There is a lot of room for manoeuvre between operational interference and setting priorities.
A PCC could not, just as in LIAMT's example, instruct someone be released. But what if they asked the CC to set a target for the relevant officers of the force for the number of child molesters to be arrested? Targets are an absurd idea but are well embedded into police practice and just might fall within the scope of "policy".
To be honest if there are not some serious fallings out between CCs and PCCs they will have proven to be as much use as the old committees, that is no use at all.
Agreed. It is for example the duty of the Police and Crime Commissioner under s. 5 of the 2011 Act to issue a police and crime plan, which the Chief Constable is obliged under s. 8 to have regard to. Under s. 2(5) of the 2011 Act, the Chief Constable must exercise his functions in such a way as is reasonable to assist the Police and Crime Commissioner to exercise the latter's functions. Under s. 1(8) of the Act, the Commissioner must hold the Chief Constable to account in respect of various matters (including the exercise of duties relating to equality and diversity that are imposed on the chief constable by any enactment!). It being a modern statute, it is in fact appallingly drafted.
Life in a market town [7.11] Many thanks. That's my understanding of the law, too. I'm merely suggesting that before we're very much older a PCC will be elected on a platform directly contrary to it. Suppose they then quit and successfully seek re-election on a platform of sacking the Chief Constable and replacing them with a "yes man"?
There's no shortage of 'yes men' as Chief Constables - but its their own agenda they're saying 'yes' too.
I suggestb that it depends how a PCC does it” If he (assuming) at a routine meeting with the Chief Constable gives his opinion that there is considerable public concern about something and ask the CC what the force is doing about and f nothing, why, then how can that be “interfering”? If in the other hand he calls the CC to his office and tells him he wants something done, that; surely is different!
Lol-
Something Must Be Done!!!!
Pass the Lamberts...
I think somebody has already passed the sherberts....
I suppose the scenario I am groping towards is one in which a PCC is elected (and if needs be, re-elected) on a clear platform of destroying police independence but on a low turn-out (say 10%).
But perhaps I am straining at a gnat having swallowed a camel. I have - and I don't suppose anyone else here has - not the slightest evidence that judicial review commands popular support.
If the public are foolish enough to elect such a candidate, with all the costly and wasteful litigation that his return would generate, that is a matter that should be taken up with the public! Judicial review has nothing whatever to do with the popularity of a measure, and nor should it. The function of the courts is to apply and to construe the enactments passed by Parliament. Inferior authorities, such as PCCs, local authorities, or dare I say it, the Scottish Parliament, may be elected, but they may only exercise the powers conferred on them by law. It is the duty of the courts to ensure that they do so.
Well there might be 'big benefits' for people in Leeds if they do a lot of rail travel to other cities in 20+ years and its paid for on an expenses account.
But that's rather a small proportion of Yorkshire people.
This government's obsession with big cities is another example of the PPEocrachy mentality.
A few billion spent on higher speed broadband would bring a lot more benefit to a lot more people and a lot quicker.
On thread - bizarre notion. Those who are Tory and Yorkshiremen - surely folk twice blessed in life's lottery - would want to see an end to the hideous dereliction of duty that resulted in the resignation causing the by-election. Realistically that ain't going to be a by a Tory getting elected, so good luck to the UKIP guy shaking things up.
Well there might be 'big benefits' for people in Leeds if they do a lot of rail travel to other cities in 20+ years and its paid for on an expenses account.
But that's rather a small proportion of Yorkshire people.
This government's obsession with big cities is another example of the PPEocrachy mentality.
A few billion spent on higher speed broadband would bring a lot more benefit to a lot more people and a lot quicker.
What's Labour's reaction to HS3? Adonis will be delighted, but I get the feeling Balls won't be.
On topic. Speaking as one Blue voter (though not one who has a vote in the election - just), I've no interest in playing silly tactical games. Labour in S Yorks needs an almighty kick up the backside. I'd be voting Con 1st, UKIP 2nd.
On topic. Speaking as one Blue voter (though not one who has a vote in the election - just), I've no interest in playing silly tactical games. Labour in S Yorks needs an almighty kick up the backside. I'd be voting Con 1st, UKIP 2nd.
I'm 2 miles away from being able to vote in this
I'd do the same, or maybe 1 UKIP 2 Con, or 1 ED 2 UKIP.
I'd definitely make sure UKIP was either 1 or 2 at any rate.
Carlotta Vance [6.22am] At least one of the candidates is proposing to interfere in operational matters which IIRC the PCC's are specifically prevented from doing.
It's inevitable that sooner or later a PCC will be elected on an "interfering" platform (possibly on a poll of as little as 10%) and this will lead to a head-on clash with the Chief Constable. Would such a clash be good for democracy, the prevention and detection of crime or anything else (other, of course, than the ego of the PCC in question)?
I look forward to the tory Peebies' explanation of why PCCs are needed nowadays when they weren't necessary in Thatcher or Major's time.
In Thatcher's and Major's time the police were generally well respected and trusted. There were exceptions, such as miners who felt they had been set upon and of course Liverpool but as a whole they were.
It is tragic how that trust has been undermined and destroyed by forces that have been increasingly politicised, found to be systematically dishonest and institutionally incompetent. The police can only work with the consent of the governed. The PCCs are an attempt to reintroduce that consent and trust. Not a very successful one so far but worth a try. A police force that is only accountable to itself is no longer acceptable. That is the modern world.
Bah, the trust in the police (and politicians, and the BBC, and all the other institutions) is undermined by people having better information about what they really get up to.
This is a good thing. What they really get up to turns out to consist of whatever they can get away with, and the less we trust them the less that is.
Speaking of which, this is the person responsible for authorizing intercepting your email in situations where that requires authorizing (nobody will say what situations those would be) showing he hasn't got the faintest idea what he's signing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1PNttDlois&feature=youtu.be
On topic. Speaking as one Blue voter (though not one who has a vote in the election - just), I've no interest in playing silly tactical games. Labour in S Yorks needs an almighty kick up the backside. I'd be voting Con 1st, UKIP 2nd.
Thinking a little further, I reckon Mike's got the big picture wrong too.
If I had a vote and were inclined to use it strategically in the interests of the Tories, i'd still vote Con 1st, UKIP 2nd. That's because the Tories will benefit enormously if Labour and UKIP both believe that there is a major battle to be fought between them in (ex-)Labour heartlands, drawing both sides' resources away from Con marginals.
Well there might be 'big benefits' for people in Leeds if they do a lot of rail travel to other cities in 20+ years and its paid for on an expenses account.
But that's rather a small proportion of Yorkshire people.
This government's obsession with big cities is another example of the PPEocrachy mentality.
A few billion spent on higher speed broadband would bring a lot more benefit to a lot more people and a lot quicker.
What is this 'expenses account' comment you use against any high-speed rail project?
High-speed broadband is to be welcomed, but until we can teleport, it is no replacement for travel.
Hint: look at the rise of the Internet over the last twenty years, and look how rail travel has doubled in that same period. The Internet is doing nothing to stop people needing to travel, and the vast majority of jobs cannot be done remotely. Skype is no replacement for meeting people face-to-face.
On thread - bizarre notion. Those who are Tory and Yorkshiremen - surely folk twice blessed in life's lottery - would want to see an end to the hideous dereliction of duty that resulted in the resignation causing the by-election. Realistically that ain't going to be a by a Tory getting elected, so good luck to the UKIP guy shaking things up.
I am neither Tory nor Yorkie, but I do want to see a light shone into the dark corners of a force that has more than it’s share of “problems” over the years. And, as well as shining that light I want to see some action being taken.
I do though, in this connection, await the showing of the Baby P programme tonight!
Well there might be 'big benefits' for people in Leeds if they do a lot of rail travel to other cities in 20+ years and its paid for on an expenses account.
But that's rather a small proportion of Yorkshire people.
This government's obsession with big cities is another example of the PPEocrachy mentality.
A few billion spent on higher speed broadband would bring a lot more benefit to a lot more people and a lot quicker.
What is this 'expenses account' comment you use against any high-speed rail project?
High-speed broadband is to be welcomed, but until we can teleport, it is no replacement for travel.
