OGH - I think a Lab majority having come 2nd in vote share on maybe 33/34% is looking more and more possible. Only really likely if they hold up well in Scotland meaning that the Miliband government would be almost comically illegitimate.
It depends on so many things. How many 2010 Lib Dems will vote Labour in the marginals. Where are they losing most votes to the Greens? Where will Ukip's marginals vote come from?
I think you are wrong on how local reputations will matter a lot next time. The result is up in the air, it's a stark choice between Miliband and Cameron/the Tories. Plenty of nice local MPs will be destroyed in the collateral.
A Labour MAJORITY with them losing the vote share would be a terriblegreat result for democracy my betting fund
I really don't see the interest in Dumfries & Galloway - Labour have a majority there of over 7000.
When have the Scottish Tories ever had a gain of that magnitude ?
Stuart Dickson pointed it out when it was 25-1 at Ladbrokes. I searched in vain for the market, and finally spotted it at 8-1 (It was on the right hand side and out of alphabetical order for some reason), I wasn't altogether convinced that 8-1 was great value, so I ended up having a fiver on. If I'd have been able to get hold of the 25-1 may have been £20.
Stuart Dickson's predictions in 2010 left more than a little to be desired.
Hence only a fiver
His SNP/Inverness prediction has come in odds-wise too.
I've disagreed with most predictions RodCrosby has made since I started posting, but I've never known him to lack evidence and analysis to his opinions. And if anyone wants to bet on no Tory>Lab gains, I'll happily lay you decent odds. I'd be pretty surprised if there weren't any.
So apparently Anna Soubry was at the anti- Indian Kashmir rally at Trafalgar Square today. Any idea how many Indian voters there are in Broxtowe she has just lost?
I would say to this - SHITE
But since we are all aspiring writers here I will merely say-
Very Poor
I think Anna Soubry has already given up. Nick P will be back with reasonable margin. Lord A had 45% 2010 LDs switching to him and he's done a huge amount on the ground.
Like Nick the candidates in 10 of LAB's top 40 targets are retreads. It'll be interesting to see if they still have an incumbency benefit.
Have you any evidence, I mean any evidence at all, that Anna Soubry has "given up"?
I Thgo UKIP.
Given that she's the sort of person that makes smears against political opponents' sexual habits, she deserves to lose her job.
She joked that he looked like he had a finger up his bum and was enjoying it. If that's a "smear" against UKIP that upsets you then I worry how you'll cope with what the press will throw at UKIP during the election campaign...
I think he'll cope just fine.
Judging by the South Yorkshire PPC campaign, UKIP seem to have heavy artillery prepared to bombard Labour, at least.
Tim Fortescue? Mere heavy machine gun fire.
It really depends on the Ukip candidate. When they've put duds up before the other parties have been able to monster them.
I do remember seeing an analysis that guestimated that UKIP cost the Tories 7-8 seats vs the 20 the Telegraph claims (I think it may have been Rawlings & Thrasher, but wouldn't swear to it)
I'm pretty sure that the 2010 kippers prevented the unseating of Ed Balls
They may cause it this time...
Are you sure that UKIP is going to gain Ed Balls's seat?
No, but they could hand it to the Tories...
Doesn't look like it is possible. The Tories are on course for zero gains from Labour.
I think you will be proved wrong on that.
Any particular predictions ?
And do you expect straight Lab to Con swing or a collapse in Labour's wwc vote to UKIP giving seats to the Conservatives by 'accident' ?
I think the national swing will be not far from zero. In which case we should expect Lab/Con to swap some seats in both directions. Since swing is a summary measure, the effect of third parties is included in it. But I think it quite possible UKIP could take votes disproportionally from Labour in some places, "handing" a seat to the Tories, although I don't expect more than a couple to fall this way.
At the moment...
Worthy of further analysis.
So you predict Rod that CON will get 7% more votes than LAB on May 7th 2015.
Its brave certainly but the Tories are going to bleed more support to UKIP than LAB which is continuing to get the huge 2010 LD switcher support.
Perhaps you can explain how with these two elements CON will be 7% ahead of LAB.
Only a fool would make a hostage to fortune by giving an exact prediction at this stage, aside from the sheer impossibility of being able to justify it. I will go this far though.
I think the result will be closer to a 7% Tory lead than it will be to the current polling.
Fine. But what are the voting dynamics behind that?
I've just got back from the pub having a drink with two guys buzzing about a UKIP meeting they'd been to. The purples are not going away and are going to eat into the vote shares of all parties. At the moment CON is most affected.
That is true Mike but as we get nearer to the GE, when the public at large are subjected to Ed in the debates, I think more of the WWC will turn to UKIP. What is Ed going to tell them, sorry but you are too stupid to have an a EU referendum? There will be more immigration not less so don't expect your income to rise anytime soon?
I also think plenty of Lib Dems will vote green rather than Ed.
Could you point to any polling numbers that support that? This is all based on your wishful thinking.
I get exasperated when people make assertions without evidence apart from saying they think it.
So apparently Anna Soubry was at the anti- Indian Kashmir rally at Trafalgar Square today. Any idea how many Indian voters there are in Broxtowe she has just lost?
I would say to this - SHITE
But since we are all aspiring writers here I will merely say-
Very Poor
I think Anna Soubry has already given up. Nick P will be back with reasonable margin. Lord A had 45% 2010 LDs switching to him and he's done a huge amount on the ground.
Like Nick the candidates in 10 of LAB's top 40 targets are retreads. It'll be interesting to see if they still have an incumbency benefit.
Have you any evidence, I mean any evidence at all, that Anna Soubry has "given up"?
I Thgo UKIP.
