Thanks for a link to the data Mike. Is there a reason why you used Table 5 instead of the turnout-weighted Table 7? [which gives UKIP a 40% - 38% lead over the Conservatives among the over-65s]
The turnout implied by Table 5 is 85.9%, while the turnout implied by Table 7 is a more reasonable 63.3%.
For reference, turnout in Clacton at the by-election was 51%, down from 64% at the general election, and turnout at Rochester and Strood was a similar 65%.
By the way my best guess as a ready reckoner of con vote based on primaries is to treble the percentage of returns
So 75,000 letters were sent
If 7,500 were returned id predict a score of 30% ish in the election
Using a turnout of 50% and that 66% of Tory voters will have bothered returning the form
Any views?
Sounds very reasonable as a central estimate, but what would the error bounds be?
I think you quoted figures of 50-75% for previous postal primaries, so assuming the same turnout, and using those return figures as bounds, then the multiplication factor would have bounds of (2.67, 4) [NB. not uniformly distributed in multiplication factor space].
You've lost me a bit!
Basically I intend to use those figures as a best guess and then re do the sums using 50% and 75% as the percentage of primary returns relative to Tory votes, and see where we are
Sorry I am not a mathematician so don't understand the terminology that well.
But in laymans terms if there are 7500 primaries returned (10%) then I would double that to take into account 50% turnout, and then multiply by 1.33 to give the worst case and 2 for the best case which would mean the Tories min is 26 and max is 40.. big spread.. midpoint 33 is bad for Tories
Britain's dramas really aren't that different from many elsewhere in the EU. A big battle is looming over the relative power of the Commission and EU Parliament and that of the member states.
Andrew Hawkins @Andrew_ComRes 2 B clear, our Rochester poll was for Express, funded by UKIP supporter but results entirely indep of funding / newspaper / moon phases etc"
Mr. F, I can't help but feel UKIP would gain more mainstream acceptance if it adopted the Morris Dancer approach towards justice, and moving the emphasis away from community service and towards flinging miscreants from a trebuchet into the North Sea.
Objection; there’s too much rubbish in the North Sea already! And you’d need a powered trebuchet to get them past the wind farms!
Re calypso songs and accents, there is one that Ukip should have used that is sung in Plain English and whose lyrics are for more relevant to the failed policies of 60s and 70s labour and Tory politicians
Average regular pay in private sector was up 1.4% this month against CPI of 1.2%.
Minimum Wage up 3% from 1 October, and ONS saying job-hopping at a 5 year high.
Unemployment still falling in spite of latest batch of school leavers and uni grads.
Vacancies nearly 700,000 against a claimant count of 955,000.
Wages bound to rise against that backdrop. Only imported labour or exported work can stop it.
It's possible to construct a not completely unreasonable case that economic stagnation in the Eurozone for the last few years has torpedoed Cameron's plans to (a) reduce the deficit, (b) reduce net immigration, (c) increase average earnings and (d) improve the balance of payments.
Whoever is in government after the next election somehow needs to come up with an economic plan that assumes Eurozone stagnation as the base case scenario, and work out how to fix our economy with growth in the Eurozone giving it a helping hand. It seems like a tall order to me.
By the way my best guess as a ready reckoner of con vote based on primaries is to treble the percentage of returns
So 75,000 letters were sent
If 7,500 were returned id predict a score of 30% ish in the election
Using a turnout of 50% and that 66% of Tory voters will have bothered returning the form
Any views?
Sounds very reasonable as a central estimate, but what would the error bounds be?
I think you quoted figures of 50-75% for previous postal primaries, so assuming the same turnout, and using those return figures as bounds, then the multiplication factor would have bounds of (2.67, 4) [NB. not uniformly distributed in multiplication factor space].
You've lost me a bit!
Basically I intend to use those figures as a best guess and then re do the sums using 50% and 75% as the percentage of primary returns relative to Tory votes, and see where we are
Sorry I am not a mathematician so don't understand the terminology that well.
But in laymans terms if there are 7500 primaries returned (10%) then I would double that to take into account 50% turnout, and then multiply by 1.33 to give the worst case and 2 for the best case which would mean the Tories min is 26 and max is 40.. big spread.. midpoint 33 is bad for Tories
I'd say this means they are unlikely to win
But 10,000 returns and they are neck and neck
Yeah, sorry, jargon sticks in the mind as it makes thinking about complicated things simpler.
We get the same results for the bounds, but I wouldn't say that 33 is the midpoint. I'd say that was 32 (based on 62.5% as the midpoint of Tory voters postal primary returns), but I don't know how to explain why without drawing a picture.
It depends on your definition of "forest" and "tree". The Whitelee forest for example was largely planted for tax avoidance, and the pine trees on the exposed western slopes never got much beyond what woodcutters used to describe as "hairy carrots", and weren't even suitable for the pulp mills.
Mr. F, I can't help but feel UKIP would gain more mainstream acceptance if it adopted the Morris Dancer approach towards justice, and moving the emphasis away from community service and towards flinging miscreants from a trebuchet into the North Sea.
Objection; there’s too much rubbish in the North Sea already! And you’d need a powered trebuchet to get them past the wind farms!
Whilst undoubtedly true, the picture in the tweet showed that it is not as much of an issue as you think: many of the wind farms in ex-forested areas are in the coniferous monoculture forests that are ecological deserts (in the picture, look at how dark the ground is underneath, and the lack of significant vegetation in the cleared areas).
I'm much more concerned about wind farms being built on pristine moorland.
Are the Kippers, who regularly lambast their opponents as scumbags and traitors, complaining about intemperate language from their opponents?
Oh my, TSE. It's the Tories who are constantly calling kippers - above all else - Traitors, Loonies, Fruitcakes and Racists. Continually smearing them in the MSM and anywhere else where their little mouths warble, and headed in all this by no less than the PM, Cammo the lubricious liar.
You are right of course that the likelihood is that come the referendum nothing will have been settled. But that's ok also. People will have the facts, such as they are intelligible, in front of them and will make a decision.
Again, imperfect but not untypical politics.
If you're someone who is very unhappy with current EU arrangements,wouldn't it be better to have a referendum when there is a result of Dave's negotiations? As I understand it, the Tory offer is to say they'll negotiate to constrict freedom of movement etc., and promise a referendum on "Are you willing to stay on the basis of our negotiating package or do you want to leave anyway?" (the answer to which will clearly be "stay and negotiate", if the current polls are right) but NOT on "Do you like the result of the negotiation or do you now want to leave?"
So people who like the package but don't like the outcome will be stuffed, won't they? Or do you anticipate two referendums?
Your questions seem exactly the same. What is the difference between the "package" and the "outcome" of the negotiations?
Inputs and outputs. The 'package' being what Cameron tells the people at the referendum he will be asking for (remembering that there is no chance of the actual agreement, never mind ratification having happened by 2017), and the 'outcome' being what the other countries in the EU actually let him have from the negotiation, which considering they will be discussing this AFTER a successful referendum with no risk of the UK leaving the EU, will be the square root of not a lot.
By the way my best guess as a ready reckoner of con vote based on primaries is to treble the percentage of returns
So 75,000 letters were sent
If 7,500 were returned id predict a score of 30% ish in the election
Using a turnout of 50% and that 66% of Tory voters will have bothered returning the form
Any views?
Sounds very reasonable as a central estimate, but what would the error bounds be?
I think you quoted figures of 50-75% for previous postal primaries, so assuming the same turnout, and using those return figures as bounds, then the multiplication factor would have bounds of (2.67, 4) [NB. not uniformly distributed in multiplication factor space].
You've lost me a bit!
Basically I intend to use those figures as a best guess and then re do the sums using 50% and 75% as the percentage of primary returns relative to Tory votes, and see where we are
Sorry I am not a mathematician so don't understand the terminology that well.
But in laymans terms if there are 7500 primaries returned (10%) then I would double that to take into account 50% turnout, and then multiply by 1.33 to give the worst case and 2 for the best case which would mean the Tories min is 26 and max is 40.. big spread.. midpoint 33 is bad for Tories
I'd say this means they are unlikely to win
But 10,000 returns and they are neck and neck
Yeah, sorry, jargon sticks in the mind as it makes thinking about complicated things simpler.
We get the same results for the bounds, but I wouldn't say that 33 is the midpoint. I'd say that was 32 (based on 62.5% as the midpoint of Tory voters postal primary returns), but I don't know how to explain why without drawing a picture.
That's ok, I am eager to learn!
Oh sorry yeah I used 66 as the midpoint, probably my mistake
I think if less than 7500 primaries are returned it is almost impossible for Tories to win. Is that fair?
You are right of course that the likelihood is that come the referendum nothing will have been settled. But that's ok also. People will have the facts, such as they are intelligible, in front of them and will make a decision.
