wind turbines were shut down because there was too much wind.

Gadfly

MikeSmithson said:

Wind power generated more than nuclear yesterday.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29715796

Essentially because it was exceptionally windy, and 8 of the UK's 15 nuclear reactors are currently offline.

MarqueeMark

Financier said:

MikeSmithson said:

Wind power generated more than nuclear yesterday.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29715796

Yes but we had to rely on French nuclear for much of September when the wind did not blow. Yesterday around here most of the wind turbines were shut down because there was too much wind.

And today it is flat calm and they are not working!

AlastairMeeks

It's quite remarkable that Labour are such long odds in a seat which they held until 2010. I don't completely exclude the possibility that they'll win (and accordingly have made sure that when appropriate I have laid UKIP rather than backed the Conservatives). I don't subscribe to any theory of opposition that involves the Opposition not, you know, opposing.

Alistair

rottenborough said:

Alistair said:

The Ladbrokes over/under on SNP seats is 10.5

Over: 1.72
Under: 2.1

The Lib Dems suffered an apocalypse at the Holyrood election. I know I've cautioned against trying ot extrapolate Holyrood behaviour to Westminster elections but a Lib Dem apocalyse in Scotland for the GE would probably give the SNP enough seats to go over 10.5 even without touching Labour.

I'm tempted.

This is interesting potential bet. By my reckoning LibDems would need to lose 5 to SNP (if not touching Labour). That seems steep given the strong personal factors in many of their seats. Which ones do you see as more likely to fall?

That's the thing, as you say there are strong personal factors in many of the Lib Dem seats so I am having difficulty converting a gut feeling into a concrete proposition.

OldKingCole

Couldn't R&S end up as a 31:30:29?

Quincel

rottenborough said:

Alistair said:

The Ladbrokes over/under on SNP seats is 10.5

Over: 1.72
Under: 2.1

The Lib Dems suffered an apocalypse at the Holyrood election. I know I've cautioned against trying ot extrapolate Holyrood behaviour to Westminster elections but a Lib Dem apocalyse in Scotland for the GE would probably give the SNP enough seats to go over 10.5 even without touching Labour.

I'm tempted.

This is interesting potential bet. By my reckoning LibDems would need to lose 5 to SNP (if not touching Labour). That seems steep given the strong personal factors in many of their seats. Which ones do you see as more likely to fall?

Antifrank has written about this in the past more cogently than I, but put bluntly:

1. Loads of LD Scots MPs are standing down
2. You simply can't hols 20% of the seats on 7% of the vote. The numbers don't add up.

Instead of saying which ones will fall, I'll name the seats I think are safe:

Orkney and Shetlands
Ross, Skye, and Lochaber

A couple of others are holdable, but I'd be shocked if the LD's held more than 5 Scottish seats on 8% or less of the vote.

MarqueeMark

That Labour aren't in the frame is down to UKIP both taking their own voters and the Tory -> Labour swing voters who would have previously taken them over the line.

Like Kent, the Midlands is an area we have traditionally seen the third party getting less traction with voters switching directly between Labour and the Tories. If UKIP do get traction there, I can see them making a mess of Labour hopes to take a swathe of marginals there.

felix

murali_s said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

27-year-old Miss Khan is an insultingly ludicrous candidate. Labour deserve to be wiped out in this by election.

Reasons? She's probably the best candidate in the field. God knows what you think of the other candidates...

On what planet in the current atmosphere in that part of the world is a young teenage lookalike called Khan who is straight out of the NUS and also an ex-spad probably the best candidate. At some point the political class need to 'get it'!

Sean_F

All the odder that Labour aren't throwing the kitchen sink at this. My guess is they'll finish with 20-25%,

logical_song

MarqueeMark said:

Financier said:

MikeSmithson said:

Wind power generated more than nuclear yesterday.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29715796

Yes but we had to rely on French nuclear for much of September when the wind did not blow. Yesterday around here most of the wind turbines were shut down because there was too much wind.

And today it is flat calm and they are not working!

...and? Not surprising that wind turbines don't produce electricity when the wind isn't blowing.
From http://www.goodenergy.co.uk/
"Myth: Wind farms are inefficient and only work 30% of the time
Fact: A modern wind turbine produces electricity 70-85% of the time, but it generates different outputs depending on the wind speed. Over the course of a year it will typically generate about 30% of the theoretical maximum output. This is known as its load factor – and compares with 50% for a conventional power station.
A modern commercial wind turbine will generate enough to meet the electricity demands of more than 1,000 homes over the course of a year."

MarqueeMark

BTW, the other day Bob Marshall-Andrews was on the telly on "Homes by the Sea" (or some similar title), with a fabulous ultra-modern property he has built looking out to sea in Pembrokeshire. He seemed very well.

felix

MikeSmithson said:

Millsy said:

"But in the only polling that’s been done, the Survation survey, Labour was holding up pretty well"

Not really, Mike. If the poll is any guide Labour are down 3% on 2010 (not a good year remember) and down 17% on 2005 (Medway).