Given that she's the sort of person that makes smears against political opponents' sexual habits, she deserves to lose her job.
She joked that he looked like he had a finger up his bum and was enjoying it. If that's a "smear" against UKIP that upsets you then I worry how you'll cope with what the press will throw at UKIP during the election campaign...
I think he'll cope just fine.
Judging by the South Yorkshire PPC campaign, UKIP seem to have heavy artillery prepared to bombard Labour, at least.
Tim Fortescue? Mere heavy machine gun fire.
I was talking about Socrates, not Farage. I'm pretty sure Farage wouldn't get on his high horse about what Soubry said the way that Socrates (and other kippers) has.
So apparently Anna Soubry was at the anti- Indian Kashmir rally at Trafalgar Square today. Any idea how many Indian voters there are in Broxtowe she has just lost?
I would say to this - SHITE
But since we are all aspiring writers here I will merely say-
Very Poor
I think Anna Soubry has already given up. Nick P will be back with reasonable margin. Lord A had 45% 2010 LDs switching to him and he's done a huge amount on the ground.
Like Nick the candidates in 10 of LAB's top 40 targets are retreads. It'll be interesting to see if they still have an incumbency benefit.
Have you any evidence, I mean any evidence at all, that Anna Soubry has "given up"?
I Thgo UKIP.
Given that she's the sort of person that makes smears against political opponents' sexual habits, she deserves to lose her job.
She joked that he looked like he had a finger up his bum and was enjoying it. If that's a "smear" against UKIP that upsets you then I worry how you'll cope with what the press will throw at UKIP during the election campaign...
I think he'll cope just fine.
Judging by the South Yorkshire PPC campaign, UKIP seem to have heavy artillery prepared to bombard Labour, at least.
Tim Fortescue? Mere heavy machine gun fire.
It really depends on the Ukip candidate. When they've put duds up before the other parties have been able to monster them.
Not really.
Tory Party HQ just seem to trawl Twitter for idiot comments from UKIP council candidates. Didn't stop UKIP winning the Euros, did it?
UKIP have some heavy duty firepower to aim at Labour in the GE.
And Osborne has failed on industrial production, on productivity and on the balance of payments. Meanwhile our competitors grow in number and strength.
Really?
Who are these 'competitors' who are doing better than Osborne?
You can just about make a case for the US - but you'd first have to adjust for the shale oil/gas effect and also correct for the fact that exports account for such a small proportion of the US economy, so the US is nothing like as exposed to the Eurozone as we are.
Other than that, there is not a major developed economy in the world doing better than we are at the moment. Osborne, starting from an abysmal inheritance from Labour, has achieved a staggeringly good result - and with no measurable deterioration in public services, and without an unemployment spike. Bravo!
If you hadn't noticed globalisation means we're now competing with countries all over the world.
How has relative productivity between this country and developing countries changed during the last decade ? Even on your narrow First World outlook we know the UK's productivity has declined compared to the G7 average.
As to Osborne's 'staggeringly good result' I assume you mean missing government borrowing targets by hundreds of billions is a 'staggeringly good result', lower industrial production is a 'staggeringly good result', falling real earnings is a 'staggeringly good result', stagnant productivity is a 'staggeringly good result', a record balance of payments deficit is a 'staggeringly good result', growing economic inequality is a 'staggeringly good result' and falling home ownership is a 'staggeringly good result'.
Of course you'll blame all those things on the Eurozone or Brown or the man in the moon in much the same way Labour blamed their economic failings on the banks or the USA or Fatcha.
There once was a time when Conservatives believed in taking some self-responsibility but now they're a mirror image of Labour.
I've disagreed with most predictions RodCrosby has made since I started posting, but I've never known him to lack evidence and analysis to his opinions. And if anyone wants to bet on no Tory>Lab gains, I'll happily lay you decent odds. I'd be pretty surprised if there weren't any.
In 1992 the Tories polled the highest vote ever in a UK election with Major and Labour's vote only increased by 3%. Yet there was only one Tory gain from Labour, in Aberdeen South.
I do remember seeing an analysis that guestimated that UKIP cost the Tories 7-8 seats vs the 20 the Telegraph claims (I think it may have been Rawlings & Thrasher, but wouldn't swear to it)
I'm pretty sure that the 2010 kippers prevented the unseating of Ed Balls
They may cause it this time...
Are you sure that UKIP is going to gain Ed Balls's seat?
No, but they could hand it to the Tories...
Doesn't look like it is possible. The Tories are on course for zero gains from Labour.
I think you will be proved wrong on that.
Any particular predictions ?
And do you expect straight Lab to Con swing or a collapse in Labour's wwc vote to UKIP giving seats to the Conservatives by 'accident' ?
I think the national swing will be not far from zero. In which case we should expect Lab/Con to swap some seats in both directions. Since swing is a summary measure, the effect of third parties is included in it. But I think it quite possible UKIP could take votes disproportionally from Labour in some places, "handing" a seat to the Tories, although I don't expect more than a couple to fall this
I've just got back from the pub having a drink with two guys buzzing about a UKIP meeting they'd been to. The purples are not going away and are going to eat into the vote shares of all parties. At the moment CON is most affected.
That is true Mike but as we get nearer to the GE, when the public at large are subjected to Ed in the debates, I think more of the WWC will turn to UKIP. What is Ed going to tell them, sorry but you are too stupid to have an a EU referendum? There will be more immigration not less so don't expect your income to rise anytime soon?
I also think plenty of Lib Dems will vote green rather than Ed.
Could you point to any polling numbers that support that? This is all based on your wishful thinking.
I get exasperated when people make assertions without evidence apart from saying they think it.