Again, imperfect but not untypical politics.
If you're someone who is very unhappy with current EU arrangements,wouldn't it be better to have a referendum when there is a result of Dave's negotiations? As I understand it, the Tory offer is to say they'll negotiate to constrict freedom of movement etc., and promise a referendum on "Are you willing to stay on the basis of our negotiating package or do you want to leave anyway?" (the answer to which will clearly be "stay and negotiate", if the current polls are right) but NOT on "Do you like the result of the negotiation or do you now want to leave?"
So people who like the package but don't like the outcome will be stuffed, won't they? Or do you anticipate two referendums?
Your questions seem exactly the same. What is the difference between the "package" and the "outcome" of the negotiations?
Inputs and outputs. The 'package' being what Cameron tells the people at the referendum he will be asking for (remembering that there is no chance of the actual agreement, never mind ratification having happened by 2017), and the 'outcome' being what the other countries in the EU actually let him have from the negotiation, which considering they will be discussing this AFTER a successful referendum with no risk of the UK leaving the EU, will be the square root of not a lot.
Cameron's made pretty clear he will have a referendum in 2017 AFTER completing a negotiation. He's committed himself to finishing the negotiation by then.
Mr. F, I can't help but feel UKIP would gain more mainstream acceptance if it adopted the Morris Dancer approach towards justice, and moving the emphasis away from community service and towards flinging miscreants from a trebuchet into the North Sea.
Objection; there’s too much rubbish in the North Sea already! And you’d need a powered trebuchet to get them past the wind farms!
Sounds bad, but there's some odd phrasing within that article which makes it hard to know what the truth is. For example, it says:
"Over the same period, fewer than 2,000 acres of trees have been replanted within wind farm sites."
My emphasis. Does this mean that there have been more trees planted elsewhere? The article also says:
"The cull has been implemented despite the Scottish Government previously insisting it expected energy companies to undertake “compensatory replanting” when trees are destroyed in this way. "
It seems obvious to me that a lot of this compensatory planting would have to be on land some distance from the wind farm - perhaps on another site? - so perhaps there hasn't been a net loss of trees?
I could be reading too much into sloppy wording, and it's entirely possible that the wind energy companies aren't being held to their legal obligation to spend money planting trees to replace ones they chop down - it would hardly be the first time that governments failed to enforce environmental obligations on private companies.
Maybe we need a stronger, more effective state to sort these penny-pinching private companies out?
(His name, his act and all his material belonged to a company that went into receivership and my father was the receiver - I remember him well one evening telling me he'd 'sold Alvin Stardust today').
Cameron's made pretty clear he will have a referendum in 2017 AFTER completing a negotiation. He's committed himself to finishing the negotiation by then.
What he wants requires treaty changes, those changes probably wont be agreed by 2017, there isn't a chance in hell those treaty changes will be ratified by 2017, so AT BEST he will be asking for a referendum on unratified treaty changes. If the referendum passes, the other countries then have no incentive to actually ratify the changes.
@OblitusSumMe To be fair to the wind farm companies (in the case of the one mentioned previously), they are slowly replanting with birch, hazel, and interspersing them with a few slower growing hardwoods. The clearing of the old sitka blocks is slow and expensive as the trees are little more than stunted weeds.
1. Let's be careful about concluding too much from any subsection. Having said that: 2. Similar figures between Con and Lab in terms of retention and leakage to UKIP. 3. LD also has similar leakage to UKIP but appalling retention. 4. UKIP *way* ahead on 2010 DNV's 5. Still very low levels of swing between Con and Lab 6. Con leading Lab among 2010 LDs despite (or because of?) the UKIP intervention.
By the way my best guess as a ready reckoner of con vote based on primaries is to treble the percentage of returns
So 75,000 letters were sent
If 7,500 were returned id predict a score of 30% ish in the election
Using a turnout of 50% and that 66% of Tory voters will have bothered returning the form
Any views?
Sounds very reasonable as a central estimate, but what would the error bounds be?
I think you quoted figures of 50-75% for previous postal primaries, so assuming the same turnout, and using those return figures as bounds, then the multiplication factor would have bounds of (2.67, 4) [NB. not uniformly distributed in multiplication factor space].
You've lost me a bit!
Basically I intend to use those figures as a best guess and then re do the sums using 50% and 75% as the percentage of primary returns relative to Tory votes, and see where we are
Sorry I am not a mathematician so don't understand the terminology that well.
But in laymans terms if there are 7500 primaries returned (10%) then I would double that to take into account 50% turnout, and then multiply by 1.33 to give the worst case and 2 for the best case which would mean the Tories min is 26 and max is 40.. big spread.. midpoint 33 is bad for Tories
I'd say this means they are unlikely to win
But 10,000 returns and they are neck and neck
Yeah, sorry, jargon sticks in the mind as it makes thinking about complicated things simpler.
We get the same results for the bounds, but I wouldn't say that 33 is the midpoint. I'd say that was 32 (based on 62.5% as the midpoint of Tory voters postal primary returns), but I don't know how to explain why without drawing a picture.
That's ok, I am eager to learn!
Oh sorry yeah I used 66 as the midpoint, probably my mistake
I think if less than 7500 primaries are returned it is almost impossible for Tories to win. Is that fair?
Are the Kippers, who regularly lambast their opponents as scumbags and traitors, complaining about intemperate language from their opponents?
Oh my, TSE. It's the Tories who are constantly calling kippers - above all else - Traitors, Loonies, Fruitcakes and Racists. Continually smearing them in the MSM and anywhere else where their little mouths warble, and headed in all this by no less than the PM, Cammo the lubricious liar.
@JosiasJessop "I'm much more concerned about wind farms being built on pristine moorland."
Whitelee was pristine moorland before they planted the obscene forest on it.
Indeed. Which is why it's important not to destroy more moorland by creating yet more wind farms on what is left.
It should be noted that the EU has also been responsible for the destruction of a great deal of moorland through the grants they gave landowners to improve drainage through the 1970s and 1980s. As well as speeding erosion of the moorland, it also increased the risks of flooding downstream.
A great deal of money is being spent on places like Kinder Scout to reintroduce the blanket bog:
1. Let's be careful about concluding too much from any subsection. Having said that: 2. Similar figures between Con and Lab in terms of retention and leakage to UKIP. 3. LD also has similar leakage to UKIP but appalling retention. 4. UKIP *way* ahead on 2010 DNV's 5. Still very low levels of swing between Con and Lab 6. Con leading Lab among 2010 LDs despite (or because of?) the UKIP intervention.
The Lib Dems have stormed to victory in a parliamentary bye-election! Yes it's true. The Earl of Oxford and Asquith has won the vacant seat in the House of Lords for hereditary peers.
By the way my best guess as a ready reckoner of con vote based on primaries is to treble the percentage of returns
So 75,000 letters were sent
If 7,500 were returned id predict a score of 30% ish in the election
Using a turnout of 50% and that 66% of Tory voters will have bothered returning the form
Any views?
Sounds very reasonable as a central estimate, but what would the error bounds be?
I think you quoted figures of 50-75% for previous postal primaries, so assuming the same turnout, and using those return figures as bounds, then the multiplication factor would have bounds of (2.67, 4) [NB. not uniformly distributed in multiplication factor space].
You've lost me a bit!
Basically I intend to use those figures as a best guess and then re do the sums using 50% and 75% as the percentage of primary returns relative to Tory votes, and see where we are
Sorry I am not a mathematician so don't understand the terminology that well.
But in laymans terms if there are 7500 primaries returned (10%) then I would double that to take into account 50% turnout, and then multiply by 1.33 to give the worst case and 2 for the best case which would mean the Tories min is 26 and max is 40.. big spread.. midpoint 33 is bad for Tories
I'd say this means they are unlikely to win
But 10,000 returns and they are neck and neck
Yeah, sorry, jargon sticks in the mind as it makes thinking about complicated things simpler.
We get the same results for the bounds, but I wouldn't say that 33 is the midpoint. I'd say that was 32 (based on 62.5% as the midpoint of Tory voters postal primary returns), but I don't know how to explain why without drawing a picture.
That's ok, I am eager to learn!
Oh sorry yeah I used 66 as the midpoint, probably my mistake
I think if less than 7500 primaries are returned it is almost impossible for Tories to win. Is that fair?
I think that's very fair.
Cool!
If they get more than 10,000 returns they should probably be favourite
Ooh I 've never been so excited about a primary postal vote return!!!
They are entitled to not believe him and there is nothing he or they can do to prove it one way or the other. Let's have those 47% vote Kipper or Lab or anything else and then it won't matter if Dave was ever going to make good on his promise.