Don't you understand my analysis. If you take away the non 2010 voters then the overall pool on which the numbers are calculated would a lot smaller and LAB would be up a bit of 2010.

I suspect a significant number of 2010 Labour voters will vote UKIP and Ms Khan is not the candidate to keep them in the red camp.

Alistair

Quincel said:

rottenborough said:

Alistair said:

The Ladbrokes over/under on SNP seats is 10.5

Over: 1.72
Under: 2.1

The Lib Dems suffered an apocalypse at the Holyrood election. I know I've cautioned against trying ot extrapolate Holyrood behaviour to Westminster elections but a Lib Dem apocalyse in Scotland for the GE would probably give the SNP enough seats to go over 10.5 even without touching Labour.

I'm tempted.

This is interesting potential bet. By my reckoning LibDems would need to lose 5 to SNP (if not touching Labour). That seems steep given the strong personal factors in many of their seats. Which ones do you see as more likely to fall?

Antifrank has written about this in the past more cogently than I, but put bluntly:

1. Loads of LD Scots MPs are standing down
2. You simply can't hols 20% of the seats on 7% of the vote. The numbers don't add up.

Instead of saying which ones will fall, I'll name the seats I think are safe:

Orkney and Shetlands
Ross, Skye, and Lochaber

A couple of others are holdable, but I'd be shocked if the LD's held more than 5 Scottish seats on 8% or less of the vote.

I think East Dunbartonshire is a hold as well. Local candidate, small majority but I don't see Labour picking up any votes, SNP vote no where close, voted No in the referendum.

TheScreamingEagles

antifrank said:

It's quite remarkable that Labour are such long odds in a seat which they held until 2010. I don't completely exclude the possibility that they'll win (and accordingly have made sure that when appropriate I have laid UKIP rather than backed the Conservatives). I don't subscribe to any theory of opposition that involves the Opposition not, you know, opposing.

My own thinking is like in Newark, labour are soft pedalling because they think a UKIP victory damages David Cameron and increases the chances of David Cameron of being removed.

As most polls have shown for years Cameron is more popular than the Tory party.

Also a Labour victory increases the meme of go to bed with Farage and wake up with Ed

AlastairMeeks

Where the Lib Dems have been strong in Westminster seats, the SNP have historically been weak. While the SNP may pick up some of the seats from a Lib Dem implosion, five would be really going some. They are odds against in every Lib Dem seat bar Gordon. If you think that the SNP might pick up five of these, you should be betting on the constituency markets instead.

MarqueeMark

logical_song said:

MarqueeMark said:

Financier said:

MikeSmithson said:

Wind power generated more than nuclear yesterday.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29715796

Yes but we had to rely on French nuclear for much of September when the wind did not blow. Yesterday around here most of the wind turbines were shut down because there was too much wind.

And today it is flat calm and they are not working!

...and? Not surprising that wind turbines don't produce electricity when the wind isn't blowing.
From http://www.goodenergy.co.uk/
"Myth: Wind farms are inefficient and only work 30% of the time
Fact: A modern wind turbine produces electricity 70-85% of the time, but it generates different outputs depending on the wind speed. Over the course of a year it will typically generate about 30% of the theoretical maximum output.

Which makes it all the more short-sighted that we haven't developed tidal power, with close on 100% of the theoretical maximum output.... Second highest tidal range in the world going to waste.

TGOHF

SimonStClare said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

27-year-old Miss Khan is an insultingly ludicrous candidate. Labour deserve to be wiped out in this by election.

According to her ‘linkedIn’ profile, Khan appears to be eminently qualified, - having gone straight from Vice President (Birmingham) National Union of Students, to a series of Labour SPAD jobs.

Good god - do no normal people want to stand as Labour PPCs ?

Socrates

MarqueeMark said:

The paralysis in responding to what should have been the biggest political story since MPs expenses is truly remarkable.

My best guess? There is an uncomfortable overlap between the perpetrators of these rapes and intelligence assets reporting on home-grown Muslim terrorists. Started under the last Government, continued by this one. People have been blackmailed, made threats or promises on co-operating with MI5.

And now no-one at the top knows how the hell to play it. Neither Labour nor the Coalition want this discussed in public, especially not before a General Election where no-one in power in recent years is going to come out of this well. So it has been swept under what is now a very lumpy-looking carpet....

It's also notable that the child abuse inquiry only looks at how the UK authorities have dealt with child abuse, meaning its remit won't cover, for example, cultures of misogyny within some parts of society.