No i haven't, as you say more of an assumption, however if you rely solely on polling numbers you may be making a big mistake. This is a GE like no other for polling companies, with the Labour core vote deserting them in droves now they have somewhere else to go. And the debates are unlikely to be good for Ed.
As for your beloved Lib Dems I hope their vote stays exactly where it is rather than go to Labour, but I fear that pissed off LD's may go to Ed, but I'm hoping reality dawns on them and they take the alternative NOTA route and go green.
Mike, I think "polling numbers" [detailed crosstabs, etc] are about as useful as polls. Taken at face value, next to no use, and subject to inevitable change.
We have different approaches. You focus on contemporary details, I take the long view, cycles, real elections, historical precedents, the operation of the electoral system.
We will see which method is best soon enough, although I don't recall seeing an actual prediction (however vague) from you, so far!
I've disagreed with most predictions RodCrosby has made since I started posting, but I've never known him to lack evidence and analysis to his opinions. And if anyone wants to bet on no Tory>Lab gains, I'll happily lay you decent odds. I'd be pretty surprised if there weren't any.
In 1992 the Tories polled the highest vote ever in a UK election with Major and Labour's vote only increased by 3%. Yet there was only one Tory gain from Labour, in Aberdeen South.
A fair point, and I didn't sufficiently check past elections. Still, if we both think our positions are more likely than not would you be up for a straight evens bet?
I've disagreed with most predictions RodCrosby has made since I started posting, but I've never known him to lack evidence and analysis to his opinions. And if anyone wants to bet on no Tory>Lab gains, I'll happily lay you decent odds. I'd be pretty surprised if there weren't any.
In 1992 the Tories polled the highest vote ever in a UK election with Major and Labour's vote only increased by 3%. Yet there was only one Tory gain from Labour, in Aberdeen South.
There was a 2.1% national swing to Labour which, according to amateur UNS theorists here, should have produced no Tory gains...
Speaking of Rochester has anything more been learnt about the 'open' Conservative primary ?
Don't 'public' elections have to have a minimum level of independent scrutiny ?
They thought no-one would notice if they didn't reveal how many spoilt papers had been returned.
We did notice. And it can only be assumed there were an embarrassingly large number of them.
It is incredible that they haven't announced the actual number of votes for each candidate.. one can only assume they think there is more mileage in a cover up than a fess up
I've disagreed with most predictions RodCrosby has made since I started posting, but I've never known him to lack evidence and analysis to his opinions. And if anyone wants to bet on no Tory>Lab gains, I'll happily lay you decent odds. I'd be pretty surprised if there weren't any.
In 1992 the Tories polled the highest vote ever in a UK election with Major and Labour's vote only increased by 3%. Yet there was only one Tory gain from Labour, in Aberdeen South.
A fair point, and I didn't sufficiently check past elections. Still, if we both think our positions are more likely than not would you be up for a straight evens bet?
I wouldn't bet either way. You'd probably expect one or two Tory gains from Labour I suppose but it could easily be zero with the Tories just falling a few votes short in each of the possibilities.
I've disagreed with most predictions RodCrosby has made since I started posting, but I've never known him to lack evidence and analysis to his opinions. And if anyone wants to bet on no Tory>Lab gains, I'll happily lay you decent odds. I'd be pretty surprised if there weren't any.
In 1992 the Tories polled the highest vote ever in a UK election with Major and Labour's vote only increased by 3%. Yet there was only one Tory gain from Labour, in Aberdeen South.
A fair point, and I didn't sufficiently check past elections. Still, if we both think our positions are more likely than not would you be up for a straight evens bet?
I wouldn't bet either way. You'd probably expect one or two Tory gains from Labour I suppose but it could easily be zero with the Tories just falling a few votes short in each of the possibilities.
Fair enough. I'm off to bed, but if anyone else is interested in a wager PM me or post here and I'll see it in the morning.
Speaking of Rochester has anything more been learnt about the 'open' Conservative primary ?
Don't 'public' elections have to have a minimum level of independent scrutiny ?
They thought no-one would notice if they didn't reveal how many spoilt papers had been returned.
We did notice. And it can only be assumed there were an embarrassingly large number of them.
It is incredible that they haven't announced the actual number of votes for each candidate.. one can only assume they think there is more mileage in a cover up than a fess up
Reminds me of the Guardian account of a Super Bowl where they told you who won, but not the actual score.
Thanks for the link AndyJS, I was indeed looking for something to read.
But what a terrible opening paragraph-
[There are two conversations going on in British politics. One is about fiscal policy: getting the deficit down or failing to, modernising public services and boosting the NHS budget. The other starts with immigration and moves swiftly to Rotherham and the abuse of mainly white girls by mainly Pakistani-origin men; and then to Isis, where, according to intelligence, 400-500 UK Muslims are alleged to have joined a terrorist militia.]
Okay, I've read most of it now and it's not so bad (for the lurkers). I note he's the Northern Soul Lovin ex-Faisal - Here's Another Para!!!
[One is for Labour to become a party of the liberal salariat and the public sector workforce. Another is to become, in party parlance, “blue” – to ditch the policy of free movement of labour and to re-regulate the market in ways that assuage the economic and cultural discontent of the working class. (A third option, where the two wings co-exist, is not seen as likely by Labour watchers.]
[Manchester United’s Robin van Persie nicks point off 10-man Chelsea • Read Jacob Steinberg’s minute-by-minute report • Check out the best pictures from Old Trafford • Louis van Gaal confident Van Persie will return to form]
FPT. "SouthamObserver Posts: 6,785 10:58AM This is also a huge test of leadership for EdM. Is he brave and wise enough to stand up to the troughing Scottish Labour mafia or will he fudge it? If he does the latter, he may well be writing his own death sentence, but to do the former successfully will take a lot of guts and no little cunning, as well as vision. Brown will probably dictate what happens next. Unlike Ed he has a powerbase in the Labour party."