Hint: look at the rise of the Internet over the last twenty years, and look how rail travel has doubled in that same period. The Internet is doing nothing to stop people needing to travel, and the vast majority of jobs cannot be done remotely. Skype is no replacement for meeting people face-to-face.
"Well there might be 'big benefits' for people in Leeds if they do a lot of rail travel to other cities in 20+ years and its paid for on an expenses account."
They'll be northern Tories. My guess for this announcement would be to try and sure up the West Yorkshire marginal crucial Tory vote in places like Elmet, Pudsey, Dewsbury whilst the more working class Labour vote splits off to UKIP...........
I'[d guess Labour would go for HS3 too but the Cons got there first and are in Gov't so can "own" the announcement more.
Carlotta Vance [6.22am] At least one of the candidates is proposing to interfere in operational matters which IIRC the PCC's are specifically prevented from doing.
It's inevitable that sooner or later a PCC will be elected on an "interfering" platform (possibly on a poll of as little as 10%) and this will lead to a head-on clash with the Chief Constable. Would such a clash be good for democracy, the prevention and detection of crime or anything else (other, of course, than the ego of the PCC in question)?
I look forward to the tory Peebies' explanation of why PCCs are needed nowadays when they weren't necessary in Thatcher or Major's time.
PCC's can interfere - they just have to do it indirectly, by issuing policing priorities and strategies, and holding Chief Constables accountable to them.
As with all constitutional reform, it could usually have been done earlier but just because it wasn't, that is no excuse for not doing it now. On that basis, we'd still be using the pre-1832 system (well, we wouldn't because there'd probably have been a revolution but you get the idea). PCCs bring democratic accountability to the police, which as local public services they need, particularly given the scandals that have been revealed over recent years, and most of all in South Yorkshire.
Carlotta Vance [6.22am] At least one of the candidates is proposing to interfere in operational matters which IIRC the PCC's are specifically prevented from doing.
It's inevitable that sooner or later a PCC will be elected on an "interfering" platform (possibly on a poll of as little as 10%) and this will lead to a head-on clash with the Chief Constable. Would such a clash be good for democracy, the prevention and detection of crime or anything else (other, of course, than the ego of the PCC in question)?
I look forward to the tory Peebies' explanation of why PCCs are needed nowadays when they weren't necessary in Thatcher or Major's time.
In Thatcher's and Major's time the police were generally well respected and trusted. There were exceptions, such as miners who felt they had been set upon and of course Liverpool but as a whole they were.
It is tragic how that trust has been undermined and destroyed by forces that have been increasingly politicised, found to be systematically dishonest and institutionally incompetent. The police can only work with the consent of the governed. The PCCs are an attempt to reintroduce that consent and trust. Not a very successful one so far but worth a try. A police force that is only accountable to itself is no longer acceptable. That is the modern world.
Bah, the trust in the police (and politicians, and the BBC, and all the other institutions) is undermined by people having better information about what they really get up to.
This is a good thing. What they really get up to turns out to consist of whatever they can get away with, and the less we trust them the less that is.
Speaking of which, this is the person responsible for authorizing intercepting your email in situations where that requires authorizing (nobody will say what situations those would be) showing he hasn't got the faintest idea what he's signing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1PNttDlois&feature=youtu.be
The facial expression of the blonde next to him is wonderful [about 4:45]
Of the four candidates (Lab, Con, UKIP, ED) who has which opening sentence...
It would appear that the electorate are being sold a false prospectus by some of the candidates, including the bizarre idea that Police and Crime Commissioners can alter the criminal law, by increasing sentences or modifying police powers, or by giving directions to police constables on individual operations. They can do neither. Indeed, it is arguable that were a Police and Crime Commissioner to 'order the hunting down and prosecuting of all South Yorkshire’s child rapists gangs...', it would be the duty of every constable so instructed not merely to disregard the direction, but to arrest the Police and Crime Commissioner for attempting to pervert the course of public justice.
Yowzer - I take it Antifrank's not got a blog this morning??
Not this morning, no. But for the weekday crowd, I put a new entry up yesterday:
This whole thread assumes that everyone votes tactically, and that everyone votes tactically in a PCC election with an eye not on that election but a different election the following year. In fact most people vote for the result they want, in the election they are voting in. Furthermore if there is tactical voting in this instance surely more of it is going to be "anything but Labour, after Rotherham, in this particular case, and sod the GE".
On an only slightly related point, any polling trying to identify potential tactical voting faces the paradox: if a voter is so devilishly sophisticated that he TVs, why would he not also be clever enough to tactically answer opinion pollsters? So if you are firmly blue but want to nudge Dave right, you say UKIP, if you are in an ultra-marginal and think your blue incumbent is a lazy slob you say LD. Why would you not?
The Lord polleth the marginals, and the Lord tweeteth the results. Blessed be the name of the Lord. It's his money. But we do hear an awful lot about his findings 3 months ago in the 11th tightest LD Con marginal in the North East and I am not sure it tells us any more than our resident yougov-baxterer does.
Well there might be 'big benefits' for people in Leeds if they do a lot of rail travel to other cities in 20+ years and its paid for on an expenses account.
But that's rather a small proportion of Yorkshire people.
This government's obsession with big cities is another example of the PPEocrachy mentality.
A few billion spent on higher speed broadband would bring a lot more benefit to a lot more people and a lot quicker.
What is this 'expenses account' comment you use against any high-speed rail project?
High-speed broadband is to be welcomed, but until we can teleport, it is no replacement for travel.
Hint: look at the rise of the Internet over the last twenty years, and look how rail travel has doubled in that same period. The Internet is doing nothing to stop people needing to travel, and the vast majority of jobs cannot be done remotely. Skype is no replacement for meeting people face-to-face.
"Well there might be 'big benefits' for people in Leeds if they do a lot of rail travel to other cities in 20+ years and its paid for on an expenses account."
They'll be northern Tories. My guess for this announcement would be to try and sure up the West Yorkshire marginal crucial Tory vote in places like Elmet, Pudsey, Dewsbury whilst the more working class Labour vote splits off to UKIP...........
I'[d guess Labour would go for HS3 too but the Cons got there first and are in Gov't so can "own" the announcement more.
There is very large support for HS2 amongst northern, Labour, councils, who see it as a way of aiding redevelopment and attracting business. Labour are pressed between supporting those councils and attempting to differentiate themselves from the Conservatives, especially in the south.
HS3 is a very different beast. In fact, I doubt the final plans would warrant the 'hs' prefix in the same way HS1 and 2 did. It's more likely to be a series of route speed-ups, akin to EGIP in Scotland, with perhaps new tunnelling under the Pennines. But anyone who has travelled on rails up north knows it is needed.
I suppose the scenario I am groping towards is one in which a PCC is elected (and if needs be, re-elected) on a clear platform of destroying police independence but on a low turn-out (say 10%).
But perhaps I am straining at a gnat having swallowed a camel. I have - and I don't suppose anyone else here has - not the slightest evidence that judicial review commands popular support.
If the public are foolish enough to elect such a candidate, with all the costly and wasteful litigation that his return would generate, that is a matter that should be taken up with the public! Judicial review has nothing whatever to do with the popularity of a measure, and nor should it. The function of the courts is to apply and to construe the enactments passed by Parliament. Inferior authorities, such as PCCs, local authorities, or dare I say it, the Scottish Parliament, may be elected, but they may only exercise the powers conferred on them by law. It is the duty of the courts to ensure that they do so.
Law versus realpolitik -- Boris effectively sacked the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police.
Mr. L, to be fair, the idiot Blair had openly supported Labour Party policy ahead of the 2005 (I think) election. That's hardly the act of a neutral public servant.
Law versus realpolitik -- Boris effectively sacked the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police.
That was entirely a matter for the then Commissioner. He could not then, and cannot now be either appointed or removed without the consent of the Secretary of State for the Home Department (see the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, ss. 42 & 48).
O/T you can still get 250/1 on Southampton for the Premier title. This is half the 500/1 I mentioned a fortnight ago but they are in second place only 4 points behind Chelsea and Ronald Koeman is doing a fine job.
I'm not saying that either of these will happen, but that they still represent value bets.