Except he can't make good his promises, because nothing will have been agreed, never mind ratified by 2017, all he can do is offer his negotiating position. What happens when the other EU countries having seen the referendum passed safely, decided to not give Dave anything he asked for.
You can of course assume that this is a normal 'UK throw the toys out of the pram' the rest of the EU can ignore it, and it will blow over.
The alternative is to look at Camerons chances of any renegotiation in light of the situation, strategy and threats that the EU faces.
Fistly as Antifrank points out (11.34) Jean-Claude Juncker has other battles with national governments ahead:
Britain's dramas really aren't that different from many elsewhere in the EU. A big battle is looming over the relative power of the Commission and EU Parliament and that of the member states.
There are (potential) power struggles on this level, Eurocrats and National Governments direction of travel are not always the same thing.
Secondly Cameron is entering negotiations with a unique offer to our EU partners, it goes like this:
In 2017 UK will hold an in / out referendum to decide our future relationship with the EU. The referendum will be on the improved terms I negotiate or for UK or for the UK to leave. (The unspoken part is 'Now, I know we are major contributors to EU budgets, but') I (also) know that if I can't offer significant concessions to my electorate on the key issues that concern them the probability is they will instruct me to start proceedings to leave the EU after out wins the referendum.
It is a very strong position, it may be verging on blackmail. When there is a deadline it is achievable, even in the EU, especially when money is involved.
The third reason Cameron has to deliver on this is the imminent defenestration he would face from his parliamentary party if he wavers from the predetermined course.
@JosiasJessop Restoration of the Scottish moorlands can be achieved quite easily if the landowners would cull the deer herds properly, but most are only interested in making it easier for idiots to get a clear shot easily. Most of the Highlands are nothing more than a playground for the privileged few, and best described by naturalists as MAMBO*. *miles and miles of bloody nothing.
And in dinosaur news...I'm sure this guy writes regularly for the Daily Mash!
Prof John Hutchinson, a palaeontologist from the UK's Royal Veterinary College, said: "Many dinosaur fans have seen pictures of the 8ft-long arms and hands, and they really are amazing and wonderful. People were really wondering what the rest of this animal looked like.
"Now we know, and it's just so freaking weird - we never would have expected this animal to look so bizarre.
1. Let's be careful about concluding too much from any subsection. Having said that: 2. Similar figures between Con and Lab in terms of retention and leakage to UKIP. 3. LD also has similar leakage to UKIP but appalling retention. 4. UKIP *way* ahead on 2010 DNV's 5. Still very low levels of swing between Con and Lab 6. Con leading Lab among 2010 LDs despite (or because of?) the UKIP intervention.
By the way my best guess as a ready reckoner of con vote based on primaries is to treble the percentage of returns
So 75,000 letters were sent
If 7,500 were returned id predict a score of 30% ish in the election
Using a turnout of 50% and that 66% of Tory voters will have bothered returning the form
Any views?
Sounds very reasonable as a central estimate, but what would the error bounds be?
I think you quoted figures of 50-75% for previous postal primaries, so assuming the same turnout, and using those return figures as bounds, then the multiplication factor would have bounds of (2.67, 4) [NB. not uniformly distributed in multiplication factor space].
You've lost me a bit!
Basically I intend to use those figures as a best guess and then re do the sums using 50% and 75% as the percentage of primary returns relative to Tory votes, and see where we are
Sorry I am not a mathematician so don't understand the terminology that well.
But in laymans terms if there are 7500 primaries returned (10%) then I would double that to take into account 50% turnout, and then multiply by 1.33 to give the worst case and 2 for the best case which would mean the Tories min is 26 and max is 40.. big spread.. midpoint 33 is bad for Tories
I'd say this means they are unlikely to win
But 10,000 returns and they are neck and neck
Yeah, sorry, jargon sticks in the mind as it makes thinking about complicated things simpler.
We get the same results for the bounds, but I wouldn't say that 33 is the midpoint. I'd say that was 32 (based on 62.5% as the midpoint of Tory voters postal primary returns), but I don't know how to explain why without drawing a picture.
That's ok, I am eager to learn!
Oh sorry yeah I used 66 as the midpoint, probably my mistake
I think if less than 7500 primaries are returned it is almost impossible for Tories to win. Is that fair?
I think that's very fair.
Cool!
If they get more than 10,000 returns they should probably be favourite
Ooh I 've never been so excited about a primary postal vote return!!!
'Labour actually have the best candidate but they aren't really fighting the seat, for wise tactical reasons.'
AKA They've abandoned the South.
Let's not forget that Bob Marshall Andrews held the seat for Labour, from 1997-2010.
Exactly. Rochester and Strood is precisely the kind of seat that Labour should be fighting hard for if Ed is to stand a chance of securing a workable majority.
Put another way, if they're not fighting it hard (in a by-election for goodness sake!), they they can't have any aspiration to win seats that would give them a majority of more than about 60. Bear in mind that in terms of that objective, the only thing that really matters is whether they win it or not, not who wins it if they don't: Labour needs 355 seats for that size majority so if they don't win ones they did in 2005, then to get a similar majority they'll have to win ones they didn't.
Now, it may be that they think that there are enough further down the list where UKIP will damage the Tories so severely that they can come through the middle. That strikes me as optimistic given that UKIP hurt Labour too and it's a relative game: is there a reason to assume that UKIP is hitting (or will hit) Labour particularly badly in Rochester?
With the possibility of losses in Scotland and the risk of missed gains elsewhere, to not even target seats like Rochester looks as if Labour's not planning on a strategy to deliver a workable majority next year. Which begs the question as to what it is preparing for.
(His name, his act and all his material belonged to a company that went into receivership and my father was the receiver - I remember him well one evening telling me he'd 'sold Alvin Stardust today').
And in dinosaur news...I'm sure this guy writes regularly for the Daily Mash!
Prof John Hutchinson, a palaeontologist from the UK's Royal Veterinary College, said: "Many dinosaur fans have seen pictures of the 8ft-long arms and hands, and they really are amazing and wonderful. People were really wondering what the rest of this animal looked like.
"Now we know, and it's just so freaking weird - we never would have expected this animal to look so bizarre.
'Labour actually have the best candidate but they aren't really fighting the seat, for wise tactical reasons.'
AKA They've abandoned the South.
Let's not forget that Bob Marshall Andrews held the seat for Labour, from 1997-2010.
Exactly. Rochester and Strood is precisely the kind of seat that Labour should be fighting hard for if Ed is to stand a chance of securing a workable majority.
Put another way, if they're not fighting it hard (in a by-election for goodness sake!), they they can't have any aspiration to win seats that would give them a majority of more than about 60. Bear in mind that in terms of that objective, the only thing that really matters is whether they win it or not, not who wins it if they don't: Labour needs 355 seats for that size majority so if they don't win ones they did in 2005, then to get a similar majority they'll have to win ones they didn't.
Now, it may be that they think that there are enough further down the list where UKIP will damage the Tories so severely that they can come through the middle. That strikes me as optimistic given that UKIP hurt Labour too and it's a relative game: is there a reason to assume that UKIP is hitting (or will hit) Labour particularly badly in Rochester?
With the possibility of losses in Scotland and the risk of missed gains elsewhere, to not even target seats like Rochester looks as if Labour's not planning on a strategy to deliver a workable majority next year. Which begs the question as to what it is preparing for.
Some kind of fantasy landslide victory on 30%.
Morley and Outwood is now an ultra marginal - when will the message sink in?
'Labour actually have the best candidate but they aren't really fighting the seat, for wise tactical reasons.'
AKA They've abandoned the South.
Let's not forget that Bob Marshall Andrews held the seat for Labour, from 1997-2010.
Exactly. Rochester and Strood is precisely the kind of seat that Labour should be fighting hard for if Ed is to stand a chance of securing a workable majority.
Put another way, if they're not fighting it hard (in a by-election for goodness sake!), they they can't have any aspiration to win seats that would give them a majority of more than about 60. Bear in mind that in terms of that objective, the only thing that really matters is whether they win it or not, not who wins it if they don't: Labour needs 355 seats for that size majority so if they don't win ones they did in 2005, then to get a similar majority they'll have to win ones they didn't.
Now, it may be that they think that there are enough further down the list where UKIP will damage the Tories so severely that they can come through the middle. That strikes me as optimistic given that UKIP hurt Labour too and it's a relative game: is there a reason to assume that UKIP is hitting (or will hit) Labour particularly badly in Rochester?
With the possibility of losses in Scotland and the risk of missed gains elsewhere, to not even target seats like Rochester looks as if Labour's not planning on a strategy to deliver a workable majority next year. Which begs the question as to what it is preparing for.
Preparing to scrape home. Seeing as we will be in an era of I believe 5 party politics (SNP will be a major force in Scotland), will majorities become a thing of the past ?