You have obviously not been following Scottish Labour politics at Holyrood for the last seven years very closely, and you may also have forgotten the fall out from the Falkirk/Grangemouth/Unite scandal too.
Euan Mccolm in The Scotsman - ‘London called shots’ during Johann Lamont tenure "The camel’s back-breaking straw fell last week when Ed Miliband decided to remove Labour’s Scottish general secretary, Ian Price, without consulting the Scottish leader.
A source close to Lamont said: “A call came through from one of Ed’s people to one of Johann’s people. He passed on the news about Ian Price and Johann’s guy said, ‘I assume this means you want Johann to resign?’.
“The guy from Ed’s office said, ‘No, of course not,’ but he just didn’t get it. He didn’t get the fact that Johann had been completely undermined.”"
FPT. "SouthamObserver Posts: 6,785 10:58AM This is also a huge test of leadership for EdM. Is he brave and wise enough to stand up to the troughing Scottish Labour mafia or will he fudge it? If he does the latter, he may well be writing his own death sentence, but to do the former successfully will take a lot of guts and no little cunning, as well as vision. Brown will probably dictate what happens next. Unlike Ed he has a powerbase in the Labour party."
You have obviously not been following Scottish Labour politics at Holyrood for the last seven years very closely, and you may also have forgotten the fall out from the Falkirk/Grangemouth/Unite scandal too.
Euan Mccolm in The Scotsman - ‘London called shots’ during Johann Lamont tenure "The camel’s back-breaking straw fell last week when Ed Miliband decided to remove Labour’s Scottish general secretary, Ian Price, without consulting the Scottish leader.
A source close to Lamont said: “A call came through from one of Ed’s people to one of Johann’s people. He passed on the news about Ian Price and Johann’s guy said, ‘I assume this means you want Johann to resign?’.
“The guy from Ed’s office said, ‘No, of course not,’ but he just didn’t get it. He didn’t get the fact that Johann had been completely undermined.”"
I didn't read it. I may have - I believe the term would be "sped-read"
Sample para-
[Lamont, a former English teacher who had served as a junior minister in Jack McConnell’s Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition, was quite clear on winning the leadership that she expected all members, including MPs, to respect her authority.]
And an Ad-Link from the same page, a perinnel PB fave (I didn't read Any of this)
Catching up on the threads today with regard Jim Murphy, and you really do begin to understand just what a disaster Ed Miliband's Leadership has become for the UK wide Labour party in the run up to the next GE. This is someone who is now beginning to make some of Gordon Brown's Leadership decisions within the last Labour Government look slightly better than the reality implies!!
I keep seeing comments which describe Jim Murphy as a Blairite, a very lazy assumption that seems to be entirely based on the fact that this very astute politician didn't back Ed Miliband for the Labour Leadership, but rather his brother David Miliband who WAS a Blairite! It was under Brown's Leadership that Murphy achieved his most notable political successes, both as Minister for Europe and as Secretary of State for Scotland. He campaigned tirelessly in Scotland in the run up to the last GE, and very successfully delivered the Labour vote and oversaw the return of those two Labour by-election losses back into Labour hands once again.
After Ed Miliband won the Labour Leadership, he then relegated Jim Murphy to what had to be one of the toughest gigs in the Labour Shadow Cabinet, DEFENCE. And you know what, Murphy yet again proved just what an astute and capable politician he was by making life very difficult for his opponents in what should have been a very weak area for the Labour party. I know, I followed his time in this brief with great interest.
And what did Ed Miliband then do with this extremely talented and effective Scottish politician, well he didn't even bother to give him any kind of useful high profile role as Scottish Labour politician in the run up to the Holyrood elections in light of his previous success at the last GE. Ed Miliband then went onto demote in Murphy in his last Shadow Cabinet reshuffle after the Falkirk/Unite bust up..... And in years to come when the dust has well and truly finally settled over the Falkirk/Labour/Unite/Grangemouth scandal/bust up, it won't be Ed Miliband, Len McCluskey, Tom Watson or Johann Lamont who will finally shed some real light into the affair. No, we are going to have to hope that Jim Murphy, the politician who spotted and alerted Ed Miliband to the dangers of this scandal to his beloved Labour party will eventually pen his memoirs.
Any decent Labour Leader who is serious about winning a GE has to be able to reach out to the Scottish public. Both Blair and Brown managed to achieve this, even though they were very different political animals, and they therefore connected to different sections of the Scottish electorate. But between them, they really did deliver a powerful Scottish Labour bloc vote over the last two decades, and even managed to wipe out the Tory party up here in the process during this period. Miliband on the other hand, is fast turning out to be the Labour's worst nightmare as a party Leader in Scotland in my life time, and that is quite an achievement.
Catching up on the threads today with regard Jim Murphy, and you really do begin to understand just what a disaster Ed Miliband's Leadership has become for the UK wide Labour party in the run up to the next GE. This is someone who is now beginning to make some of Gordon Brown's Leadership decisions within the last Labour Government look slightly better than the reality implies!!
I keep seeing comments which describe Jim Murphy as a Blairite, a very lazy assumption that seems to be entirely based on the fact that this very astute politician didn't back Ed Miliband for the Labour Leadership, but rather his brother David Miliband who WAS a Blairite! It was under Brown's Leadership that Murphy achieved his most notable political successes, both as Minister for Europe and as Secretary of State for Scotland. He campaigned tirelessly in Scotland in the run up to the last GE, and very successfully delivered the Labour vote and oversaw the return of those two Labour by-election losses back into Labour hands once again.