No they don't, but they do offer a trading opportunity.
Southampton's next three games are away to Hull and Villa and home to Leicester. Presuming they do well in those games I would suggest that anyone who backs them should trade out. They have only played two so called decent teams, Spurs and Liverpool away, and lost them both.
After the Villa game in the space of six weeks they face Arsenal twice, Utd twice, Man City, Chelsea and Everton, though the last three are all at home.
Their defence has done really well and they had great results at West Ham and Swansea, and obviously the eye catching 8-0 against Sunderland, but they won't be in the top four by the middle of January.
I suppose the scenario I am groping towards is one in which a PCC is elected (and if needs be, re-elected) on a clear platform of destroying police independence but on a low turn-out (say 10%).
But perhaps I am straining at a gnat having swallowed a camel. I have - and I don't suppose anyone else here has - not the slightest evidence that judicial review commands popular support.
If the public are foolish enough to elect such a candidate, with all the costly and wasteful litigation that his return would generate, that is a matter that should be taken up with the public! Judicial review has nothing whatever to do with the popularity of a measure, and nor should it. The function of the courts is to apply and to construe the enactments passed by Parliament. Inferior authorities, such as PCCs, local authorities, or dare I say it, the Scottish Parliament, may be elected, but they may only exercise the powers conferred on them by law. It is the duty of the courts to ensure that they do so.
Judicial review has plenty to do with elected officials acting lawfully and intra vires - not outside the scope of their powers.
This whole thread assumes that everyone votes tactically, and that everyone votes tactically in a PCC election with an eye not on that election but a different election the following year. In fact most people vote for the result they want, in the election they are voting in. Furthermore if there is tactical voting in this instance surely more of it is going to be "anything but Labour, after Rotherham, in this particular case, and sod the GE".
On an only slightly related point, any polling trying to identify potential tactical voting faces the paradox: if a voter is so devilishly sophisticated that he TVs, why would he not also be clever enough to tactically answer opinion pollsters? So if you are firmly blue but want to nudge Dave right, you say UKIP, if you are in an ultra-marginal and think your blue incumbent is a lazy slob you say LD. Why would you not?
The Lord polleth the marginals, and the Lord tweeteth the results. Blessed be the name of the Lord. It's his money. But we do hear an awful lot about his findings 3 months ago in the 11th tightest LD Con marginal in the North East and I am not sure it tells us any more than our resident yougov-baxterer does.
Spot on. However accurate Ashcroft's polls may or may not be they mostly pre-date more recent general poll changes - yet they are revered on here like they are the Ten Commandments - yet even he tweeted the other day something about polls being snapshots and not predictions.
Law versus realpolitik -- Boris effectively sacked the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police.
That was entirely a matter for the then Commissioner. He could not then, and cannot now be either appointed or removed without the consent of the Secretary of State for the Home Department (see the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, ss. 42 & 48).
While techincally true, in reality it would be extremely easy for a London Mayor to undermine a Met Commissioner to such an extent that his position became untenable, simply by publicly voicing criticism of his or her (maybe, one day), actions or priorities; acting as the voice of the public rather than that of authority, which is in many ways a definition of the theoretical respective roles.
Judicial review has plenty to do with elected officials acting lawfully and intra vires - not outside the scope of their powers.
That was the state of the law before Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147 which abolished (for most purposes) the distinction between errors of law within and without jurisdiction. An act that is procedurally unfair or Wednesbury unreasonable is both ultra vires the powers of the decision maker and unlawful, notwithstanding prima facie legality. Acts of the Scottish Parliament are exceptional in this regard, however, for the reasons stated by Lord Hope of Craighead DPSC in Re AXA General Insurance Ltd [2012] 1 AC 868.
This whole thread assumes that everyone votes tactically, and that everyone votes tactically in a PCC election with an eye not on that election but a different election the following year. In fact most people vote for the result they want, in the election they are voting in. Furthermore if there is tactical voting in this instance surely more of it is going to be "anything but Labour, after Rotherham, in this particular case, and sod the GE".
On an only slightly related point, any polling trying to identify potential tactical voting faces the paradox: if a voter is so devilishly sophisticated that he TVs, why would he not also be clever enough to tactically answer opinion pollsters? So if you are firmly blue but want to nudge Dave right, you say UKIP, if you are in an ultra-marginal and think your blue incumbent is a lazy slob you say LD. Why would you not?
The Lord polleth the marginals, and the Lord tweeteth the results. Blessed be the name of the Lord. It's his money. But we do hear an awful lot about his findings 3 months ago in the 11th tightest LD Con marginal in the North East and I am not sure it tells us any more than our resident yougov-baxterer does.
Yes exactly.
It is a minor bugbear of mine (I have others) that people presume the electorate, a huge majority of whom would be pushed to name their own MP, somehow develop this (as you acutely name it) fiendish sophistication when it comes to polls such that they are not only aware of who they want to vote for, but are aware also of those in second and third place, the difference in votes between them all and that they have the confidence that by not voting for whom they want they won't somehow be making a huge error.
And no one has yet adequately explained or given me an example of how a tactical voting campaign is conducted.
On topic. Speaking as one Blue voter (though not one who has a vote in the election - just), I've no interest in playing silly tactical games. Labour in S Yorks needs an almighty kick up the backside. I'd be voting Con 1st, UKIP 2nd.
You should discuss this with your colleague TSE - he hates UKIP so much he'd rather Labour wins, knowing full well what the human consequences would be.
To those attacking me for using Lord A's polls what else do you suggest that is anything like comparable?
If you don't like reading what is produced then tough sh**. Go find some other site.
In terms of the scale and the approach there is nothing that gets near the marginals single seat surveys. Yes all poll are snapshots but that's what we need.
I promise you are going to get a lot more whatever they are saying.
On topic. Speaking as one Blue voter (though not one who has a vote in the election - just), I've no interest in playing silly tactical games. Labour in S Yorks needs an almighty kick up the backside. I'd be voting Con 1st, UKIP 2nd.
You should discuss this with your colleague TSE - he hates UKIP so much he'd rather Labour wins, knowing full well what the human consequences would be.
I'm aware of that. He is allowed a different view - it's supposed to be a free country and a democracy, after all.
Judicial review has plenty to do with elected officials acting lawfully and intra vires - not outside the scope of their powers.
That was the state of the law before Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147 which abolished (for most purposes) the distinction between errors of law within and without jurisdiction. An act that is procedurally unfair or Wednesbury unreasonable is both ultra vires the powers of the decision maker and unlawful, notwithstanding prima facie legality. Acts of the Scottish Parliament are exceptional in this regard, however, for the reasons stated by Lord Hope of Craighead DPSC in Re AXA General Insurance Ltd [2012] 1 AC 868.
I think your jurisprudence is a bit micro-focused. A PCC elected on the platform proposed, and trying to implement his proposals, would be nobbled by judicial review one way or another.
Well there might be 'big benefits' for people in Leeds if they do a lot of rail travel to other cities in 20+ years and its paid for on an expenses account.
But that's rather a small proportion of Yorkshire people.
This government's obsession with big cities is another example of the PPEocrachy mentality.
A few billion spent on higher speed broadband would bring a lot more benefit to a lot more people and a lot quicker.
What is this 'expenses account' comment you use against any high-speed rail project?
High-speed broadband is to be welcomed, but until we can teleport, it is no replacement for travel.
Hint: look at the rise of the Internet over the last twenty years, and look how rail travel has doubled in that same period. The Internet is doing nothing to stop people needing to travel, and the vast majority of jobs cannot be done remotely. Skype is no replacement for meeting people face-to-face.
People will find it easier to justify the higher expense for HS2 tickets compared to standard rail journeys if its someone else - their employer, the taxpayers - paying rather than themselves.
And I know how much time I would say everyday, at home and at work, with faster internet connection. Its a lot more than I would save from using HS2 in 20+ years.
O/T you can still get 250/1 on Southampton for the Premier title. This is half the 500/1 I mentioned a fortnight ago but they are in second place only 4 points behind Chelsea and Ronald Koeman is doing a fine job.
I'm not saying that either of these will happen, but that they still represent value bets.
No they don't, but they do offer a trading opportunity.