Mr. Watcher, Balls has a 1,000 vote majority, and judging by the stuff I've had from both sides (Conservative and Labour) I think they both know it could be very close.
'Labour actually have the best candidate but they aren't really fighting the seat, for wise tactical reasons.'
AKA They've abandoned the South.
Let's not forget that Bob Marshall Andrews held the seat for Labour, from 1997-2010.
Exactly. Rochester and Strood is precisely the kind of seat that Labour should be fighting hard for if Ed is to stand a chance of securing a workable majority.
Put another way, if they're not fighting it hard (in a by-election for goodness sake!), they they can't have any aspiration to win seats that would give them a majority of more than about 60. Bear in mind that in terms of that objective, the only thing that really matters is whether they win it or not, not who wins it if they don't: Labour needs 355 seats for that size majority so if they don't win ones they did in 2005, then to get a similar majority they'll have to win ones they didn't.
Now, it may be that they think that there are enough further down the list where UKIP will damage the Tories so severely that they can come through the middle. That strikes me as optimistic given that UKIP hurt Labour too and it's a relative game: is there a reason to assume that UKIP is hitting (or will hit) Labour particularly badly in Rochester?
With the possibility of losses in Scotland and the risk of missed gains elsewhere, to not even target seats like Rochester looks as if Labour's not planning on a strategy to deliver a workable majority next year. Which begs the question as to what it is preparing for.
Some kind of fantasy landslide victory on 30%.
Morley and Outwood is now an ultra marginal - when will the message sink in?
At last I understand the strategy, the only way Ed can rid himself of his Shadow Chancellor.
OT I'm about to buy a new mobile and wondered what you'd recommend - not bothered about the brand at all. I want one with GPS/good camera with a flash - do they all have them now? It's been a long time since I upgraded.
My youngest son has just purchased a Moto G 5" and absolutely loves its performance. He bought it unlocked through Amazon for £145.
He has now moved his number across to Asda Mobile (EE) to take advantage of their pricing and bundles. GiffGaff (O2) are another virtual mobile network that appears to be worth looking at.
If you are going for Freesat, then buy a recorder rather than a simple box.
We have a budget 320GB Bush Freesat HD Recorder, which we use when caravanning. It serves that purpose, but the software is clunky and leaves a lot to be desired. I certainly wouldn't want live with it on a full time basis. It appears to have been superseded with a slimmer 500GB model, which I can see on ebay for £129.
As and when my Sky Recorder box packs in I intend to replace it with Humax model. They always had a better reputation and searching Amazon for Freesat Recorder will lead you to lots of reviews.
There are (potential) power struggles on this level, Eurocrats and National Governments direction of travel are not always the same thing.
Secondly Cameron is entering negotiations with a unique offer to our EU partners, it goes like this:
In 2017 UK will hold an in / out referendum to decide our future relationship with the EU. The referendum will be on the improved terms I negotiate or for UK or for the UK to leave. (The unspoken part is 'Now, I know we are major contributors to EU budgets, but') I (also) know that if I can't offer significant concessions to my electorate on the key issues that concern them the probability is they will instruct me to start proceedings to leave the EU after out wins the referendum.
It is a very strong position, it may be verging on blackmail. When there is a deadline it is achievable, even in the EU, especially when money is involved.
The third reason Cameron has to deliver on this is the imminent defenestration he would face from his parliamentary party if he wavers from the predetermined course.
If Cameron can get three (or two and a half at a push) big repatriations, then he will have a case that there's been a genuine shift in UK-EU relations. These could include
1) A proper points system for EU migration (half a result for an emergency brake at, say, 150k EU immigrants a year and no-one coming without jobs) 2) An end to the Common External Tariff (half a result for a couple of completed trade deals with current or future major economies, e.g. USA, Brazil, India, China) 3) An opt-out to the Common Agricultural Policy (half a result for halving our contribution) 4) British opt-out from ECHR (half a result for British courts having supremacy over it) 5) Opt-out of financial regulation (half a result for a British veto over it)
'Labour actually have the best candidate but they aren't really fighting the seat, for wise tactical reasons.'
AKA They've abandoned the South.
Let's not forget that Bob Marshall Andrews held the seat for Labour, from 1997-2010.
Exactly. Rochester and Strood is precisely the kind of seat that Labour should be fighting hard for if Ed is to stand a chance of securing a workable majority.
Put another way, if they're not fighting it hard (in a by-election for goodness sake!), they they can't have any aspiration to win seats that would give them a majority of more than about 60. Bear in mind that in terms of that objective, the only thing that really matters is whether they win it or not, not who wins it if they don't: Labour needs 355 seats for that size majority so if they don't win ones they did in 2005, then to get a similar majority they'll have to win ones they didn't.
Now, it may be that they think that there are enough further down the list where UKIP will damage the Tories so severely that they can come through the middle. That strikes me as optimistic given that UKIP hurt Labour too and it's a relative game: is there a reason to assume that UKIP is hitting (or will hit) Labour particularly badly in Rochester?
With the possibility of losses in Scotland and the risk of missed gains elsewhere, to not even target seats like Rochester looks as if Labour's not planning on a strategy to deliver a workable majority next year. Which begs the question as to what it is preparing for.
Some kind of fantasy landslide victory on 30%.
Morley and Outwood is now an ultra marginal - when will the message sink in?
At last I understand the strategy, the only way Ed can rid himself of his Shadow Chancellor.
You are right of course that the likelihood is that come the referendum nothing will have been settled. But that's ok also. People will have the facts, such as they are intelligible, in front of them and will make a decision.
Again, imperfect but not untypical politics.
If you're someone who is very unhappy with current EU arrangements,wouldn't it be better to have a referendum when there is a result of Dave's negotiations? As I understand it, the Tory offer is to say they'll negotiate to constrict freedom of movement etc., and promise a referendum on "Are you willing to stay on the basis of our negotiating package or do you want to leave anyway?" (the answer to which will clearly be "stay and negotiate", if the current polls are right) but NOT on "Do you like the result of the negotiation or do you now want to leave?"
So people who like the package but don't like the outcome will be stuffed, won't they? Or do you anticipate two referendums?
Unless they've changed their promise and I missed it, then that is NOT what they have promised.
What they have promised is to have completed the negotiation and have a referendum on the result by the end of 2017.
Now, that may not be practically possible, in which case Cameron will have to find a way to elide his promise (perhaps a delay of a year or some such). But I would be very surprised if he has not *started* negotiations by 2017.
Re calypso songs and accents, there is one that Ukip should have used that is sung in Plain English and whose lyrics are for more relevant to the failed policies of 60s and 70s labour and Tory politicians
There was a good description of Kippers in the paper today as people who believe that there was jam yesterday, and are sick of being promised jam tomorrow. They want their jam today!
'Labour actually have the best candidate but they aren't really fighting the seat, for wise tactical reasons.'
AKA They've abandoned the South.
Let's not forget that Bob Marshall Andrews held the seat for Labour, from 1997-2010.
Exactly. Rochester and Strood is precisely the kind of seat that Labour should be fighting hard for if Ed is to stand a chance of securing a workable majority.
Put another way, if they're not fighting it hard (in a by-election for goodness sake!), they they can't have any aspiration to win seats that would give them a majority of more than about 60. Bear in mind that in terms of that objective, the only thing that really matters is whether they win it or not, not who wins it if they don't: Labour needs 355 seats for that size majority so if they don't win ones they did in 2005, then to get a similar majority they'll have to win ones they didn't.
Now, it may be that they think that there are enough further down the list where UKIP will damage the Tories so severely that they can come through the middle. That strikes me as optimistic given that UKIP hurt Labour too and it's a relative game: is there a reason to assume that UKIP is hitting (or will hit) Labour particularly badly in Rochester?
With the possibility of losses in Scotland and the risk of missed gains elsewhere, to not even target seats like Rochester looks as if Labour's not planning on a strategy to deliver a workable majority next year. Which begs the question as to what it is preparing for.
Some kind of fantasy landslide victory on 30%.
Morley and Outwood is now an ultra marginal - when will the message sink in?
At last I understand the strategy, the only way Ed can rid himself of his Shadow Chancellor.
T'other Ed has his own seat to win first.
Hattie as next PM?
No problem, he has the intellectual self confidence to know his voters will support him.
'Labour actually have the best candidate but they aren't really fighting the seat, for wise tactical reasons.'
AKA They've abandoned the South.
Let's not forget that Bob Marshall Andrews held the seat for Labour, from 1997-2010.
Exactly. Rochester and Strood is precisely the kind of seat that Labour should be fighting hard for if Ed is to stand a chance of securing a workable majority.