After Ed Miliband won the Labour Leadership, he then relegated Jim Murphy to what had to be one of the toughest gigs in the Labour Shadow Cabinet, DEFENCE. And you know what, Murphy yet again proved just what an astute and capable politician he was by making life very difficult for his opponents in what should have been a very weak area for the Labour party. I know, I followed his time in this brief with great interest.
And what did Ed Miliband then do with this extremely talented and effective Scottish politician, well he didn't even bother to give him any kind of useful high profile role as Scottish Labour politician in the run up to the Holyrood elections in light of his previous success at the last GE. Ed Miliband then went onto demote in Murphy in his last Shadow Cabinet reshuffle after the Falkirk/Unite bust up..... And in years to come when the dust has well and truly finally settled over the Falkirk/Labour/Unite/Grangemouth scandal/bust up, it won't be Ed Miliband, Len McCluskey, Tom Watson or Johann Lamont who will finally shed some real light into the affair. No, we are going to have to hope that Jim Murphy, the politician who spotted and alerted Ed Miliband to the dangers of this scandal to his beloved Labour party will eventually pen his memoirs.
LAST PARA DELETED SO MY REPLY CAN GO THROUGH
RE: Jim Murphy
Briskin and co* were discussing this the other day. She stated he would be good. I said a bit of a weegie accent. Then I remembered that even though he was an MP he could still be Scot Lab leader under the rules. Imagine our surprise when he was favourite in one of the papers. He has got a bit of a weegie acccent.
I hope your query has been dealt with satisfactorily.
That's all well and good - but as I've made clear to all who are paying attention on this thread and the last - I've got MI6 on my back so google's off limits.
IE - I'm unlikely to have a clue what the fuck you are on about.
That's all well and good - but as I've made clear to all who are paying attention on this thread and the last - I've got MI6 on my back so google's off limits.
IE - I'm unlikely to have a clue what the fuck you are on about.
I live in Atlanta and the falcons lost today. The Dallas Cowboys will be in Wembley on November 9.
Indeed. I have only now really been catching up with PB after a busy weekend, but I did follow the news of Lamont's resignation on twitter on Friday. That Euan Mccolm article in the Scotsman I linked to earlier really did strike a chord with me when I read it earlier today, and all the more so because I also raised two of the key points he mentioned in his article when chatting to an SNP supporter about the resignation yesterday. I remember when she first brought up the issue of freebies vs investment in public services after being elected, I even thought we might have a left wing Labour Leader in Scotland who finally gets it and we might finally see an end to this unsustainable campaign freebie bidding war.
"Lamont recognised that the SNP had won two consecutive Scottish Parliament elections with policies – such as the council tax freeze and free prescriptions – that brought with them a considerable cost to public services.
Her call, in September 2012, for a debate on universal benefits was further evidence that Lamont was willing to tackle big issues. But she was so politically weak at the time that she simply didn’t have the authority to lead such a debate. The SNP caricatured her as a politician dedicated to seizing from the people that which was rightfully theirs.
A friend of Lamont says: “Johann was dead right to say we should have been debating that stuff. Parties couldn’t just go into election after election trying to outbid each other with freebies. It’s not sustainable."
Lamont was so clearly fired up and passionate when she first got the job as Scottish Labour Leader, but you really could see that passion drain out of her over the last year during the Indy Referendum.
"Friends of Lamont say that as long as a year ago, she began making indiscreet remarks about wanting to leave the leadership. One Labour source said: “You would be at an event and her heart wasn’t in it and she’d say as much. She just looked exhausted by the whole experience.”"
That's all well and good - but as I've made clear to all who are paying attention on this thread and the last - I've got MI6 on my back so google's off limits.
IE - I'm unlikely to have a clue what the fuck you are on about.
I live in Atlanta and the falcons lost today. The Dallas Cowboys will be in Wembley on November 9.
Ahhhh - Sorry if I appear rude - imagine the local time here...
That's all well and good - but as I've made clear to all who are paying attention on this thread and the last - I've got MI6 on my back so google's off limits.
IE - I'm unlikely to have a clue what the fuck you are on about.
I live in Atlanta and the falcons lost today. The Dallas Cowboys will be in Wembley on November 9.
Ahhhh - Sorry if I appear rude - imagine the local time here...
2 London games? I am genuinely surprised.
3 this season and 4 next season. The NFL wants to eventually have a London based team
That's all well and good - but as I've made clear to all who are paying attention on this thread and the last - I've got MI6 on my back so google's off limits.
IE - I'm unlikely to have a clue what the fuck you are on about.
I live in Atlanta and the falcons lost today. The Dallas Cowboys will be in Wembley on November 9.
Ahhhh - Sorry if I appear rude - imagine the local time here...
2 London games? I am genuinely surprised.
3 this season and 4 next season. The NFL wants to eventually have a London based team
That's pretty cool. We really should have a "soccer" 43 (or 44 or whatever it's called) over where you are.
That's all well and good - but as I've made clear to all who are paying attention on this thread and the last - I've got MI6 on my back so google's off limits.
IE - I'm unlikely to have a clue what the fuck you are on about.
I live in Atlanta and the falcons lost today. The Dallas Cowboys will be in Wembley on November 9.
Ahhhh - Sorry if I appear rude - imagine the local time here...
2 London games? I am genuinely surprised.
3 this season and 4 next season. The NFL wants to eventually have a London based team
That's pretty cool. We really should have a "soccer" 43 (or 44 or whatever it's called) over where you are.