Southampton's next three games are away to Hull and Villa and home to Leicester. Presuming they do well in those games I would suggest that anyone who backs them should trade out. They have only played two so called decent teams, Spurs and Liverpool away, and lost them both.
After the Villa game in the space of six weeks they face Arsenal twice, Utd twice, Man City, Chelsea and Everton, though the last three are all at home.
Their defence has done really well and they had great results at West Ham and Swansea, and obviously the eye catching 8-0 against Sunderland, but they won't be in the top four by the middle of January.
You prepared to give odds on Saints still being top 4 on Jan 15th?
This whole thread assumes that everyone votes tactically, and that everyone votes tactically in a PCC election with an eye not on that election but a different election the following year. In fact most people vote for the result they want, in the election they are voting in. Furthermore if there is tactical voting in this instance surely more of it is going to be "anything but Labour, after Rotherham, in this particular case, and sod the GE".
On an only slightly related point, any polling trying to identify potential tactical voting faces the paradox: if a voter is so devilishly sophisticated that he TVs, why would he not also be clever enough to tactically answer opinion pollsters? So if you are firmly blue but want to nudge Dave right, you say UKIP, if you are in an ultra-marginal and think your blue incumbent is a lazy slob you say LD. Why would you not?
The Lord polleth the marginals, and the Lord tweeteth the results. Blessed be the name of the Lord. It's his money. But we do hear an awful lot about his findings 3 months ago in the 11th tightest LD Con marginal in the North East and I am not sure it tells us any more than our resident yougov-baxterer does.
Yes exactly.
It is a minor bugbear of mine (I have others) that people presume the electorate, a huge majority of whom would be pushed to name their own MP, somehow develop this (as you acutely name it) fiendish sophistication when it comes to polls such that they are not only aware of who they want to vote for, but are aware also of those in second and third place, the difference in votes between them all and that they have the confidence that by not voting for whom they want they won't somehow be making a huge error.
And no one has yet adequately explained or given me an example of how a tactical voting campaign is conducted.
Conducted via Bar Charts.
Where a VI poll uses a panel there is scope for the politically active and acute to enrol in the hope of causing the poll to be favourable to the viewpoint they espouse.
Incidentally, the time saved on the so-called HS3 line between Manchester and Leeds would reportedly be 30 minutes (so, if you commuted from one city to the other every day [unlikely, but as an example]) that'd save an hour a day, or over 200 hours a year.
That's more time saved than between Birmingham and London with HS2.
However, London is larger than the other three cities combined. On the other hand, there's a large gap between north and south, economically, so the cheaper cost (circa £4.5bn), greater time saving and likely higher popularity of HS3 perhaps suggests we should do that first.
This whole thread assumes that everyone votes tactically, and that everyone votes tactically in a PCC election with an eye not on that election but a different election the following year. In fact most people vote for the result they want, in the election they are voting in. Furthermore if there is tactical voting in this instance surely more of it is going to be "anything but Labour, after Rotherham, in this particular case, and sod the GE".
On an only slightly related point, any polling trying to identify potential tactical voting faces the paradox: if a voter is so devilishly sophisticated that he TVs, why would he not also be clever enough to tactically answer opinion pollsters? So if you are firmly blue but want to nudge Dave right, you say UKIP, if you are in an ultra-marginal and think your blue incumbent is a lazy slob you say LD. Why would you not?
The Lord polleth the marginals, and the Lord tweeteth the results. Blessed be the name of the Lord. It's his money. But we do hear an awful lot about his findings 3 months ago in the 11th tightest LD Con marginal in the North East and I am not sure it tells us any more than our resident yougov-baxterer does.
Yes exactly.
It is a minor bugbear of mine (I have others) that people presume the electorate, a huge majority of whom would be pushed to name their own MP, somehow develop this (as you acutely name it) fiendish sophistication when it comes to polls such that they are not only aware of who they want to vote for, but are aware also of those in second and third place, the difference in votes between them all and that they have the confidence that by not voting for whom they want they won't somehow be making a huge error.
And no one has yet adequately explained or given me an example of how a tactical voting campaign is conducted.
Conducted via Bar Charts.
Where a VI poll uses a panel there is scope for the politically active and acute to enrol in the hope of causing the poll to be favourable to the viewpoint they espouse.
I'm sure the politically active and astute (= 0.000215% of the population) do all kinds of things, probably cancelling each other out.
The central point remains: at a GE or by-election how do you conduct a tactical voting campaign? You can't formally advise people to:
1) not vote for your own party; or 2) vote for a party other than your own.
To those attacking me for using Lord A's polls what else do you suggest that is anything like comparable?
If you don't like reading what is produced then tough sh**. Go find some other site.
In terms of the scale and the approach there is nothing that gets near the marginals single seat surveys. Yes all poll are snapshots but that's what we need.
I promise you are going to get a lot more whatever they are saying.
Don't "not like them", not attacking you. Just saying that they are part of a much bigger picture, and that in my incredibly respectful submission treating the PCC election purely as a proxy for or preliminary skirmish in GE15 also represents a skewed sense of proportion.
Well there might be 'big benefits' for people in Leeds if they do a lot of rail travel to other cities in 20+ years and its paid for on an expenses account.
But that's rather a small proportion of Yorkshire people.
This government's obsession with big cities is another example of the PPEocrachy mentality.
A few billion spent on higher speed broadband would bring a lot more benefit to a lot more people and a lot quicker.
What is this 'expenses account' comment you use against any high-speed rail project?
High-speed broadband is to be welcomed, but until we can teleport, it is no replacement for travel.
Hint: look at the rise of the Internet over the last twenty years, and look how rail travel has doubled in that same period. The Internet is doing nothing to stop people needing to travel, and the vast majority of jobs cannot be done remotely. Skype is no replacement for meeting people face-to-face.
People will find it easier to justify the higher expense for HS2 tickets compared to standard rail journeys if its someone else - their employer, the taxpayers - paying rather than themselves.
And I know how much time I would say everyday, at home and at work, with faster internet connection. Its a lot more than I would save from using HS2 in 20+ years.
I'm sorry, I didn't realise we had to plan the country's infrastructure based on whether they'd advantage you personally or not.
You do not seem to understand the concept of capacity. Without extra capacity, ticket prices will increase anyway as more trains are pushed onto increasingly overloaded lines, and people are willing to pay more to get onto them. We are already seeing this.
In terms of a GE guide isn't the indicator who comes top on the first round of votes on Thursday? The transfers will be interesting (and it's hard to see why most Tories would not put UKIP second, or most Labour voters for that matter), but they will not tell us much about next year - especially with what is bound to be a very low turnout.
Incidentally, the time saved on the so-called HS3 line between Manchester and Leeds would reportedly be 30 minutes (so, if you commuted from one city to the other every day [unlikely, but as an example]) that'd save an hour a day, or over 200 hours a year.
That's more time saved than between Birmingham and London with HS2.
However, London is larger than the other three cities combined. On the other hand, there's a large gap between north and south, economically, so the cheaper cost (circa £4.5bn), greater time saving and likely higher popularity of HS3 perhaps suggests we should do that first.
It will take five or six years just to get initial plans for any new lines out, and then another five or six - minimum - to get it through parliament and the planning process. At least, if it is to have meaningful new lines - easier measures such as electrification, which is already being implemented, will be easier.
But once these easy things are done, future enhancements get increasingly more expensive.
If I had a vote, it would be Con 1, UKIP 2. I think the positives of UKIP winning, a kick in the groin for Ed and the shenanigans of a highly visible kipper, far outweigh the downside.
This whole thread assumes that everyone votes tactically, and that everyone votes tactically in a PCC election with an eye not on that election but a different election the following year. In fact most people vote for the result they want, in the election they are voting in. Furthermore if there is tactical voting in this instance surely more of it is going to be "anything but Labour, after Rotherham, in this particular case, and sod the GE".
On an only slightly related point, any polling trying to identify potential tactical voting faces the paradox: if a voter is so devilishly sophisticated that he TVs, why would he not also be clever enough to tactically answer opinion pollsters? So if you are firmly blue but want to nudge Dave right, you say UKIP, if you are in an ultra-marginal and think your blue incumbent is a lazy slob you say LD. Why would you not?