MarkSenior

Quincel said:

rottenborough said:

Alistair said:

The Ladbrokes over/under on SNP seats is 10.5

Over: 1.72
Under: 2.1

The Lib Dems suffered an apocalypse at the Holyrood election. I know I've cautioned against trying ot extrapolate Holyrood behaviour to Westminster elections but a Lib Dem apocalyse in Scotland for the GE would probably give the SNP enough seats to go over 10.5 even without touching Labour.

I'm tempted.

This is interesting potential bet. By my reckoning LibDems would need to lose 5 to SNP (if not touching Labour). That seems steep given the strong personal factors in many of their seats. Which ones do you see as more likely to fall?

Antifrank has written about this in the past more cogently than I, but put bluntly:

1. Loads of LD Scots MPs are standing down
2. You simply can't hols 20% of the seats on 7% of the vote. The numbers don't add up.

Instead of saying which ones will fall, I'll name the seats I think are safe:

Orkney and Shetlands
Ross, Skye, and Lochaber

A couple of others are holdable, but I'd be shocked if the LD's held more than 5 Scottish seats on 8% or less of the vote.

Do you actually do any research before you post rubbish on here ? Who are the " loads " of LD Scots MPs standing down . I think it is just 2 , Malcolm Bruce and Ming .

Gadfly

MarqueeMark said:

Financier said:

MikeSmithson said:

Wind power generated more than nuclear yesterday.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29715796

Yes but we had to rely on French nuclear for much of September when the wind did not blow. Yesterday around here most of the wind turbines were shut down because there was too much wind.

And today it is flat calm and they are not working!

It's windier than you imagine...

http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/orthographic=-5.20,52.29,1767

And wind is currently producing 11.1% of our electricity...

http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp_home.htm

felix

Alistair said:

Quincel said:

rottenborough said:

Alistair said:

The Ladbrokes over/under on SNP seats is 10.5

Over: 1.72
Under: 2.1

The Lib Dems suffered an apocalypse at the Holyrood election. I know I've cautioned against trying ot extrapolate Holyrood behaviour to Westminster elections but a Lib Dem apocalyse in Scotland for the GE would probably give the SNP enough seats to go over 10.5 even without touching Labour.

I'm tempted.

This is interesting potential bet. By my reckoning LibDems would need to lose 5 to SNP (if not touching Labour). That seems steep given the strong personal factors in many of their seats. Which ones do you see as more likely to fall?

Antifrank has written about this in the past more cogently than I, but put bluntly:

1. Loads of LD Scots MPs are standing down
2. You simply can't hols 20% of the seats on 7% of the vote. The numbers don't add up.

Instead of saying which ones will fall, I'll name the seats I think are safe:

Orkney and Shetlands
Ross, Skye, and Lochaber

A couple of others are holdable, but I'd be shocked if the LD's held more than 5 Scottish seats on 8% or less of the vote.

I think East Dunbartonshire is a hold as well. Local candidate, small majority but I don't see Labour picking up any votes, SNP vote no where close, voted No in the referendum.

I'd be very surprised if they hold Dumbarton East - it could go to almost any other party but the LDs , and probably will.

TGOHF

Red on purple

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/11178984/Chuka-Umunna-on-Ukip-vile-abhorrent-and-un-British.html

"The shadow business secretary suggested Ukip is not judged on the same terms as mainstream parties, saying that racism had been “priced in” by critics."

Quincel

Alistair said:

rottenborough said:

Alistair said:

The Ladbrokes over/under on SNP seats is 10.5

Over: 1.72
Under: 2.1

The Lib Dems suffered an apocalypse at the Holyrood election. I know I've cautioned against trying ot extrapolate Holyrood behaviour to Westminster elections but a Lib Dem apocalyse in Scotland for the GE would probably give the SNP enough seats to go over 10.5 even without touching Labour.

I'm tempted.

This is interesting potential bet. By my reckoning LibDems would need to lose 5 to SNP (if not touching Labour). That seems steep given the strong personal factors in many of their seats. Which ones do you see as more likely to fall?

That's the thing, as you say there are strong personal factors in many of the Lib Dem seats so I am having difficulty converting a gut feeling into a concrete proposition.

11 Scottish LD MPs:

Alistair Carmichael - Safe
Charles Kennedy - Safe
Danny Alexander - 18.6% majority, likely hold
Mike Crockart - 8.2% majority, likely defeat
Michael Moore - 11.6% majority, holdable
Alan Reid - 7.6% majority, highly likely defeat
Robert Smith - 8.2% majority, likely defeat
Jo Swinson - 4.6% majority, certain defeat
John Thurso - 16.8% majority, likely hold
Malcolm Bruce - RETIRING, 13.8% majority, highly likely defeat
Menzies Campbell - RETIRING, 22.6% majority, holdable

Quite how the LDs are expecting to hold a load of majorities of 4-5k with a vote share of 1/3rd their 2010 performance I'm yet to understand.