The first game in London started at 9 . 30 this morning. The last game finished about 30 minutes ago. Even as a kid growing up in Yorkshire I disliked both playing and watching soccer. I love American football though. It is such a complex game
[The World Service was funded by grant-in-aid through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the British Government[5]]
I listen to the BBC world service every day. It keeps me in touch with what used to be home. It has become a rolling news operation and used to have much more diverse programming
[The World Service was funded by grant-in-aid through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the British Government[5]]
I listen to the BBC world service every day. It keeps me in touch with what used to be home. It has become a rolling news operation and used to have much more diverse programming
And I've been to Texas!!! The commercial radio, of the time I was there, played a lot of Sum 41.
[The World Service was funded by grant-in-aid through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the British Government[5]]
I listen to the BBC world service every day. It keeps me in touch with what used to be home. It has become a rolling news operation and used to have much more diverse programming
And I've been to Texas!!! The commercial radio, of the time I was there, played a lot of Sum 41.
Linky coming up!!!
I had the chance of moving to Dallas some years back. My wife nixed it because she knew we would end up with Dallas Cowboys season tickets
[The World Service was funded by grant-in-aid through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the British Government[5]]
I listen to the BBC world service every day. It keeps me in touch with what used to be home. It has become a rolling news operation and used to have much more diverse programming
And I've been to Texas!!! The commercial radio, of the time I was there, played a lot of Sum 41.
Linky coming up!!!
I had the chance of moving to Dallas some years back. My wife nixed it because she knew we would end up with Dallas Cowboys season tickets
Not much I can say to that Tim B - I'm currently listening to Sum 41 on Youtube.
Suffice to say for the lurkers and MalcyG that I live quite close to Pittodrie.
[The World Service was funded by grant-in-aid through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the British Government[5]]
I listen to the BBC world service every day. It keeps me in touch with what used to be home. It has become a rolling news operation and used to have much more diverse programming
And I've been to Texas!!! The commercial radio, of the time I was there, played a lot of Sum 41.
Linky coming up!!!
I had the chance of moving to Dallas some years back. My wife nixed it because she knew we would end up with Dallas Cowboys season tickets
Not much I can say to that Tim B - I'm currently listening to Sum 41 on Youtube.
Suffice to say for the lurkers and MalcyG that I live quite close to Pittodrie.
Comments
The reason that the Tories are level, and why they'll be ahead come May, is simple.
Ed Miliband.
Because he's crap
hermann kelly @hermannkelly 39m39 minutes ago
.@mortenmorland's cartoon on Cameron's Thatcher moment http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/article2481811.ece#tab-4 … @Conservatives @ConMEPs Hence #UKIP
His SNP/Inverness prediction has come in odds-wise too.
They may cause it this time...
Are you sure that UKIP is going to gain Ed Balls's seat?
No, but they could hand it to the Tories...
Doesn't look like it is possible.
The Tories are on course for zero gains from Labour.
I think you will be proved wrong on that.
Any particular predictions ?
And do you expect straight Lab to Con swing or a collapse in Labour's wwc vote to UKIP giving seats to the Conservatives by 'accident' ?
I think the national swing will be not far from zero. In which case we should expect Lab/Con to swap some seats in both directions. Since swing is a summary measure, the effect of third parties is included in it. But I think it quite possible UKIP could take votes disproportionally from Labour in some places, "handing" a seat to the Tories, although I don't expect more than a couple to fall this way.
At the moment...
Worthy of further analysis.
So you predict Rod that CON will get 7% more votes than LAB on May 7th 2015.
Its brave certainly but the Tories are going to bleed more support to UKIP than LAB which is continuing to get the huge 2010 LD switcher support.
Perhaps you can explain how with these two elements CON will be 7% ahead of LAB.
Only a fool would make a hostage to fortune by giving an exact prediction at this stage, aside from the sheer impossibility of being able to justify it. I will go this far though.
I think the result will be closer to a 7% Tory lead than it will be to the current polling.
Fine. But what are the voting dynamics behind that?
I've just got back from the pub having a drink with two guys buzzing about a UKIP meeting they'd been to. The purples are not going away and are going to eat into the vote shares of all parties. At the moment CON is most affected.
That is true Mike but as we get nearer to the GE, when the public at large are subjected to Ed in the debates, I think more of the WWC will turn to UKIP. What is Ed going to tell them, sorry but you are too stupid to have an a EU referendum? There will be more immigration not less so don't expect your income to rise anytime soon?
I also think plenty of Lib Dems will vote green rather than Ed.
Could you point to any polling numbers that support that? This is all based on your wishful thinking.
I get exasperated when people make assertions without evidence apart from saying they think it.
Tory Party HQ just seem to trawl Twitter for idiot comments from UKIP council candidates. Didn't stop UKIP winning the Euros, did it?
UKIP have some heavy duty firepower to aim at Labour in the GE.
Labour are already squealing about it.
How has relative productivity between this country and developing countries changed during the last decade ? Even on your narrow First World outlook we know the UK's productivity has declined compared to the G7 average.
As to Osborne's 'staggeringly good result' I assume you mean missing government borrowing targets by hundreds of billions is a 'staggeringly good result', lower industrial production is a 'staggeringly good result', falling real earnings is a 'staggeringly good result', stagnant productivity is a 'staggeringly good result', a record balance of payments deficit is a 'staggeringly good result', growing economic inequality is a 'staggeringly good result' and falling home ownership is a 'staggeringly good result'.
Of course you'll blame all those things on the Eurozone or Brown or the man in the moon in much the same way Labour blamed their economic failings on the banks or the USA or Fatcha.
There once was a time when Conservatives believed in taking some self-responsibility but now they're a mirror image of Labour.
"I get exasperated when people make assertions without evidence apart from saying they think it. "
I know how you feel.. the Tories guesswork/wishful thinking/reading of the runes re Rochester was a sight to behold.