The Lord polleth the marginals, and the Lord tweeteth the results. Blessed be the name of the Lord. It's his money. But we do hear an awful lot about his findings 3 months ago in the 11th tightest LD Con marginal in the North East and I am not sure it tells us any more than our resident yougov-baxterer does.
Yes exactly.
It is a minor bugbear of mine (I have others) that people presume the electorate, a huge majority of whom would be pushed to name their own MP, somehow develop this (as you acutely name it) fiendish sophistication when it comes to polls such that they are not only aware of who they want to vote for, but are aware also of those in second and third place, the difference in votes between them all and that they have the confidence that by not voting for whom they want they won't somehow be making a huge error.
And no one has yet adequately explained or given me an example of how a tactical voting campaign is conducted.
Conducted via Bar Charts.
Where a VI poll uses a panel there is scope for the politically active and acute to enrol in the hope of causing the poll to be favourable to the viewpoint they espouse.
I'm sure the politically active and astute (= 0.000215% of the population) do all kinds of things, probably cancelling each other out.
The central point remains: at a GE or by-election how do you conduct a tactical voting campaign? You can't formally advise people to:
1) not vote for your own party; or 2) vote for a party other than your own.
Reading the thread, I don't see anyone attacking you. I hesitate to suggest it of someone who is your venerable age, but you may just be a tad sensitive this morning.
A great site, enlivened by the occasional dispute.
This whole thread assumes that everyone votes tactically, and that everyone votes tactically in a PCC election with an eye not on that election but a different election the following year. In fact most people vote for the result they want, in the election they are voting in. Furthermore if there is tactical voting in this instance surely more of it is going to be "anything but Labour, after Rotherham, in this particular case, and sod the GE".
On an only slightly related point, any polling trying to identify potential tactical voting faces the paradox: if a voter is so devilishly sophisticated that he TVs, why would he not also be clever enough to tactically answer opinion pollsters? So if you are firmly blue but want to nudge Dave right, you say UKIP, if you are in an ultra-marginal and think your blue incumbent is a lazy slob you say LD. Why would you not?
The Lord polleth the marginals, and the Lord tweeteth the results. Blessed be the name of the Lord. It's his money. But we do hear an awful lot about his findings 3 months ago in the 11th tightest LD Con marginal in the North East and I am not sure it tells us any more than our resident yougov-baxterer does.
Yes exactly.
It is a minor bugbear of mine (I have others) that people presume the electorate, a huge majority of whom would be pushed to name their own MP, somehow develop this (as you acutely name it) fiendish sophistication when it comes to polls such that they are not only aware of who they want to vote for, but are aware also of those in second and third place, the difference in votes between them all and that they have the confidence that by not voting for whom they want they won't somehow be making a huge error.
And no one has yet adequately explained or given me an example of how a tactical voting campaign is conducted.
Conducted via Bar Charts.
Where a VI poll uses a panel there is scope for the politically active and acute to enrol in the hope of causing the poll to be favourable to the viewpoint they espouse.
I'm sure the politically active and astute (= 0.000215% of the population) do all kinds of things, probably cancelling each other out.
The central point remains: at a GE or by-election how do you conduct a tactical voting campaign? You can't formally advise people to:
1) not vote for your own party; or 2) vote for a party other than your own.
Well there might be 'big benefits' for people in Leeds if they do a lot of rail travel to other cities in 20+ years and its paid for on an expenses account.
But that's rather a small proportion of Yorkshire people.
This government's obsession with big cities is another example of the PPEocrachy mentality.
A few billion spent on higher speed broadband would bring a lot more benefit to a lot more people and a lot quicker.
What is this 'expenses account' comment you use against any high-speed rail project?
High-speed broadband is to be welcomed, but until we can teleport, it is no replacement for travel.
Hint: look at the rise of the Internet over the last twenty years, and look how rail travel has doubled in that same period. The Internet is doing nothing to stop people needing to travel, and the vast majority of jobs cannot be done remotely. Skype is no replacement for meeting people face-to-face.
"Well there might be 'big benefits' for people in Leeds if they do a lot of rail travel to other cities in 20+ years and its paid for on an expenses account."
They'll be northern Tories. My guess for this announcement would be to try and sure up the West Yorkshire marginal crucial Tory vote in places like Elmet, Pudsey, Dewsbury whilst the more working class Labour vote splits off to UKIP...........
I'[d guess Labour would go for HS3 too but the Cons got there first and are in Gov't so can "own" the announcement more.
There is very large support for HS2 amongst northern, Labour, councils, who see it as a way of aiding redevelopment and attracting business. Labour are pressed between supporting those councils and attempting to differentiate themselves from the Conservatives, especially in the south.
HS3 is a very different beast. In fact, I doubt the final plans would warrant the 'hs' prefix in the same way HS1 and 2 did. It's more likely to be a series of route speed-ups, akin to EGIP in Scotland, with perhaps new tunnelling under the Pennines. But anyone who has travelled on rails up north knows it is needed.
Carlotta Vance [6.22am] At least one of the candidates is proposing to interfere in operational matters which IIRC the PCC's are specifically prevented from doing.
It's inevitable that sooner or later a PCC will be elected on an "interfering" platform (possibly on a poll of as little as 10%) and this will lead to a head-on clash with the Chief Constable. Would such a clash be good for democracy, the prevention and detection of crime or anything else (other, of course, than the ego of the PCC in question)?
I look forward to the tory Peebies' explanation of why PCCs are needed nowadays when they weren't necessary in Thatcher or Major's time.
In Thatcher's and Major's time the police were generally well respected and trusted. There were exceptions, such as miners who felt they had been set upon and of course Liverpool but as a whole they were.
It is tragic how that trust has been undermined and destroyed by forces that have been increasingly politicised, found to be systematically dishonest and institutionally incompetent. The police can only work with the consent of the governed. The PCCs are an attempt to reintroduce that consent and trust. Not a very successful one so far but worth a try. A police force that is only accountable to itself is no longer acceptable. That is the modern world.
Bah, the trust in the police (and politicians, and the BBC, and all the other institutions) is undermined by people having better information about what they really get up to.
This is a good thing. What they really get up to turns out to consist of whatever they can get away with, and the less we trust them the less that is.
Speaking of which, this is the person responsible for authorizing intercepting your email in situations where that requires authorizing (nobody will say what situations those would be) showing he hasn't got the faintest idea what he's signing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1PNttDlois&feature=youtu.be
On topic, I'm glad I don't have a vote in this election. I don't know what I'd do. I'd find it difficult either to vote for a party of the status quo or for a party that preys on the fears of one set of the public by picking on another set of the public. I'd also find it difficult to abstain, given the obvious need for radical reform of South Yorkshire police.
Anyone come across this (I do not use Facebook and that ilk).
Started in 2011 by former BNP members Paul Golding and Jim Dowson, Britain First describes itself as “a patriotic political party and street defence organisation”.
The group has amassed almost 500,000 likes on Facebook compared to the Conservatives on 293,000, Labour with 190,000 and the Liberal Democrats’ 104,000. This popularity has led to questions about how the group has managed to gain so many likes when its offline activities seem to draw few supporters in comparison.
“My first reaction upon hearing the news was one of bitter disappointment,” said the pro-independence blogger James Kelly. “Ms Lamont has been an absolutely dreadful leader.
“If only she had stayed in harness for 18 more months, it would have been a racing certainty that Labour would have suffered a third successive defeat in a Holyrood election.”
On topic, I'm glad I don't have a vote in this election. I don't know what I'd do. I'd find it difficult either to vote for a party of the status quo or for a party that preys on the fears of one set of the public by picking on another set of the public. I'd also find it difficult to abstain, given the obvious need for radical reform of South Yorkshire police.
Would a vote for UKIP actually bring about radical reform of SYP though ?
Knowing your politics I appreciate your dilemma. I guess you could just vote Conservative perhaps ?
Anyone come across this (I do not use Facebook and that ilk).
Started in 2011 by former BNP members Paul Golding and Jim Dowson, Britain First describes itself as “a patriotic political party and street defence organisation”.