SouthamObserver

antifrank said:

It's quite remarkable that Labour are such long odds in a seat which they held until 2010. I don't completely exclude the possibility that they'll win (and accordingly have made sure that when appropriate I have laid UKIP rather than backed the Conservatives). I don't subscribe to any theory of opposition that involves the Opposition not, you know, opposing.

Labour is opposing. But its message - or what it is passing off as a message - lacks any credibility, as does its leader. The Labour strategy is to Not Be The Tories and, to a lesser extent, Not To Be The LibDems. That might work with a Coalition in a three party system - in fact, it probably was working for a while during this Parliament. But it does not work when there is a fourth party, or four and a half, if you include the Greens.

Ed Miliband is in a league of his own as the worst leader of a major political party we have seen in this country for decades. And that includes Foot, IDS and Hague. The only good thing he has done is put in place a system for electing Labour party leaders which makes it harder for someone like him to ever be in charge again.

chestnut

Deficit amnesia seems to have spread to debt.

People seem to have forgotten that the banks' debts have been nationalised.

When exactly are Lloyds, and especially RBS and the remnants of Northern Rock getting denationalised?

Quincel

MarkSenior said:

Quincel said:

rottenborough said:

Alistair said:

The Ladbrokes over/under on SNP seats is 10.5

Over: 1.72
Under: 2.1

The Lib Dems suffered an apocalypse at the Holyrood election. I know I've cautioned against trying ot extrapolate Holyrood behaviour to Westminster elections but a Lib Dem apocalyse in Scotland for the GE would probably give the SNP enough seats to go over 10.5 even without touching Labour.

I'm tempted.

This is interesting potential bet. By my reckoning LibDems would need to lose 5 to SNP (if not touching Labour). That seems steep given the strong personal factors in many of their seats. Which ones do you see as more likely to fall?

Antifrank has written about this in the past more cogently than I, but put bluntly:

1. Loads of LD Scots MPs are standing down
2. You simply can't hols 20% of the seats on 7% of the vote. The numbers don't add up.

Instead of saying which ones will fall, I'll name the seats I think are safe:

Orkney and Shetlands
Ross, Skye, and Lochaber

A couple of others are holdable, but I'd be shocked if the LD's held more than 5 Scottish seats on 8% or less of the vote.

Do you actually do any research before you post rubbish on here ? Who are the " loads " of LD Scots MPs standing down . I think it is just 2 , Malcolm Bruce and Ming .

I had mistaken Alan Beith (Berwick upon Tweed) for a Scottish MP, which would have made it 3 of 11 (ie. more than a quarter).

It is possible to disagree with people without insulting them.

Alistair

MarqueeMark said:

logical_song said:

MarqueeMark said:

Financier said:

MikeSmithson said:

Wind power generated more than nuclear yesterday.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29715796

Yes but we had to rely on French nuclear for much of September when the wind did not blow. Yesterday around here most of the wind turbines were shut down because there was too much wind.

And today it is flat calm and they are not working!

...and? Not surprising that wind turbines don't produce electricity when the wind isn't blowing.
From http://www.goodenergy.co.uk/
"Myth: Wind farms are inefficient and only work 30% of the time
Fact: A modern wind turbine produces electricity 70-85% of the time, but it generates different outputs depending on the wind speed. Over the course of a year it will typically generate about 30% of the theoretical maximum output.

Which makes it all the more short-sighted that we haven't developed tidal power, with close on 100% of the theoretical maximum output.... Second highest tidal range in the world going to waste.

We;re working on it as fast as we can. Tidal power isn't easy. Tidal power is hard. If we had some nice handy fjords then it makes it simple to channel and funnel but that's practically cheating.

The European Marine Energy Centre is up in the north of Scotland so Britain is the focus of tidal research for the continent.

TheScreamingEagles

TGOHF said:

Red on purple

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/11178984/Chuka-Umunna-on-Ukip-vile-abhorrent-and-un-British.html

"The shadow business secretary suggested Ukip is not judged on the same terms as mainstream parties, saying that racism had been “priced in” by critics."

UKIP should be wise not to attack Britain's Barack Obama.

TGOHF

Where Marf leads the Telegraph follows

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/getting-it-right/11171179/Telegraph-latest-cartoon-gallery.html?frame=3080672

Alistair

Quincel said:

Quite how the LDs are expecting to hold a load of majorities of 4-5k with a vote share of 1/3rd their 2010 performance I'm yet to understand.

Because the LD vote is going to melt in seats they are not competitive in which will apocalypse their vote share but not necessarily their seat count.