Put another way, if they're not fighting it hard (in a by-election for goodness sake!), they they can't have any aspiration to win seats that would give them a majority of more than about 60. Bear in mind that in terms of that objective, the only thing that really matters is whether they win it or not, not who wins it if they don't: Labour needs 355 seats for that size majority so if they don't win ones they did in 2005, then to get a similar majority they'll have to win ones they didn't.
Now, it may be that they think that there are enough further down the list where UKIP will damage the Tories so severely that they can come through the middle. That strikes me as optimistic given that UKIP hurt Labour too and it's a relative game: is there a reason to assume that UKIP is hitting (or will hit) Labour particularly badly in Rochester?
With the possibility of losses in Scotland and the risk of missed gains elsewhere, to not even target seats like Rochester looks as if Labour's not planning on a strategy to deliver a workable majority next year. Which begs the question as to what it is preparing for.
Some kind of fantasy landslide victory on 30%.
Morley and Outwood is now an ultra marginal - when will the message sink in?
At last I understand the strategy, the only way Ed can rid himself of his Shadow Chancellor.
Long time lurker and UKIP supporter. I thought you may be interested in my thoughts on Mark Reckless with whom I have canvassed in R&S a few days ago. Perhaps contrary to some of the suggestions here he is excellent on the doorsteps ,patient and persuasive with electors and is held in considerable respect by most constituents.He doesn't quite have Carswell's personal following it is true but he is generally considered to have been a very good MP and most people were very pleased to see him.
And in dinosaur news...I'm sure this guy writes regularly for the Daily Mash!
Prof John Hutchinson, a palaeontologist from the UK's Royal Veterinary College, said: "Many dinosaur fans have seen pictures of the 8ft-long arms and hands, and they really are amazing and wonderful. People were really wondering what the rest of this animal looked like.
"Now we know, and it's just so freaking weird - we never would have expected this animal to look so bizarre.
a) The fact we're getting older as a nation b) Saving efficiencies can and must be achieved c) Poor diet/drink/smoking costs the NHS a packet, so there should be focus on reducing obesity/alcohol consumption/smoking.
The gist of today's NHS report seems very sensible. Though I have not looked at it in full detail.
@JosiasJessop Restoration of the Scottish moorlands can be achieved quite easily if the landowners would cull the deer herds properly, but most are only interested in making it easier for idiots to get a clear shot easily. Most of the Highlands are nothing more than a playground for the privileged few, and best described by naturalists as MAMBO*. *miles and miles of bloody nothing.
Can you show me any reputable naturalist who describes the Highlands in such a manner?
"Most of the Highlands are nothing more than a playground for the privileged few"
Really? I've walked a fair bit in the Highlands. Does that make me one of the privileged few? IME the most annoying access restrictions tend to be from the MOD rather than landowners, except in understandable places such as cultivated land, gardens or residences. Having said that, the only GOML (*) I've experienced in Scotland was when I was walking a farm track between Beauly and Inverness.
'Labour actually have the best candidate but they aren't really fighting the seat, for wise tactical reasons.'
AKA They've abandoned the South.
Let's not forget that Bob Marshall Andrews held the seat for Labour, from 1997-2010.
Exactly. Rochester and Strood is precisely the kind of seat that Labour should be fighting hard for if Ed is to stand a chance of securing a workable majority.
Put another way, if they're not fighting it hard (in a by-election for goodness sake!), they they can't have any aspiration to win seats that would give them a majority of more than about 60. Bear in mind that in terms of that objective, the only thing that really matters is whether they win it or not, not who wins it if they don't: Labour needs 355 seats for that size majority so if they don't win ones they did in 2005, then to get a similar majority they'll have to win ones they didn't.
Now, it may be that they think that there are enough further down the list where UKIP will damage the Tories so severely that they can come through the middle. That strikes me as optimistic given that UKIP hurt Labour too and it's a relative game: is there a reason to assume that UKIP is hitting (or will hit) Labour particularly badly in Rochester?
With the possibility of losses in Scotland and the risk of missed gains elsewhere, to not even target seats like Rochester looks as if Labour's not planning on a strategy to deliver a workable majority next year. Which begs the question as to what it is preparing for.
Some kind of fantasy landslide victory on 30%.
Morley and Outwood is now an ultra marginal - when will the message sink in?
At last I understand the strategy, the only way Ed can rid himself of his Shadow Chancellor.
Cameron's made pretty clear he will have a referendum in 2017 AFTER completing a negotiation. He's committed himself to finishing the negotiation by then.
What he wants requires treaty changes, those changes probably wont be agreed by 2017, there isn't a chance in hell those treaty changes will be ratified by 2017, so AT BEST he will be asking for a referendum on unratified treaty changes. If the referendum passes, the other countries then have no incentive to actually ratify the changes.
There is no way that ratification will happen (assuming we need a treaty change rather than just a derogation for the UK).
But that's fine: the legislation implementing the Treaty would just include a drop dead date.
1. Parliament notes the result of the referendum
2. It ratifies the Treaty of Clacton
3. If by April 30 2020 (say) fewer than X countries have ratified the Treaty then Article 30(?) of the Lisbon Treaty will invoked and the Government instructed to begin discussions with the EU on the UK's exit from the organisation, etc etc
Now, that may not be practically possible, in which case Cameron will have to find a way to elide his promise (perhaps a delay of a year or some such). But I would be very surprised if he has not *started* negotiations by 2017.
As would I, but the only meaningful thing to offer the British public is a ratified set of treaty changes, otherwise our European "partners" might find all sorts of convenient reasons why they couldn't ratify them after a referendum had been passed. At the very least it should be explicit that any failure to ratify the treaty that had been agreed after the referendum would be an automatic OUT.
Today's Telegraph is pretty dubious that the EU will be able to offer us anything that the voters actually want, but might be prepared to offer us any number of administrative changes that politicians might find useful.
Exactly. Rochester and Strood is precisely the kind of seat that Labour should be fighting hard for if Ed is to stand a chance of securing a workable majority.
Put another way, if they're not fighting it hard (in a by-election for goodness sake!), they they can't have any aspiration to win seats that would give them a majority of more than about 60. Bear in mind that in terms of that objective, the only thing that really matters is whether they win it or not, not who wins it if they don't: Labour needs 355 seats for that size majority so if they don't win ones they did in 2005, then to get a similar majority they'll have to win ones they didn't.
I wouldn't get too fixated on the "seats that Labour won in 2005" thing. I wrote a comment similar to yours yesterday, but I think I didn't post it, because when you look on the UK polling report target list for Labour, Rochester and Strood isn't in the top 125.
So, in principle, on a uniform swing, Labour could have a majority of more than 100 without winning Rochester and Strood. I'm guessing that this reflects ongoing demographic/political changes that make R&S harder for Labour to win and other seats easier.
All that said, it is a by-election, and there's a huge political difference in not making much effort in by-elections when the Lib Dems are challenging the Tories, as happened in the 90s, and not making much effort when the other opposition is UKIP.
I predict cries of "South Yorkshire" and "Rochester" from Con & Lab loyalists (respectively) on here in December, which will be amusing as the Conservatives will be as far from winning the SYPC by-election as Labour will be in Rochester.
Now, that may not be practically possible, in which case Cameron will have to find a way to elide his promise (perhaps a delay of a year or some such). But I would be very surprised if he has not *started* negotiations by 2017.
As would I, but the only meaningful thing to offer the British public is a ratified set of treaty changes, otherwise our European "partners" might find all sorts of convenient reasons why they couldn't ratify them after a referendum had been passed. At the very least it should be explicit that any failure to ratify the treaty that had been agreed after the referendum would be an automatic OUT.
Today's Telegraph is pretty dubious that the EU will be able to offer us anything that the voters actually want, but might be prepared to offer us any number of administrative changes that politicians might find useful.
Cameron's made pretty clear he will have a referendum in 2017 AFTER completing a negotiation. He's committed himself to finishing the negotiation by then.
What he wants requires treaty changes, those changes probably wont be agreed by 2017, there isn't a chance in hell those treaty changes will be ratified by 2017, so AT BEST he will be asking for a referendum on unratified treaty changes. If the referendum passes, the other countries then have no incentive to actually ratify the changes.
There is no way that ratification will happen (assuming we need a treaty change rather than just a derogation for the UK).
But that's fine: the legislation implementing the Treaty would just include a drop dead date.
1. Parliament notes the result of the referendum
2. It ratifies the Treaty of Clacton
3. If by April 30 2020 (say) fewer than X countries have ratified the Treaty then Article 30(?) of the Lisbon Treaty will invoked and the Government instructed to begin discussions with the EU on the UK's exit from the organisation, etc etc
Charles, you miss the key point:
It is impossible, you have been told so many times, please stop applying logic to the issue. Cameron won't and Cameron can't do it, the EU won't let Cameron do it, UKIP say he can't do it, so that is that. End of discussion.