The group has amassed almost 500,000 likes on Facebook compared to the Conservatives on 293,000, Labour with 190,000 and the Liberal Democrats’ 104,000. This popularity has led to questions about how the group has managed to gain so many likes when its offline activities seem to draw few supporters in comparison.
In theory voting here is a ghastly moral dilemma. Labour is a morally incompetent party that does nothing but evil; UKIP is a morally incompetent party that aspires to do nothing but evil. Neither should really be allowed anywhere near public life, or even to exist, frankly.
The ethical thing to do is therefore to abstain, to send the message that the winner has no authority in any mandate.
With that said, these elections like the euros are utterly, utterly, utterly without point, in that nobody elected by them has ever been observed to achieve anything whatsoever for their constituents. Those who stand do so because they want the expenses, somewhere to go during the day, and an important-sounding job to boast about to prostitutes.
So the fun strategy for a Tory is probably to vote UKIP. This will mislead UKIP into thinking it can win some of these seats, and the arseclowns will therefore misallocate resources campaigning in these seats rather than wholly in those where it counts. On election day 2015, as Farage soars in his taxpayer-funded plane over Rotherham imagining he is a man of the people, the election will be won or lost elsewhere.
As far as the actual result goes, though, who gives a stuff. These clods return Labour politicians every time, even though those politicians have apparently abetted paedophiles. If that's not enough to cure you of voting Labour you aren't really a complete human being and there's really nothing to say.
"As you can see, most seats are treated as longshots for the SNP. If I am right, the SNP can not just hope but expect to take many of these seats in the event of a Yes vote.
The last traded bet on Betfair placed a probability of a Yes vote at 9/2. I would far prefer to back the SNP in constituencies such as Glasgow East, Edinburgh North & Leith and Dunbartonshire East at odds of anything up to 50/1."
On topic, I'm glad I don't have a vote in this election. I don't know what I'd do. I'd find it difficult either to vote for a party of the status quo or for a party that preys on the fears of one set of the public by picking on another set of the public. I'd also find it difficult to abstain, given the obvious need for radical reform of South Yorkshire police.
Which is in no small part down to the refusal of the Lib Dems and/or Greens and/or other party of the socially liberal left which isn't deeply implicated by the S Yorks political machine, to stand.
Yes, the question of the £5k deposit is no small matter and campaigning to 1m or so people isn't without cost either, if leaflets etc are to be produced, but their opting out has left a substantial section of the electorate with nowhere to go other than to turn right or to endorse the status quo.
On topic, I'm glad I don't have a vote in this election. I don't know what I'd do. I'd find it difficult either to vote for a party of the status quo or for a party that preys on the fears of one set of the public by picking on another set of the public. I'd also find it difficult to abstain, given the obvious need for radical reform of South Yorkshire police.
Which is in no small part down to the refusal of the Lib Dems and/or Greens and/or other party of the socially liberal left which isn't deeply implicated by the S Yorks political machine, to stand.
Yes, the question of the £5k deposit is no small matter and campaigning to 1m or so people isn't without cost either, if leaflets etc are to be produced, but their opting out has left a substantial section of the electorate with nowhere to go other than to turn right or to endorse the status quo.
Personally I am having trouble connecting the dots of "difficult to abstain" and "the obvious need for radical reform of South Yorkshire police". Whether or not one can raise the £5k or be arsed to campaign, what in the role that's being voted on empowers the winner to do anything except huff and puff?
In theory voting here is a ghastly moral dilemma. Labour is a morally incompetent party that does nothing but evil; UKIP is a morally incompetent party that aspires to do nothing but evil. Neither should really be allowed anywhere near public life, or even to exist, frankly.
The ethical thing to do is therefore to abstain, to send the message that the winner has no authority in any mandate.
With that said, these elections like the euros are utterly, utterly, utterly without point, in that nobody elected by them has ever been observed to achieve anything whatsoever for their constituents. Those who stand do so because they want the expenses, somewhere to go during the day, and an important-sounding job to boast about to prostitutes.
So the fun strategy for a Tory is probably to vote UKIP. This will mislead UKIP into thinking it can win some of these seats, and the arseclowns will therefore misallocate resources campaigning in these seats rather than wholly in those where it counts. On election day 2015, as Farage soars in his taxpayer-funded plane over Rotherham imagining he is a man of the people, the election will be won or lost elsewhere.
As far as the actual result goes, though, who gives a stuff. These clods return Labour politicians every time, even though those politicians have apparently abetted paedophiles. If that's not enough to cure you of voting Labour you aren't really a complete human being and there's really nothing to say.
Finally! A Tory here admits that their political opponents should be criminalised. Or perhaps hunted down with guns and dogs...
On topic, I'm glad I don't have a vote in this election. I don't know what I'd do. I'd find it difficult either to vote for a party of the status quo or for a party that preys on the fears of one set of the public by picking on another set of the public. I'd also find it difficult to abstain, given the obvious need for radical reform of South Yorkshire police.
Which is in no small part down to the refusal of the Lib Dems and/or Greens and/or other party of the socially liberal left which isn't deeply implicated by the S Yorks political machine, to stand.
Yes, the question of the £5k deposit is no small matter and campaigning to 1m or so people isn't without cost either, if leaflets etc are to be produced, but their opting out has left a substantial section of the electorate with nowhere to go other than to turn right or to endorse the status quo.
If we are going to have elected Police Commissioners then I'd rather people were banned from standing under a party banner. Have people stand as individuals and on their policies.
Anyone come across this (I do not use Facebook and that ilk).
Started in 2011 by former BNP members Paul Golding and Jim Dowson, Britain First describes itself as “a patriotic political party and street defence organisation”.
The group has amassed almost 500,000 likes on Facebook compared to the Conservatives on 293,000, Labour with 190,000 and the Liberal Democrats’ 104,000. This popularity has led to questions about how the group has managed to gain so many likes when its offline activities seem to draw few supporters in comparison.
Yep. I and many of my friends from across the political spectrum have been actively campaigning against Britain First on social media. I know that sounds a bit daft but given that Social media is where they are making their inroads it seems to be the best place to fight them. There are various organisations set up to expose them as they have a very nasty habit of using worthy causes (often simply lifting wholesale from other organisations) to gain support and money for themselves. If you can point out to people who they really are then most will run a mile from them.
They will generally run with a very worthy cause - veterans support, poppy campaigns and animal charities are their favorites - and then use those as a front to gain social media support.
I notice they also have a candidate standing at R&S.
O/T you can still get 250/1 on Southampton for the Premier title. This is half the 500/1 I mentioned a fortnight ago but they are in second place only 4 points behind Chelsea and Ronald Koeman is doing a fine job.
I'm not saying that either of these will happen, but that they still represent value bets.
No they don't, but they do offer a trading opportunity.
Southampton's next three games are away to Hull and Villa and home to Leicester. Presuming they do well in those games I would suggest that anyone who backs them should trade out. They have only played two so called decent teams, Spurs and Liverpool away, and lost them both.
After the Villa game in the space of six weeks they face Arsenal twice, Utd twice, Man City, Chelsea and Everton, though the last three are all at home.
Their defence has done really well and they had great results at West Ham and Swansea, and obviously the eye catching 8-0 against Sunderland, but they won't be in the top four by the middle of January.
You prepared to give odds on Saints still being top 4 on Jan 15th?
Not sure how to price it and no markets around to give us a guide, any suggestions?
They are currently five points clear of Arsenal in fifth with a vastly superior goal difference, if I am betting they won't be in the top four on Jan 15th I will want at least 3/1.
"The Conservative party interest here is to stop UKIP even if that means a LAB win."
Top trolling by Mike - don't be silly - stopping Labour is in the national interest.
Agree or not, being in the national interest isn't the same thing as being in the Conservative Party's interest.
That said, as far as the Conservative Party's interests go I think the discomfort for Labour is worth the cost of feeding the Tories' competitor, because Labour people will take it as a cue to bitch passive-aggressively about their leadership and that'll cost Labour votes.
On topic, I'm glad I don't have a vote in this election. I don't know what I'd do. I'd find it difficult either to vote for a party of the status quo or for a party that preys on the fears of one set of the public by picking on another set of the public. I'd also find it difficult to abstain, given the obvious need for radical reform of South Yorkshire police.