MarkSenior

Quincel said:

MarkSenior said:

Quincel said:

rottenborough said:

Alistair said:

The Ladbrokes over/under on SNP seats is 10.5

Over: 1.72
Under: 2.1

The Lib Dems suffered an apocalypse at the Holyrood election. I know I've cautioned against trying ot extrapolate Holyrood behaviour to Westminster elections but a Lib Dem apocalyse in Scotland for the GE would probably give the SNP enough seats to go over 10.5 even without touching Labour.

I'm tempted.

This is interesting potential bet. By my reckoning LibDems would need to lose 5 to SNP (if not touching Labour). That seems steep given the strong personal factors in many of their seats. Which ones do you see as more likely to fall?

Antifrank has written about this in the past more cogently than I, but put bluntly:

1. Loads of LD Scots MPs are standing down
2. You simply can't hols 20% of the seats on 7% of the vote. The numbers don't add up.

Instead of saying which ones will fall, I'll name the seats I think are safe:

Orkney and Shetlands
Ross, Skye, and Lochaber

A couple of others are holdable, but I'd be shocked if the LD's held more than 5 Scottish seats on 8% or less of the vote.

Do you actually do any research before you post rubbish on here ? Who are the " loads " of LD Scots MPs standing down . I think it is just 2 , Malcolm Bruce and Ming .

I had mistaken Alan Beith (Berwick upon Tweed) for a Scottish MP, which would have made it 3 of 11 (ie. more than a quarter).

It is possible to disagree with people without insulting them.

Differing opinions I accept and can disagree with , incorrect facts need to be treated for what they are - rubbish .

Socrates

TGOHF said:

Red on purple

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/11178984/Chuka-Umunna-on-Ukip-vile-abhorrent-and-un-British.html

"The shadow business secretary suggested Ukip is not judged on the same terms as mainstream parties, saying that racism had been “priced in” by critics."

I can't remember when Chukka Umunna criticised the racism of Diane Abbott ("white people love to play divide and rule", "I'm not going to comment about whether West Indian mothers love their children more"), or called the 9/11 deniers and terrorists in Labour's EP grouping "abhorrent".

Also, I note this comment: "the kind of things you hear people saying about eastern Europeans these days is exactly the kinds of things they were saying about black and Asian people when they first arrived in this country."

Really? When? I've heard plenty of criticism about European immigration, but I don't think I've ever heard people make ethnic slurs about Poles and Lithuanians. Can Chukka Umunna provide any evidence of these claims? Or is he just making up racial prejudice in an effort to smear UKIP?

It's very sad to see someone like Chukka Umunna, who has a lot going for him, sinking into playing the race card.

weejonnie

chestnut said:

Deficit amnesia seems to have spread to debt.

People seem to have forgotten that the banks' debts have been nationalised.

When exactly are Lloyds, and especially RBS and the remnants of Northern Rock getting denationalised?

chestnut said:

Deficit amnesia seems to have spread to debt.

People seem to have forgotten that the banks' debts have been nationalised.

When exactly are Lloyds, and especially RBS and the remnants of Northern Rock getting denationalised?

The Government has sold off substantial tranches of Lloyds bank shares. RBS is downsizing to raise capital and Northern Rock was sold off (the good part) whilst the bad part is doing its best to get as much as it can from the loans it still has on the books (there was a recent report about someone who re-mortgaged from Northern Rock only to find that the personal loan of the 125% mortgage had its interest increased substantially).

All banks have had to pay fees for the use of Government lines of credit - it has been a nice little earner.

Socrates

TheScreamingEagles said:

TGOHF said:

Red on purple

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/11178984/Chuka-Umunna-on-Ukip-vile-abhorrent-and-un-British.html

"The shadow business secretary suggested Ukip is not judged on the same terms as mainstream parties, saying that racism had been “priced in” by critics."

UKIP should be wise not to attack Britain's Barack Obama.

Why? What makes him different to any other Labour politician?

Pulpstar

felix said:

Alistair said:

Quincel said:

rottenborough said:

Alistair said:

The Ladbrokes over/under on SNP seats is 10.5

Over: 1.72
Under: 2.1

The Lib Dems suffered an apocalypse at the Holyrood election. I know I've cautioned against trying ot extrapolate Holyrood behaviour to Westminster elections but a Lib Dem apocalyse in Scotland for the GE would probably give the SNP enough seats to go over 10.5 even without touching Labour.

I'm tempted.

This is interesting potential bet. By my reckoning LibDems would need to lose 5 to SNP (if not touching Labour). That seems steep given the strong personal factors in many of their seats. Which ones do you see as more likely to fall?

Antifrank has written about this in the past more cogently than I, but put bluntly:

1. Loads of LD Scots MPs are standing down
2. You simply can't hols 20% of the seats on 7% of the vote. The numbers don't add up.

Instead of saying which ones will fall, I'll name the seats I think are safe:

Orkney and Shetlands
Ross, Skye, and Lochaber

A couple of others are holdable, but I'd be shocked if the LD's held more than 5 Scottish seats on 8% or less of the vote.