There is no good reason that I am aware of to doubt the intention, ability and practicality of getting most issues concluded by 2017. The delight of having a date set in advance is it forces the minds of other EU states to be focused on that end point. They know no deal means a referendum on current terms, which would probably result in an out vote.
"http://www.treeblog.co.uk/viewpost.php?id=430" Your starter for ten, ignore most of the "changed climate" explanations, I worked out that was bullcrap shortly after I discovered motorbikes. BTW, we have had this conversation before, and you seem not to have learned much since.
Cameron's made pretty clear he will have a referendum in 2017 AFTER completing a negotiation. He's committed himself to finishing the negotiation by then.
What he wants requires treaty changes, those changes probably wont be agreed by 2017, there isn't a chance in hell those treaty changes will be ratified by 2017, so AT BEST he will be asking for a referendum on unratified treaty changes. If the referendum passes, the other countries then have no incentive to actually ratify the changes.
There is no way that ratification will happen (assuming we need a treaty change rather than just a derogation for the UK).
But that's fine: the legislation implementing the Treaty would just include a drop dead date.
1. Parliament notes the result of the referendum
2. It ratifies the Treaty of Clacton
3. If by April 30 2020 (say) fewer than X countries have ratified the Treaty then Article 30(?) of the Lisbon Treaty will invoked and the Government instructed to begin discussions with the EU on the UK's exit from the organisation, etc etc
Charles, you miss the key point:
It is impossible, you have been told so many times, please stop applying logic to the issue. Cameron won't and Cameron can't do it, the EU won't let Cameron do it, UKIP say he can't do it, so that is that. End of discussion.
There is no good reason that I am aware of to doubt the intention, ability and practicality of getting most issues concluded by 2017. The delight of having a date set in advance is it forces the minds of other EU states to be focused on that end point. They know no deal means a referendum on current terms, which would probably result in an out vote.
And more than focusing the minds of other EU states it will focus the minds of the voters.
In 2017 they will:
a) like the state of affairs, promises, contingent action should promises not be kept, etc = IN b) not like the state of affairs, promises, contingent action should promises not be kept, etc = OUT
Did people know that the EU puts a 10% tariff on importing cars, a 13% tariff on importing wheat and a 30% tariff on importing wine?
Think about how much cheaper you could buy it next time you make those sorts of purchases.
I knew that there were import duties of ~4% on imports of wool. The yarn I used for my wife's wedding dress was manufactured in the US from Peruvian wool, and the EU import duties added all of £2.60 to the cost.
3. If by April 30 2020 (say) fewer than X countries have ratified the Treaty then Article 30(?) of the Lisbon Treaty will invoked and the Government instructed to begin discussions with the EU on the UK's exit from the organisation, etc etc
If that sort of text was in the Bill I think that would generate a lot more confidence, although it will be a couple of years (and well past the election) before anyone sees it. I think 30 April 2020 might be a bit tight, about a week before the next election!
The point surely is that a large swath of the public, and even a large swath of current and former Tory voters dont trust Cameron, and his constant dissembling and evasions dont encourage that trust, people are tired of bullshit and want to see concrete actions by which they can judge him.
Did people know that the EU puts a 10% tariff on importing cars, a 13% tariff on importing wheat and a 30% tariff on importing wine?
Think about how much cheaper you could buy it next time you make those sorts of purchases.
I knew that there were import duties of ~4% on imports of wool. The yarn I used for my wife's wedding dress was manufactured in the US from Peruvian wool, and the EU import duties added all of £2.60 to the cost.
Bingo!! You have finally found a way to tell everyone you made your wife's wedding dress!! Great linkage that
3. If by April 30 2020 (say) fewer than X countries have ratified the Treaty then Article 30(?) of the Lisbon Treaty will invoked and the Government instructed to begin discussions with the EU on the UK's exit from the organisation, etc etc
If that sort of text was in the Bill I think that would generate a lot more confidence, although it will be a couple of years (and well past the election) before anyone sees it. I think 30 April 2020 might be a bit tight, about a week before the next election!
Long time lurker and UKIP supporter. I thought you may be interested in my thoughts on Mark Reckless with whom I have canvassed in R&S a few days ago. Perhaps contrary to some of the suggestions here he is excellent on the doorsteps ,patient and persuasive with electors and is held in considerable respect by most constituents.He doesn't quite have Carswell's personal following it is true but he is generally considered to have been a very good MP and most people were very pleased to see him.
Did people know that the EU puts a 10% tariff on importing cars, a 13% tariff on importing wheat and a 30% tariff on importing wine?
Think about how much cheaper you could buy it next time you make those sorts of purchases.
I knew that there were import duties of ~4% on imports of wool. The yarn I used for my wife's wedding dress was manufactured in the US from Peruvian wool, and the EU import duties added all of £2.60 to the cost.
Bingo!! You have finally found a way to tell everyone you made your wife's wedding dress!! Great linkage that
I had thought someone, eventually, would be curious about the avatar, but no-one ever was.
I think the key should be thrown away for murder of a police officer personally, my grandmother certainly had a LIFE sentence.
But why should a Police Officers life be 'worth' more than any other civilians?
It's not a question of greater worth, it's about a great crime against society. Killing a police officer is not just killing an upright member of society, it's an attack on the entire system of law and order in the country. We need to deter it as strongly as possible.
'Labour actually have the best candidate but they aren't really fighting the seat, for wise tactical reasons.'
AKA They've abandoned the South.
Let's not forget that Bob Marshall Andrews held the seat for Labour, from 1997-2010.
Exactly. Rochester and Strood is precisely the kind of seat that Labour should be fighting hard for if Ed is to stand a chance of securing a workable majority.
Put another way, if they're not fighting it hard (in a by-election for goodness sake!), they they can't have any aspiration to win seats that would give them a majority of more than about 60. Bear in mind that in terms of that objective, the only thing that really matters is whether they win it or not, not who wins it if they don't: Labour needs 355 seats for that size majority so if they don't win ones they did in 2005, then to get a similar majority they'll have to win ones they didn't.
Now, it may be that they think that there are enough further down the list where UKIP will damage the Tories so severely that they can come through the middle. That strikes me as optimistic given that UKIP hurt Labour too and it's a relative game: is there a reason to assume that UKIP is hitting (or will hit) Labour particularly badly in Rochester?
With the possibility of losses in Scotland and the risk of missed gains elsewhere, to not even target seats like Rochester looks as if Labour's not planning on a strategy to deliver a workable majority next year. Which begs the question as to what it is preparing for.
Some kind of fantasy landslide victory on 30%.
Morley and Outwood is now an ultra marginal - when will the message sink in?
At last I understand the strategy, the only way Ed can rid himself of his Shadow Chancellor.
T'other Ed has his own seat to win first.
Hattie as next PM?
UKIP in Doncaster on the Anti Child Abuse ticket?
Something like that. UKIP on a We Understand You And Labour Doesn't ticket, bringing in all sorts of themes, of which that's one.
Hard to draw conclusions ,particularly as the Tories haven't really started their onslaught yet but the polling results don't surprise me.PS I am not Mark!
I think the key should be thrown away for murder of a police officer personally, my grandmother certainly had a LIFE sentence.
But why should a Police Officers life be 'worth' more than any other civilians?
It's not a question of greater worth, it's about a great crime against society. Killing a police officer is not just killing an upright member of society, it's an attack on the entire system of law and order in the country. We need to deter it as strongly as possible.
What's the penalty for killing lawyers on that basis?
"That is, all the attention paid to UKIP at present is all very well and good in the sense it helps boost their poll ratings but it also comes at a significant price. Namely, by tarnishing the cause of removing Britain from the EU.
Associations matter. Many people have had a chance to take a proper look at UKIP and, frankly, they don’t much care for what they see. Many people, you see, are fairly sensible. They have no desire to be associated with a party of dyspeptic misanthropes."
3. If by April 30 2020 (say) fewer than X countries have ratified the Treaty then Article 30(?) of the Lisbon Treaty will invoked and the Government instructed to begin discussions with the EU on the UK's exit from the organisation, etc etc
If that sort of text was in the Bill I think that would generate a lot more confidence, although it will be a couple of years (and well past the election) before anyone sees it. I think 30 April 2020 might be a bit tight, about a week before the next election!
The point surely is that a large swath of the public, and even a large swath of current and former Tory voters dont trust Cameron, and his constant dissembling and evasions dont encourage that trust, people are tired of bullshit and want to see concrete actions by which they can judge him.
That is an opinion of some. I consider it a misplaced assessment of him. I have far too much intelligence to have wanted a referendum on a ratified treaty, so that isn't an issue. I have this recollection at the back of my mind that after 2010 election he formed a coalition (with a significant offer to LibDems which to his credit he has to large extent honoured) which will have effected the policies enacted by this government.