Are you sure that UKIP is going to gain Ed Balls's seat?
No, but they could hand it to the Tories...
Doesn't look like it is possible.
The Tories are on course for zero gains from Labour.
I think you will be proved wrong on that.
Any particular predictions ?
And do you expect straight Lab to Con swing or a collapse in Labour's wwc vote to UKIP giving seats to the Conservatives by 'accident' ?
I think the national swing will be not far from zero. In which case we should expect Lab/Con to swap some seats in both directions. Since swing is a summary measure, the effect of third parties is included in it. But I think it quite possible UKIP could take votes disproportionally from Labour in some places, "handing" a seat to the Tories, although I don't expect more than a couple to fall this
I've just got back from the pub having a drink with two guys buzzing about a UKIP meeting they'd been to. The purples are not going away and are going to eat into the vote shares of all parties. At the moment CON is most affected.
That is true Mike but as we get nearer to the GE, when the public at large are subjected to Ed in the debates, I think more of the WWC will turn to UKIP. What is Ed going to tell them, sorry but you are too stupid to have an a EU referendum? There will be more immigration not less so don't expect your income to rise anytime soon?
I also think plenty of Lib Dems will vote green rather than Ed.
Could you point to any polling numbers that support that? This is all based on your wishful thinking.
I get exasperated when people make assertions without evidence apart from saying they think it.
No i haven't, as you say more of an assumption, however if you rely solely on polling numbers you may be making a big mistake. This is a GE like no other for polling companies, with the Labour core vote deserting them in droves now they have somewhere else to go. And the debates are unlikely to be good for Ed.
As for your beloved Lib Dems I hope their vote stays exactly where it is rather than go to Labour, but I fear that pissed off LD's may go to Ed, but I'm hoping reality dawns on them and they take the alternative NOTA route and go green.
I said LDs down about 10 (14ish), UKIP up over 10 (15ish), I wasn't accurate, but that's why I said "about" and "over".
Don't 'public' elections have to have a minimum level of independent scrutiny ?
We did notice. And it can only be assumed there were an embarrassingly large number of them.
We have different approaches. You focus on contemporary details, I take the long view, cycles, real elections, historical precedents, the operation of the electoral system.
We will see which method is best soon enough, although I don't recall seeing an actual prediction (however vague) from you, so far!
UKIP not up 15ish YG Oct UKIP average 15.6% So at GE2010 did they poll 0.6%?
No.
Goodnight
“I think Labour will win here but suspect it could be closer than expected – say 2000 majority.
Balls strikes me as something of a cold fish and will struggle in an area like this filled with ambitious, independently minded working class voters.
Long term this will be won by the Conservatives the next time they win an overall majority.”
Funny how you remember the good predictions more than the bad ones ;-)
G'night everyone.
It's quite interesting to compare the bookies' best odds on the GE outcome with Stephen Fisher's corresponding probabilities:
No Overall Majority: Bet365 ....... 1.9 = 52.6% probability vs Fisher's 55% probability.
Labour Majority: Bet365 ............ 3.25 = 30.8% probability vs Fisher's 21% probability.
Conservative Majority: Betfair ..... 5.275 (net) = 19.0% probability vs Fisher's 24% probability.
If you believe in Fisher's model, a LAY on a Labour Majority, currently 3.4 with Betfair excl 5% comm'n, looks like the value bet.
As ever, DYOR
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/26/tony-benn-new-face-of-tories-cameron-europe
"Mainstream politics is imploding: is discontent with globalisation the cause?
Labour, the Lib Dems and the Conservatives are losing vital ground to Nigel Farage’s Ukip."
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/26/mainstream-politics-is-imploding-is-discontent-with-globalisation-the-cause
But what a terrible opening paragraph-
[There are two conversations going on in British politics. One is about fiscal policy: getting the deficit down or failing to, modernising public services and boosting the NHS budget. The other starts with immigration and moves swiftly to Rotherham and the abuse of mainly white girls by mainly Pakistani-origin men; and then to Isis, where, according to intelligence, 400-500 UK Muslims are alleged to have joined a terrorist militia.]
[One is for Labour to become a party of the liberal salariat and the public sector workforce. Another is to become, in party parlance, “blue” – to ditch the policy of free movement of labour and to re-regulate the market in ways that assuage the economic and cultural discontent of the working class. (A third option, where the two wings co-exist, is not seen as likely by Labour watchers.]
Indigo - pick a newspaper.
I have picked the guardian, for reasons of comparative analysis (arf)
Wish me luck
[Manchester United’s Robin van Persie nicks point off 10-man Chelsea
• Read Jacob Steinberg’s minute-by-minute report
• Check out the best pictures from Old Trafford
• Louis van Gaal confident Van Persie will return to form]
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/oct/26/manchester-united-chelsea-premier-league-match-report
good luck everyone
"Gordon Brown will not run for the leadership of the Scottish Labour Party, according to Sky sources.
The former Prime Minister, who returned to front-line politics during the independence referendum, is no longer a contender to succeed Johann Lamont."
10:58AM
This is also a huge test of leadership for EdM. Is he brave and wise enough to stand up to the troughing Scottish Labour mafia or will he fudge it? If he does the latter, he may well be writing his own death sentence, but to do the former successfully will take a lot of guts and no little cunning, as well as vision. Brown will probably dictate what happens next. Unlike Ed he has a powerbase in the Labour party."
You have obviously not been following Scottish Labour politics at Holyrood for the last seven years very closely, and you may also have forgotten the fall out from the Falkirk/Grangemouth/Unite scandal too.
Euan Mccolm in The Scotsman - ‘London called shots’ during Johann Lamont tenure
"The camel’s back-breaking straw fell last week when Ed Miliband decided to remove Labour’s Scottish general secretary, Ian Price, without consulting the Scottish leader.