I think East Dunbartonshire is a hold as well. Local candidate, small majority but I don't see Labour picking up any votes, SNP vote no where close, voted No in the referendum.

I'd be very surprised if they hold Dumbarton East - it could go to almost any other party but the LDs , and probably will.

I hope you and @Quincel are right on Dunbartonshire East !

@Antifrank tipped it up as a Lab gain too

Have a fair whack on labour here ^_~ - though I am over-covered on SNP.

logical_song

Alistair said:

Quincel said:

Quite how the LDs are expecting to hold a load of majorities of 4-5k with a vote share of 1/3rd their 2010 performance I'm yet to understand.

Because the LD vote is going to melt in seats they are not competitive in which will apocalypse their vote share but not necessarily their seat count.

That's FPTP.

Alistair

I notice that the betting on the SNP for Dundee West is suspended by shaddsy at the moment.

If I was to think that SNP were to take a bite out of Labour I know where I would be punting.

Alistair

MarkSenior said:

Quincel said:

MarkSenior said:

Quincel said:

rottenborough said:

Alistair said:

The Ladbrokes over/under on SNP seats is 10.5

Over: 1.72
Under: 2.1

The Lib Dems suffered an apocalypse at the Holyrood election. I know I've cautioned against trying ot extrapolate Holyrood behaviour to Westminster elections but a Lib Dem apocalyse in Scotland for the GE would probably give the SNP enough seats to go over 10.5 even without touching Labour.

I'm tempted.

This is interesting potential bet. By my reckoning LibDems would need to lose 5 to SNP (if not touching Labour). That seems steep given the strong personal factors in many of their seats. Which ones do you see as more likely to fall?

Antifrank has written about this in the past more cogently than I, but put bluntly:

1. Loads of LD Scots MPs are standing down
2. You simply can't hols 20% of the seats on 7% of the vote. The numbers don't add up.

Instead of saying which ones will fall, I'll name the seats I think are safe:

Orkney and Shetlands
Ross, Skye, and Lochaber

A couple of others are holdable, but I'd be shocked if the LD's held more than 5 Scottish seats on 8% or less of the vote.

Do you actually do any research before you post rubbish on here ? Who are the " loads " of LD Scots MPs standing down . I think it is just 2 , Malcolm Bruce and Ming .

I had mistaken Alan Beith (Berwick upon Tweed) for a Scottish MP, which would have made it 3 of 11 (ie. more than a quarter).

It is possible to disagree with people without insulting them.

Differing opinions I accept and can disagree with , incorrect facts need to be treated for what they are - rubbish .

Well, I have to to say that I appreciated the sentiment that Berwick is and forever will be a part of Scotland.

AlastairMeeks

Alistair said:

Quincel said:

Quite how the LDs are expecting to hold a load of majorities of 4-5k with a vote share of 1/3rd their 2010 performance I'm yet to understand.

Because the LD vote is going to melt in seats they are not competitive in which will apocalypse their vote share but not necessarily their seat count.

Just how far do you think it's going to melt in seats where they are not competitive? Bear in mind that the Lib Dem vote was already down a bit on 2005 in 2010, and is now looking likely to crash next year. I wrote about this specific problem some time ago:

http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/the-hunt-for-2010-lib-dems-part-1.html

And I updated my views on Scotland a couple of weeks ago:

http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/scottish-post-referendum-special.html

TGOHF

weejonnie said:

chestnut said:

Deficit amnesia seems to have spread to debt.

People seem to have forgotten that the banks' debts have been nationalised.

When exactly are Lloyds, and especially RBS and the remnants of Northern Rock getting denationalised?

chestnut said:

Deficit amnesia seems to have spread to debt.

People seem to have forgotten that the banks' debts have been nationalised.

When exactly are Lloyds, and especially RBS and the remnants of Northern Rock getting denationalised?

The Government has sold off substantial tranches of Lloyds bank shares. RBS is downsizing to raise capital and Northern Rock was sold off (the good part) whilst the bad part is doing its best to get as much as it can from the loans it still has on the books (there was a recent report about someone who re-mortgaged from Northern Rock only to find that the personal loan of the 125% mortgage had its interest increased substantially).

All banks have had to pay fees for the use of Government lines of credit - it has been a nice little earner.

the good bit of NRK is now Virgin money. The bad bit is being zombied - run off as the mortgages are paid down - may be sold of but not a big deal. RBS and Llo being shifted would be welcome though - even if partially.

Sean_F

TheScreamingEagles said:

antifrank said:

It's quite remarkable that Labour are such long odds in a seat which they held until 2010. I don't completely exclude the possibility that they'll win (and accordingly have made sure that when appropriate I have laid UKIP rather than backed the Conservatives). I don't subscribe to any theory of opposition that involves the Opposition not, you know, opposing.