Which is in no small part down to the refusal of the Lib Dems and/or Greens and/or other party of the socially liberal left which isn't deeply implicated by the S Yorks political machine, to stand.
Yes, the question of the £5k deposit is no small matter and campaigning to 1m or so people isn't without cost either, if leaflets etc are to be produced, but their opting out has left a substantial section of the electorate with nowhere to go other than to turn right or to endorse the status quo.
Personally I am having trouble connecting the dots of "difficult to abstain" and "the obvious need for radical reform of South Yorkshire police". Whether or not one can raise the £5k or be arsed to campaign, what in the role that's being voted on empowers the winner to do anything except huff and puff?
They can, and in this case, probably should, sack the Chief Constable and appoint a new one. In choosing a new one, one of the main appointment creteria should be the willingness and capacity to institute such a radical reform of the Service.
"The Conservative party interest here is to stop UKIP even if that means a LAB win."
Top trolling by Mike - don't be silly - stopping Labour is in the national interest.
So why is it in the national interest for Labour to be legal? Is Bond_JamesBond right or wrong in your view? (I know it's a lot to ask on a Monday morning, but reasons would also be nice, whichever way you go...)
@jamesmatthewsky: BREAKING. Sky sources: Scottish Labour dep leader Anas Sarwar will NOT stand for Scottish party leadership
Has to be Jim Murphy, wonder if he will stand down from East Renfrewshire at the GE to contest a Holyrood seat.
I met Anas Sarwar during the referendum campaign and he spent a while speaking to my mother in law. Nice man, very nice suit, not a lot going on upstairs. Nothing like as heavy weight as his dad was.
"This is how one Labour politician put it to me: “When I go to the pub in some of our northern heartlands, the debate is now mainly between UKIP and the EDL. We are barely in it.”
MSM catches up with what I've been saying here for a while now. If Labour wants to become relevant, the quota it needs of candidates who left full-time education at 16. But of course none of its existing MPs would have anything in common with them, would they?
Mr. L, to be fair, the idiot Blair had openly supported Labour Party policy ahead of the 2005 (I think) election. That's hardly the act of a neutral public servant.
As expected the highest turnout was in Lviv and Ternopol with 70% and 68% turnout, the lowest were in Kharkiv, Odessa, and govt-controlled areas of Lugansk and Donetsk with reported turnouts of 45%, 39%, 33%, and 31% respectively.
In the latter areas some of that turnout will be Western Ukrainian troops stationed in the area to deal with any potential uprising and a fair number will be spoiled ballots that are still included in the turnout figures. Indeed the overwhelming majority of invalid votes come from Eastern Ukraine.
"This is how one Labour politician put it to me: “When I go to the pub in some of our northern heartlands, the debate is now mainly between UKIP and the EDL. We are barely in it.”
MSM catches up with what I've been saying here for a while now. If Labour wants to become relevant, the quota it needs of candidates who left full-time education at 16. But of course none of its existing MPs would have anything in common with them, would they?
Who says they need them? These guys would win a dozen seats in marginal Northern constituencies (which are the only seats that really matter for this analysis), bash immigrants a bit, and lose Labour another dozen seats in London. Generally, making your party more unskilled is also not a recipe for success. They are struggling to connect with the public as it is. Put most normal people on TV and they would be thought of as incoherent; ironically, authenticity like Farage/Boris is a kind of very good acting.
Not sure how to price it and no markets around to give us a guide, any suggestions?
They are currently five points clear of Arsenal in fifth with a vastly superior goal difference, if I am betting they won't be in the top four on Jan 15th I will want at least 3/1.
You want 3/1?!?!?!
So "they won't be in the top four by the middle of January" means "I think there's a 75% chance they will be in the top four by the middle of January"?
If something "won't" happen, that's surely got to at least mean that it's highly unlikely (if you're speaking English)...
Even if you were offering me 3/1, that would be fair odds for two heads from two coin tosses, not fair odds for something that "won't" happen
"The Conservative party interest here is to stop UKIP even if that means a LAB win."
Top trolling by Mike - don't be silly - stopping Labour is in the national interest.
So why is it in the national interest for Labour to be legal? Is Bond_JamesBond right or wrong in your view? (I know it's a lot to ask on a Monday morning, but reasons would also be nice, whichever way you go...)
Why do you want to ban Labour ? They are doing a good job of staying out of power all by themselves.
Sad to see. Yet not entirely unexpected. Many have complained for years of just how unfairly money is doled out and that many teams were in financial trouble.
Mr. Jimmy, I can confirm that he doesn't dress the part.
And the slur you mentioned is beyond the pale. UKIP is sometimes unfairly attacked as if its views are not valid or permitted, but the reverse happens as well. Not voting for UKIP does not equate to voting for child rape to continue.
Mr. Eagles is a top chap, ignorance of classical history left to one side.
The good people should concentrate on whichever candidate will be able to sort out the sordid mess that is South Yorkshire policing, whether that be UKIP, Con or ED.
Fair point, but surely not Labour given all that has gone before.
Not sure how to price it and no markets around to give us a guide, any suggestions?
They are currently five points clear of Arsenal in fifth with a vastly superior goal difference, if I am betting they won't be in the top four on Jan 15th I will want at least 3/1.
You want 3/1?!?!?!
So "they won't be in the top four by the middle of January" means "I think there's a 75% chance they will be in the top four by the middle of January"?
If something "won't" happen, that's surely got to at least mean that it's highly unlikely (if you're speaking English)...
Even if you were offering me 3/1, that would be fair odds for two heads from two coin tosses, not fair odds for something that "won't" happen
Just pushing my luck!!
I don't think they will be in the top four after that run of games, though as I said the City, Chelsea and Everton games are at home.
On topic, I'm glad I don't have a vote in this election. I don't know what I'd do. I'd find it difficult either to vote for a party of the status quo or for a party that preys on the fears of one set of the public by picking on another set of the public. I'd also find it difficult to abstain, given the obvious need for radical reform of South Yorkshire police.
Which is in no small part down to the refusal of the Lib Dems and/or Greens and/or other party of the socially liberal left which isn't deeply implicated by the S Yorks political machine, to stand.
Yes, the question of the £5k deposit is no small matter and campaigning to 1m or so people isn't without cost either, if leaflets etc are to be produced, but their opting out has left a substantial section of the electorate with nowhere to go other than to turn right or to endorse the status quo.
If we are going to have elected Police Commissioners then I'd rather people were banned from standing under a party banner. Have people stand as individuals and on their policies.
There's plenty of evidence from the 2012 elections that people vote for individuals and policies anyway, rather than just parties (as with mayoralities too). That said, I don't think that banning a party description would add to the democratic process. Party nominees would still be put forward and campaigned for as such and whether that description was on the ballot paper or not would make little difference to the outcome.
Not sure how to price it and no markets around to give us a guide, any suggestions?
They are currently five points clear of Arsenal in fifth with a vastly superior goal difference, if I am betting they won't be in the top four on Jan 15th I will want at least 3/1.
You want 3/1?!?!?!
So "they won't be in the top four by the middle of January" means "I think there's a 75% chance they will be in the top four by the middle of January"?
If something "won't" happen, that's surely got to at least mean that it's highly unlikely (if you're speaking English)...
Even if you were offering me 3/1, that would be fair odds for two heads from two coin tosses, not fair odds for something that "won't" happen
Just pushing my luck!!
I don't think they will be in the top four after that run of games, though as I said the City, Chelsea and Everton games are at home.
What odds are you looking for?
I'm not really looking for odds (have been on a top 4 finish at 12/1 for a few weeks and quite happy with that), I wanted to test your assertion!
Saints do have a very tough mid-November to mid-January but I'm not worried about any of the games in isolation. I think we'll give anyone a good game at the moment and likely take some points off our toughest fixtures. Our two losses were both away and we deserved at least a point off Liverpool, and played our worst game so far against Spurs.
What worries me is an injury to any of Pellè, Tadic or Forster - we don't have any cover at GK and our cover for the first two is nowhere near their quality. We've pretty good cover elsewhere
Dave is slowly but surely improving (and WAY ahead of Redward) while Redward's nosedive into the Hollande zone continues apace. Has a leader in this position ever become PM?