A source close to Lamont said: “A call came through from one of Ed’s people to one of Johann’s people. He passed on the news about Ian Price and Johann’s guy said, ‘I assume this means you want Johann to resign?’.
“The guy from Ed’s office said, ‘No, of course not,’ but he just didn’t get it. He didn’t get the fact that Johann had been completely undermined.”"
I'm going to have to click on a Scotsman link now.
Thanks
Sample para-
[Lamont, a former English teacher who had served as a junior minister in Jack McConnell’s Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition, was quite clear on winning the leadership that she expected all members, including MPs, to respect her authority.]
And an Ad-Link from the same page, a perinnel PB fave (I didn't read Any of this)
http://discover.economist.com/?a=21611074&p=LC&cid1=dis
(I'm not even joking)
Our understanding is that Ed M resigned Lamont. Ed is Crap.
Therefore-
1 – Ed (is crap) has a candidate in mind.
2 – He will fail to get this candidate elected.
I keep seeing comments which describe Jim Murphy as a Blairite, a very lazy assumption that seems to be entirely based on the fact that this very astute politician didn't back Ed Miliband for the Labour Leadership, but rather his brother David Miliband who WAS a Blairite! It was under Brown's Leadership that Murphy achieved his most notable political successes, both as Minister for Europe and as Secretary of State for Scotland. He campaigned tirelessly in Scotland in the run up to the last GE, and very successfully delivered the Labour vote and oversaw the return of those two Labour by-election losses back into Labour hands once again.
After Ed Miliband won the Labour Leadership, he then relegated Jim Murphy to what had to be one of the toughest gigs in the Labour Shadow Cabinet, DEFENCE. And you know what, Murphy yet again proved just what an astute and capable politician he was by making life very difficult for his opponents in what should have been a very weak area for the Labour party. I know, I followed his time in this brief with great interest.
And what did Ed Miliband then do with this extremely talented and effective Scottish politician, well he didn't even bother to give him any kind of useful high profile role as Scottish Labour politician in the run up to the Holyrood elections in light of his previous success at the last GE. Ed Miliband then went onto demote in Murphy in his last Shadow Cabinet reshuffle after the Falkirk/Unite bust up..... And in years to come when the dust has well and truly finally settled over the Falkirk/Labour/Unite/Grangemouth scandal/bust up, it won't be Ed Miliband, Len McCluskey, Tom Watson or Johann Lamont who will finally shed some real light into the affair. No, we are going to have to hope that Jim Murphy, the politician who spotted and alerted Ed Miliband to the dangers of this scandal to his beloved Labour party will eventually pen his memoirs.
Any decent Labour Leader who is serious about winning a GE has to be able to reach out to the Scottish public. Both Blair and Brown managed to achieve this, even though they were very different political animals, and they therefore connected to different sections of the Scottish electorate. But between them, they really did deliver a powerful Scottish Labour bloc vote over the last two decades, and even managed to wipe out the Tory party up here in the process during this period. Miliband on the other hand, is fast turning out to be the Labour's worst nightmare as a party Leader in Scotland in my life time, and that is quite an achievement.
*old meaning
PB Scots never die!!!!
Circa 150 mins till Today - Evan not even on any more - I don't know why I'm so worried...
Briskin and co* were discussing this the other day. She stated he would be good. I said a bit of a weegie accent. Then I remembered that even though he was an MP he could still be Scot Lab leader under the rules. Imagine our surprise when he was favourite in one of the papers. He has got a bit of a weegie acccent.
I hope your query has been dealt with satisfactorily.
*Me and my Gf
Hint - it's America's Team
PS - sorry for fixing the match today.
That's all well and good - but as I've made clear to all who are paying attention on this thread and the last - I've got MI6 on my back so google's off limits.
IE - I'm unlikely to have a clue what the fuck you are on about.
"Lamont recognised that the SNP had won two consecutive Scottish Parliament elections with policies – such as the council tax freeze and free prescriptions – that brought with them a considerable cost to public services.
Her call, in September 2012, for a debate on universal benefits was further evidence that Lamont was willing to tackle big issues. But she was so politically weak at the time that she simply didn’t have the authority to lead such a debate. The SNP caricatured her as a politician dedicated to seizing from the people that which was rightfully theirs.
A friend of Lamont says: “Johann was dead right to say we should have been debating that stuff. Parties couldn’t just go into election after election trying to outbid each other with freebies. It’s not sustainable."
Lamont was so clearly fired up and passionate when she first got the job as Scottish Labour Leader, but you really could see that passion drain out of her over the last year during the Indy Referendum.
"Friends of Lamont say that as long as a year ago, she began making indiscreet remarks about wanting to leave the leadership. One Labour source said: “You would be at an event and her heart wasn’t in it and she’d say as much. She just looked exhausted by the whole experience.”"
2 London games? I am genuinely surprised.
The Briskin and co mantra-
WE WILL ONLY FIX ONE SPORTING EVENT PER WEEK
WE WILL ONLY FIX ONE SPORTING EVENT PER WEEK
WE WILL ONLY FIX ONE SPORTING EVENT PER WEEK
You should really let us have this one.
Silly Yanks.
Anyway - as you have stated - it is 4am ish here. Here's some links for you-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Today_(BBC_Radio_4)
And-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_World_Service
With the presumably ever true, and ever classic-
[The World Service was funded by grant-in-aid through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the British Government[5]]
Linky coming up!!!
http://youtu.be/CMX2lPum_pg
Suffice to say for the lurkers and MalcyG that I live quite close to Pittodrie.
I bet he doesn't get through this thread though!!!!!!