My own thinking is like in Newark, labour are soft pedalling because they think a UKIP victory damages David Cameron and increases the chances of David Cameron of being removed.

As most polls have shown for years Cameron is more popular than the Tory party.

Also a Labour victory increases the meme of go to bed with Farage and wake up with Ed

That may be what they think, but it's a terrible strategy. If you're the Opposition, you should grab every chance you can of a win.

logical_song

MarqueeMark said:

logical_song said:

MarqueeMark said:

Financier said:

MikeSmithson said:

Wind power generated more than nuclear yesterday.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29715796

Yes but we had to rely on French nuclear for much of September when the wind did not blow. Yesterday around here most of the wind turbines were shut down because there was too much wind.

And today it is flat calm and they are not working!

...and? Not surprising that wind turbines don't produce electricity when the wind isn't blowing.
From http://www.goodenergy.co.uk/
"Myth: Wind farms are inefficient and only work 30% of the time
Fact: A modern wind turbine produces electricity 70-85% of the time, but it generates different outputs depending on the wind speed. Over the course of a year it will typically generate about 30% of the theoretical maximum output.

Which makes it all the more short-sighted that we haven't developed tidal power, with close on 100% of the theoretical maximum output.... Second highest tidal range in the world going to waste.

Don't disagree with that. There are a few trials going on but tidal power should be encouraged more.
http://www.seageneration.co.uk/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-16595752
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-28887542

isam

I agree that it seems crazy for labor to be such also rans in the betting given the poll and past elections... They are closer to Tory than Tory to ukip in the poll, yet on here people are very confident that Tory will bt ukip

I have backed labour v small when someone put up 100/1 on Betfair.. probably a losing bet but on paper it seems logical

Where I think mike is mistaken is to constantly discount non 2010 voters and use the results as evidence to lay ukip... I can guarantee you from canvassing I have done that getting out previous non voters is where ukip are working extremely hard, Farage in particular insisted in knocking on every door in Jaywick leading up to clacton

I realise non voters don't normally vote etc, but there is a big chance that is changing and betting as if it isn't happening seems a bit like burying your head in the sand

Yorkcity

SouthamObserver said:

antifrank said:

It's quite remarkable that Labour are such long odds in a seat which they held until 2010. I don't completely exclude the possibility that they'll win (and accordingly have made sure that when appropriate I have laid UKIP rather than backed the Conservatives). I don't subscribe to any theory of opposition that involves the Opposition not, you know, opposing.

Labour is opposing. But its message - or what it is passing off as a message - lacks any credibility, as does its leader. The Labour strategy is to Not Be The Tories and, to a lesser extent, Not To Be The LibDems. That might work with a Coalition in a three party system - in fact, it probably was working for a while during this Parliament. But it does not work when there is a fourth party, or four and a half, if you include the Greens.

Ed Miliband is in a league of his own as the worst leader of a major political party we have seen in this country for decades. And that includes Foot, IDS and Hague. The only good thing he has done is put in place a system for electing Labour party leaders which makes it harder for someone like him to ever be in charge again.

You will be filling your boots then I presume on a Conservative majority at 4/1 or
Conservative most seats at 5/4 ?

Can you let me know your position, so I can avoid it like the plague.

Sean_F

Alistair said:

Quincel said:

Quite how the LDs are expecting to hold a load of majorities of 4-5k with a vote share of 1/3rd their 2010 performance I'm yet to understand.

Because the LD vote is going to melt in seats they are not competitive in which will apocalypse their vote share but not necessarily their seat count.

That didn't work out for them in the Scottish Parliamentary elections.

Millsy

MikeSmithson said:

Millsy said:

"But in the only polling that’s been done, the Survation survey, Labour was holding up pretty well"

Not really, Mike. If the poll is any guide Labour are down 3% on 2010 (not a good year remember) and down 17% on 2005 (Medway).

Don't you understand my analysis. If you take away the non 2010 voters then the overall pool on which the numbers are calculated would a lot smaller and LAB would be up a bit of 2010.

Non-2010 voters are scaled down massively in the voting intention

Sean_F

Yorkcity said:

SouthamObserver said:

antifrank said:

It's quite remarkable that Labour are such long odds in a seat which they held until 2010. I don't completely exclude the possibility that they'll win (and accordingly have made sure that when appropriate I have laid UKIP rather than backed the Conservatives). I don't subscribe to any theory of opposition that involves the Opposition not, you know, opposing.

Labour is opposing. But its message - or what it is passing off as a message - lacks any credibility, as does its leader. The Labour strategy is to Not Be The Tories and, to a lesser extent, Not To Be The LibDems. That might work with a Coalition in a three party system - in fact, it probably was working for a while during this Parliament. But it does not work when there is a fourth party, or four and a half, if you include the Greens.