He is a long way off perfect, but undoubtedly the best on offer right now, and so much of an improvement on the last two PMs that he seems like a colossus. So no, I don't recognise your reality, that from my viewpoint appears to distort sensible practical and possible versions of reality into a fantasy world that has far too much angst and bitterness for very few valid reasons.
But then, that is why we are different and discuss things.
Did people know that the EU puts a 10% tariff on importing cars, a 13% tariff on importing wheat and a 30% tariff on importing wine?
Think about how much cheaper you could buy it next time you make those sorts of purchases.
I knew that there were import duties of ~4% on imports of wool. The yarn I used for my wife's wedding dress was manufactured in the US from Peruvian wool, and the EU import duties added all of £2.60 to the cost.
Bingo!! You have finally found a way to tell everyone you made your wife's wedding dress!! Great linkage that
But he never told us who she went off and married ;-)
I think the key should be thrown away for murder of a police officer personally, my grandmother certainly had a LIFE sentence.
But why should a Police Officers life be 'worth' more than any other civilians?
It's not a question of greater worth, it's about a great crime against society. Killing a police officer is not just killing an upright member of society, it's an attack on the entire system of law and order in the country. We need to deter it as strongly as possible.
What's the penalty for killing lawyers on that basis?
I think the key should be thrown away for murder of a police officer personally, my grandmother certainly had a LIFE sentence.
But why should a Police Officers life be 'worth' more than any other civilians?
It's not a question of greater worth, it's about a great crime against society. Killing a police officer is not just killing an upright member of society, it's an attack on the entire system of law and order in the country. We need to deter it as strongly as possible.
A life is a life.
If the key is thrown away for Cop Killers, it should be the same for all murder victims. I don't see a difference.
"Consider also how difficult Ukip would be for the moderate better-off-outers to handle during a referendum. Sharing a platform with people who think the Ukip Calypso is just a bit of fun (its composer Mike Read has a lot of friends in the Caribbean) would not be possible.
Think what an undecided non-white British voter would make of a campaign that featured a large Ukip component. The risk for the Eurosceptics would be that the forces of Out would be divided, between sensible types on one side and shouters running their own separate campaign (splitters!) or discrediting the mainstream effort by trying to get involved."
Comments
The turnout implied by Table 5 is 85.9%, while the turnout implied by Table 7 is a more reasonable 63.3%.
For reference, turnout in Clacton at the by-election was 51%, down from 64% at the general election, and turnout at Rochester and Strood was a similar 65%.
Basically I intend to use those figures as a best guess and then re do the sums using 50% and 75% as the percentage of primary returns relative to Tory votes, and see where we are
Sorry I am not a mathematician so don't understand the terminology that well.
But in laymans terms if there are 7500 primaries returned (10%) then I would double that to take into account 50% turnout, and then multiply by 1.33 to give the worst case and 2 for the best case which would mean the Tories min is 26 and max is 40.. big spread.. midpoint 33 is bad for Tories
I'd say this means they are unlikely to win
But 10,000 returns and they are neck and neck
'Labour actually have the best candidate'
On what basis does Labour have the best candidate?
Minimum Wage up 3% from 1 October, and ONS saying job-hopping at a 5 year high.
Unemployment still falling in spite of latest batch of school leavers and uni grads.
Vacancies nearly 700,000 against a claimant count of 955,000.
Wages bound to rise against that backdrop. Only imported labour or exported work can stop it.
http://blogs.ft.com/brusselsblog/2014/10/23/leaked-letter-14-ministers-take-on-juncker-over-trade/
Britain's dramas really aren't that different from many elsewhere in the EU. A big battle is looming over the relative power of the Commission and EU Parliament and that of the member states.
AKA They've abandoned the South.
Let's not forget that Bob Marshall Andrews held the seat for Labour, from 1997-2010.
2 B clear, our Rochester poll was for Express, funded by UKIP supporter but results entirely indep of funding / newspaper / moon phases etc"
twitter.com/Andrew_ComRes/status/525042102804426752
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCwc_k8HaJM
Whoever is in government after the next election somehow needs to come up with an economic plan that assumes Eurozone stagnation as the base case scenario, and work out how to fix our economy with growth in the Eurozone giving it a helping hand. It seems like a tall order to me.
"36% of people think that David Cameron would make the best Prime Minister, ahead of Ed Miliband on 16%.
Miliband's score of 16 is equal to his lowest ever score, last recorded in January 2012."
So Ed has made no progress in selling himself to the British voters in nearly 3 years.
Excellent.
Turnout will be 52.5%
UKIP could be as high as 47%
Con 29%
Lab 19%.
That's taking the UKIP 8,9,10/10 to vote, Con 9&10/10 to vote and Lab 10/10 to vote ^_~
We get the same results for the bounds, but I wouldn't say that 33 is the midpoint. I'd say that was 32 (based on 62.5% as the midpoint of Tory voters postal primary returns), but I don't know how to explain why without drawing a picture.
It depends on your definition of "forest" and "tree".
The Whitelee forest for example was largely planted for tax avoidance, and the pine trees on the exposed western slopes never got much beyond what woodcutters used to describe as "hairy carrots", and weren't even suitable for the pulp mills.
Whilst undoubtedly true, the picture in the tweet showed that it is not as much of an issue as you think: many of the wind farms in ex-forested areas are in the coniferous monoculture forests that are ecological deserts (in the picture, look at how dark the ground is underneath, and the lack of significant vegetation in the cleared areas).
I'm much more concerned about wind farms being built on pristine moorland.
"I'm much more concerned about wind farms being built on pristine moorland."
Whitelee was pristine moorland before they planted the obscene forest on it.
Oh sorry yeah I used 66 as the midpoint, probably my mistake
I think if less than 7500 primaries are returned it is almost impossible for Tories to win. Is that fair?
2005 actual result: Lab maj — 213 votes
2005 notional result: Con maj – 503 votes.
"Over the same period, fewer than 2,000 acres of trees have been replanted within wind farm sites."
My emphasis. Does this mean that there have been more trees planted elsewhere? The article also says:
"The cull has been implemented despite the Scottish Government previously insisting it expected energy companies to undertake “compensatory replanting” when trees are destroyed in this way. "
It seems obvious to me that a lot of this compensatory planting would have to be on land some distance from the wind farm - perhaps on another site? - so perhaps there hasn't been a net loss of trees?
I could be reading too much into sloppy wording, and it's entirely possible that the wind energy companies aren't being held to their legal obligation to spend money planting trees to replace ones they chop down - it would hardly be the first time that governments failed to enforce environmental obligations on private companies.
Maybe we need a stronger, more effective state to sort these penny-pinching private companies out?
(His name, his act and all his material belonged to a company that went into receivership and my father was the receiver - I remember him well one evening telling me he'd 'sold Alvin Stardust today').
To be fair to the wind farm companies (in the case of the one mentioned previously), they are slowly replanting with birch, hazel, and interspersing them with a few slower growing hardwoods.
The clearing of the old sitka blocks is slow and expensive as the trees are little more than stunted weeds.
2010 Vote
Con
Con 57%
UKIP 39%
Lab 2%
Green 1%
LD *
Lab
Lab 60%
UKIP 30%
Con 6%
Green 2%
LD 1%
LD
UKIP 39%
Con 26%
Lab 17%
LD 13%
Green 4%
DNV
UKIP 57%
Lab 20%
Con 16%
LD 3%
Green 3%
Points to note:
1. Let's be careful about concluding too much from any subsection. Having said that:
2. Similar figures between Con and Lab in terms of retention and leakage to UKIP.
3. LD also has similar leakage to UKIP but appalling retention.
4. UKIP *way* ahead on 2010 DNV's
5. Still very low levels of swing between Con and Lab
6. Con leading Lab among 2010 LDs despite (or because of?) the UKIP intervention.
It should be noted that the EU has also been responsible for the destruction of a great deal of moorland through the grants they gave landowners to improve drainage through the 1970s and 1980s. As well as speeding erosion of the moorland, it also increased the risks of flooding downstream.
A great deal of money is being spent on places like Kinder Scout to reintroduce the blanket bog:
http://www.kinder-scout.co.uk/restoration-work.html
UKIP 39%
Well well
http://www.barnetgreenparty.co.uk/barnet-greens-choose-three-strong-candidates/
Chipping Barnet: AM Poppy
Finchley & Golders Green: Adele Ward
Hendon: Ben Samuel
7,000.
If they get more than 10,000 returns they should probably be favourite
Ooh I 've never been so excited about a primary postal vote return!!!
The alternative is to look at Camerons chances of any renegotiation in light of the situation, strategy and threats that the EU faces.