Ed Miliband is in a league of his own as the worst leader of a major political party we have seen in this country for decades. And that includes Foot, IDS and Hague. The only good thing he has done is put in place a system for electing Labour party leaders which makes it harder for someone like him to ever be in charge again.

You will be filling your boots then I presume on a Conservative majority at 4/1 or
Conservative most seats at 5/4 ?

Can you let me know your position, so I an avoid it like the plague.

Labour doesn't look as though it's heading for a win, next year.

Toms

MarqueeMark said:

Financier said:

MikeSmithson said:

Wind power generated more than nuclear yesterday.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29715796

Yes but we had to rely on French nuclear for much of September when the wind did not blow. Yesterday around here most of the wind turbines were shut down because there was too much wind.

And today it is flat calm and they are not working!

Financier said:

MikeSmithson said:

Wind power generated more than nuclear yesterday.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29715796

Yes but we had to rely on French nuclear for much of September when the wind did not blow. Yesterday around here most of the wind turbines were shut down because there was too much wind.

It seems to me that comments like this show that preconceived notions can trip over logic. For instance, referring to the intelligent site below, which I assume to be accurate, shows, and explains, that wind power has been putting out around five gigawatts for the last week or so; that, estimated by eye, it has generated on average something like two gigawatts over the last year; and that quickly responsive CCCG generation quickly smooths out fluctuations in electricity production.

http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

SouthamObserver

Yorkcity said:

SouthamObserver said:

antifrank said:

It's quite remarkable that Labour are such long odds in a seat which they held until 2010. I don't completely exclude the possibility that they'll win (and accordingly have made sure that when appropriate I have laid UKIP rather than backed the Conservatives). I don't subscribe to any theory of opposition that involves the Opposition not, you know, opposing.

Labour is opposing. But its message - or what it is passing off as a message - lacks any credibility, as does its leader. The Labour strategy is to Not Be The Tories and, to a lesser extent, Not To Be The LibDems. That might work with a Coalition in a three party system - in fact, it probably was working for a while during this Parliament. But it does not work when there is a fourth party, or four and a half, if you include the Greens.

Ed Miliband is in a league of his own as the worst leader of a major political party we have seen in this country for decades. And that includes Foot, IDS and Hague. The only good thing he has done is put in place a system for electing Labour party leaders which makes it harder for someone like him to ever be in charge again.

You will be filling your boots then I presume on a Conservative majority at 4/1 or
Conservative most seats at 5/4 ?

Can you let me know your position, so I can avoid it like the plague.

My position is what it has been since around August 2010: we are heading for a Hung Parliament. Good luck if you want to get against that. Labour will win some seats next time round because We Are Not The Tories will work in certain parts of the country. But what a barren strategy it is, built on the back of a policy vacuum and no coherent critique of this thoroughly depressing government.

TGOHF

Sean_F said:

Yorkcity said:

SouthamObserver said:

antifrank said:

It's quite remarkable that Labour are such long odds in a seat which they held until 2010. I don't completely exclude the possibility that they'll win (and accordingly have made sure that when appropriate I have laid UKIP rather than backed the Conservatives). I don't subscribe to any theory of opposition that involves the Opposition not, you know, opposing.

Labour is opposing. But its message - or what it is passing off as a message - lacks any credibility, as does its leader. The Labour strategy is to Not Be The Tories and, to a lesser extent, Not To Be The LibDems. That might work with a Coalition in a three party system - in fact, it probably was working for a while during this Parliament. But it does not work when there is a fourth party, or four and a half, if you include the Greens.

Ed Miliband is in a league of his own as the worst leader of a major political party we have seen in this country for decades. And that includes Foot, IDS and Hague. The only good thing he has done is put in place a system for electing Labour party leaders which makes it harder for someone like him to ever be in charge again.

You will be filling your boots then I presume on a Conservative majority at 4/1 or
Conservative most seats at 5/4 ?

Can you let me know your position, so I an avoid it like the plague.

Labour doesn't look as though it's heading for a win, next year.

Could be a disappointing night for everyone next May - Con stay static, LDs lose a few, Lab gain a few but lost some to the SNP , Kippers get a decent vote share but not many MPs and lose Roch and Strood back to Con. SNP and the pro Brit Ulster parties (if they do a pact) may be happy.

isam

TGOHF said:

Red on purple

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/11178984/Chuka-Umunna-on-Ukip-vile-abhorrent-and-un-British.html

"The shadow business secretary suggested Ukip is not judged on the same terms as mainstream parties, saying that racism had been “priced in” by critics."

Well there's your evidence

Everything Umunna says in that interview could and,indeed has, been said by Tories on here this week

There really is no difference. That's why both parties are losing support