Fistly as Antifrank points out (11.34) Jean-Claude Juncker has other battles with national governments ahead:
http://blogs.ft.com/brusselsblog/2014/10/23/leaked-letter-14-ministers-take-on-juncker-over-trade/
Britain's dramas really aren't that different from many elsewhere in the EU. A big battle is looming over the relative power of the Commission and EU Parliament and that of the member states.
There are (potential) power struggles on this level, Eurocrats and National Governments direction of travel are not always the same thing.
Secondly Cameron is entering negotiations with a unique offer to our EU partners, it goes like this:
In 2017 UK will hold an in / out referendum to decide our future relationship with the EU. The referendum will be on the improved terms I negotiate or for UK or for the UK to leave. (The unspoken part is 'Now, I know we are major contributors to EU budgets, but') I (also) know that if I can't offer significant concessions to my electorate on the key issues that concern them the probability is they will instruct me to start proceedings to leave the EU after out wins the referendum.
It is a very strong position, it may be verging on blackmail. When there is a deadline it is achievable, even in the EU, especially when money is involved.
The third reason Cameron has to deliver on this is the imminent defenestration he would face from his parliamentary party if he wavers from the predetermined course.
Restoration of the Scottish moorlands can be achieved quite easily if the landowners would cull the deer herds properly, but most are only interested in making it easier for idiots to get a clear shot easily.
Most of the Highlands are nothing more than a playground for the privileged few, and best described by naturalists as MAMBO*.
*miles and miles of bloody nothing.
I've my own pterodactyl glove puppet. He's marvellous for entertaining grisling children.
Will you be at Dirty Dick's on the 20th ?
Put another way, if they're not fighting it hard (in a by-election for goodness sake!), they they can't have any aspiration to win seats that would give them a majority of more than about 60. Bear in mind that in terms of that objective, the only thing that really matters is whether they win it or not, not who wins it if they don't: Labour needs 355 seats for that size majority so if they don't win ones they did in 2005, then to get a similar majority they'll have to win ones they didn't.
Now, it may be that they think that there are enough further down the list where UKIP will damage the Tories so severely that they can come through the middle. That strikes me as optimistic given that UKIP hurt Labour too and it's a relative game: is there a reason to assume that UKIP is hitting (or will hit) Labour particularly badly in Rochester?
With the possibility of losses in Scotland and the risk of missed gains elsewhere, to not even target seats like Rochester looks as if Labour's not planning on a strategy to deliver a workable majority next year. Which begs the question as to what it is preparing for.
More suitable for a World Of Sport wrestler IMO.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-29738241
Morley and Outwood is now an ultra marginal - when will the message sink in?
We have a budget 320GB Bush Freesat HD Recorder, which we use when caravanning. It serves that purpose, but the software is clunky and leaves a lot to be desired. I certainly wouldn't want live with it on a full time basis. It appears to have been superseded with a slimmer 500GB model, which I can see on ebay for £129.
As and when my Sky Recorder box packs in I intend to replace it with Humax model. They always had a better reputation and searching Amazon for Freesat Recorder will lead you to lots of reviews.
1) A proper points system for EU migration (half a result for an emergency brake at, say, 150k EU immigrants a year and no-one coming without jobs)
2) An end to the Common External Tariff (half a result for a couple of completed trade deals with current or future major economies, e.g. USA, Brazil, India, China)
3) An opt-out to the Common Agricultural Policy (half a result for halving our contribution)
4) British opt-out from ECHR (half a result for British courts having supremacy over it)
5) Opt-out of financial regulation (half a result for a British veto over it)
Are there any I've missed?
Hattie as next PM?
What they have promised is to have completed the negotiation and have a referendum on the result by the end of 2017.
Now, that may not be practically possible, in which case Cameron will have to find a way to elide his promise (perhaps a delay of a year or some such). But I would be very surprised if he has not *started* negotiations by 2017.
Think about how much cheaper you could buy it next time you make those sorts of purchases.
But Balls only just made it in last time.
Reckless with whom I have canvassed in R&S a few days ago. Perhaps contrary to some of the suggestions here he is excellent on the doorsteps ,patient and persuasive with electors and is held in considerable respect by most constituents.He doesn't quite have Carswell's personal following it is true but he is generally considered to have been a very good MP and most people were very pleased to see him.
a) The fact we're getting older as a nation
b) Saving efficiencies can and must be achieved
c) Poor diet/drink/smoking costs the NHS a packet, so there should be focus on reducing obesity/alcohol consumption/smoking.
The gist of today's NHS report seems very sensible. Though I have not looked at it in full detail.
"Most of the Highlands are nothing more than a playground for the privileged few"
Really? I've walked a fair bit in the Highlands. Does that make me one of the privileged few? IME the most annoying access restrictions tend to be from the MOD rather than landowners, except in understandable places such as cultivated land, gardens or residences. Having said that, the only GOML (*) I've experienced in Scotland was when I was walking a farm track between Beauly and Inverness.
(*) GOML = Get Orf My Land.
But that's fine: the legislation implementing the Treaty would just include a drop dead date.
1. Parliament notes the result of the referendum
2. It ratifies the Treaty of Clacton
3. If by April 30 2020 (say) fewer than X countries have ratified the Treaty then Article 30(?) of the Lisbon Treaty will invoked and the Government instructed to begin discussions with the EU on the UK's exit from the organisation, etc etc
Today's Telegraph is pretty dubious that the EU will be able to offer us anything that the voters actually want, but might be prepared to offer us any number of administrative changes that politicians might find useful.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/11179570/Can-David-Cameron-really-get-a-new-deal-in-Europe.html
So, in principle, on a uniform swing, Labour could have a majority of more than 100 without winning Rochester and Strood. I'm guessing that this reflects ongoing demographic/political changes that make R&S harder for Labour to win and other seats easier.
All that said, it is a by-election, and there's a huge political difference in not making much effort in by-elections when the Lib Dems are challenging the Tories, as happened in the 90s, and not making much effort when the other opposition is UKIP.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29734816
It is impossible, you have been told so many times, please stop applying logic to the issue. Cameron won't and Cameron can't do it, the EU won't let Cameron do it, UKIP say he can't do it, so that is that. End of discussion.
There is no good reason that I am aware of to doubt the intention, ability and practicality of getting most issues concluded by 2017. The delight of having a date set in advance is it forces the minds of other EU states to be focused on that end point. They know no deal means a referendum on current terms, which would probably result in an out vote.
"http://www.treeblog.co.uk/viewpost.php?id=430"
Your starter for ten, ignore most of the "changed climate" explanations, I worked out that was bullcrap shortly after I discovered motorbikes.
BTW, we have had this conversation before, and you seem not to have learned much since.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-29739431
BBC might want to change last line.
"MPs and journalists heard a loud bang and shouting at about 12.30 BST on Thursday, but the proceedings were not disturbed."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/police-condemn-parole-move-for-officers-killer-1478834.html
I think the key should be thrown away for murder of a police officer personally, my grandmother certainly had a LIFE sentence.
And more than focusing the minds of other EU states it will focus the minds of the voters.
In 2017 they will:
a) like the state of affairs, promises, contingent action should promises not be kept, etc = IN
b) not like the state of affairs, promises, contingent action should promises not be kept, etc = OUT
(Although allegedly the peeps on the Cape Wrath ranges are very understanding for deserving cases.)
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/10/the-ukip-effect-killing-the-thing-you-love/
"That is, all the attention paid to UKIP at present is all very well and good in the sense it helps boost their poll ratings but it also comes at a significant price. Namely, by tarnishing the cause of removing Britain from the EU.
Associations matter. Many people have had a chance to take a proper look at UKIP and, frankly, they don’t much care for what they see. Many people, you see, are fairly sensible. They have no desire to be associated with a party of dyspeptic misanthropes."
He is a long way off perfect, but undoubtedly the best on offer right now, and so much of an improvement on the last two PMs that he seems like a colossus.
So no, I don't recognise your reality, that from my viewpoint appears to distort sensible practical and possible versions of reality into a fantasy world that has far too much angst and bitterness for very few valid reasons.
But then, that is why we are different and discuss things.
Doesn't killing lawyers involve silver bullets and wooden stakes?
If the key is thrown away for Cop Killers, it should be the same for all murder victims. I don't see a difference.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/11182095/At-this-rate-the-rise-of-Ukip-will-keep-Britain-in-the-EU.html
"Consider also how difficult Ukip would be for the moderate better-off-outers to handle during a referendum. Sharing a platform with people who think the Ukip Calypso is just a bit of fun (its composer Mike Read has a lot of friends in the Caribbean) would not be possible.
Think what an undecided non-white British voter would make of a campaign that featured a large Ukip component. The risk for the Eurosceptics would be that the forces of Out would be divided, between sensible types on one side and shouters running their own separate campaign (splitters!) or discrediting the mainstream effort by trying to get involved."