Neal Findlay now 5-2 2nd fav from 16-1 with Lads for SLAB leader.There's still some 16s available with WH.
Thanks,
I think it'll be Murphy - and it would be a very good choice but a 5-2 shot at 16-1 is always worthwhile. Tried to get on for £20, but Hills restricted me to a fiver.
Comments
Establishment Tories and Establishment Labour have a symbiotic relationship - large numbers of their votes depend on a fear of the other.
So what neither want is the other to lose their heartland support.
And if that means thousands of children continue to be raped then that's deemed a price worth paying.
Yorkshire is the air this morning. HS3 being talked up.
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/debate/columnists/big-benefits-for-north-in-high-speed-rail-revolution-1-6917753
Producer capture has happened among the plods.
But that's rather a small proportion of Yorkshire people.
This government's obsession with big cities is another example of the PPEocrachy mentality.
A few billion spent on higher speed broadband would bring a lot more benefit to a lot more people and a lot quicker.
I'd do the same, or maybe 1 UKIP 2 Con, or 1 ED 2 UKIP.
I'd definitely make sure UKIP was either 1 or 2 at any rate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1PNttDlois&feature=youtu.be
If I had a vote and were inclined to use it strategically in the interests of the Tories, i'd still vote Con 1st, UKIP 2nd. That's because the Tories will benefit enormously if Labour and UKIP both believe that there is a major battle to be fought between them in (ex-)Labour heartlands, drawing both sides' resources away from Con marginals.
High-speed broadband is to be welcomed, but until we can teleport, it is no replacement for travel.
Hint: look at the rise of the Internet over the last twenty years, and look how rail travel has doubled in that same period. The Internet is doing nothing to stop people needing to travel, and the vast majority of jobs cannot be done remotely. Skype is no replacement for meeting people face-to-face.
I do though, in this connection, await the showing of the Baby P programme tonight!
They'll be northern Tories. My guess for this announcement would be to try and sure up the West Yorkshire marginal crucial Tory vote in places like Elmet, Pudsey, Dewsbury whilst the more working class Labour vote splits off to UKIP...........
I'[d guess Labour would go for HS3 too but the Cons got there first and are in Gov't so can "own" the announcement more.
As with all constitutional reform, it could usually have been done earlier but just because it wasn't, that is no excuse for not doing it now. On that basis, we'd still be using the pre-1832 system (well, we wouldn't because there'd probably have been a revolution but you get the idea). PCCs bring democratic accountability to the police, which as local public services they need, particularly given the scandals that have been revealed over recent years, and most of all in South Yorkshire.
Mr. Pulpstar, I quite agree. Congratulations on your Diplomatic success. All our supply centres are belong to you.
http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/environmentally-unfriendly-who-loses.html
I looked at how the rise of the Greens might help or hinder other parties.
On an only slightly related point, any polling trying to identify potential tactical voting faces the paradox: if a voter is so devilishly sophisticated that he TVs, why would he not also be clever enough to tactically answer opinion pollsters? So if you are firmly blue but want to nudge Dave right, you say UKIP, if you are in an ultra-marginal and think your blue incumbent is a lazy slob you say LD. Why would you not?
The Lord polleth the marginals, and the Lord tweeteth the results. Blessed be the name of the Lord. It's his money. But we do hear an awful lot about his findings 3 months ago in the 11th tightest LD Con marginal in the North East and I am not sure it tells us any more than our resident yougov-baxterer does.
HS3 is a very different beast. In fact, I doubt the final plans would warrant the 'hs' prefix in the same way HS1 and 2 did. It's more likely to be a series of route speed-ups, akin to EGIP in Scotland, with perhaps new tunnelling under the Pennines. But anyone who has travelled on rails up north knows it is needed.
Ukraine follows Britain's lead and enters coalition negotiations:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-29782513
And Brazil's gone for the incumbent, Dilma Rousseff, as president:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-29782073
Southampton's next three games are away to Hull and Villa and home to Leicester. Presuming they do well in those games I would suggest that anyone who backs them should trade out. They have only played two so called decent teams, Spurs and Liverpool away, and lost them both.
After the Villa game in the space of six weeks they face Arsenal twice, Utd twice, Man City, Chelsea and Everton, though the last three are all at home.
Their defence has done really well and they had great results at West Ham and Swansea, and obviously the eye catching 8-0 against Sunderland, but they won't be in the top four by the middle of January.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11188721/Jeb-Bush-more-than-likely-to-run-for-president-son-says.html
It is a minor bugbear of mine (I have others) that people presume the electorate, a huge majority of whom would be pushed to name their own MP, somehow develop this (as you acutely name it) fiendish sophistication when it comes to polls such that they are not only aware of who they want to vote for, but are aware also of those in second and third place, the difference in votes between them all and that they have the confidence that by not voting for whom they want they won't somehow be making a huge error.
And no one has yet adequately explained or given me an example of how a tactical voting campaign is conducted.
If you don't like reading what is produced then tough sh**. Go find some other site.
In terms of the scale and the approach there is nothing that gets near the marginals single seat surveys. Yes all poll are snapshots but that's what we need.
I promise you are going to get a lot more whatever they are saying.
And I know how much time I would say everyday, at home and at work, with faster internet connection. Its a lot more than I would save from using HS2 in 20+ years.
Where a VI poll uses a panel there is scope for the politically active and acute to enrol in the hope of causing the poll to be favourable to the viewpoint they espouse.
That's more time saved than between Birmingham and London with HS2.
However, London is larger than the other three cities combined. On the other hand, there's a large gap between north and south, economically, so the cheaper cost (circa £4.5bn), greater time saving and likely higher popularity of HS3 perhaps suggests we should do that first.
The central point remains: at a GE or by-election how do you conduct a tactical voting campaign? You can't formally advise people to:
1) not vote for your own party; or
2) vote for a party other than your own.
You do not seem to understand the concept of capacity. Without extra capacity, ticket prices will increase anyway as more trains are pushed onto increasingly overloaded lines, and people are willing to pay more to get onto them. We are already seeing this.
But once these easy things are done, future enhancements get increasingly more expensive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Hub
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/may/03/labour-liberal-democrats-marginals-ed-balls
Reading the thread, I don't see anyone attacking you. I hesitate to suggest it of someone who is your venerable age, but you may just be a tad sensitive this morning.
A great site, enlivened by the occasional dispute.
"Senior Labour figures have hitherto been reluctant to endorse a vote for the Lib Dems, for fear of looking weak."
I suppose would be my point.
Eurobank
Monte dei Paschi di Siena
National Bank of Greece
Banca Carige
Cooperative Central Bank
Banco Comercial Português
Bank of Cyprus
Oesterreichischer Volksbanken-Verbund
permanent tsb
Veneto Banca
Banco Popolare
Banca Popolare di Milano
Banca Popolare di Vicenza
Piraeus Bank
Credito Valtellinese
Dexia
Banca Popolare di Sondrio
Hellenic Bank
Münchener Hypothekenbank
AXA Bank Europe
C.R.H. - Caisse de Refinancement de l’Habitat
Banca Popolare dell'Emilia Romagna
Nova Ljubljanska banka
Liberbank
Nova Kreditna Banka Maribor
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/11188635/European-stress-tests-25-banks-fail.html
And the M67 should be finished.
Politics seems a bit AVP at the moment.
Started in 2011 by former BNP members Paul Golding and Jim Dowson, Britain First describes itself as “a patriotic political party and street defence organisation”.
The group has amassed almost 500,000 likes on Facebook compared to the Conservatives on 293,000, Labour with 190,000 and the Liberal Democrats’ 104,000. This popularity has led to questions about how the group has managed to gain so many likes when its offline activities seem to draw few supporters in comparison.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11184906/
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8666de60-5d22-11e4-9753-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=uk#axzz3HKfrMPUT
“My first reaction upon hearing the news was one of bitter disappointment,” said the pro-independence blogger James Kelly. “Ms Lamont has been an absolutely dreadful leader.
“If only she had stayed in harness for 18 more months, it would have been a racing certainty that Labour would have suffered a third successive defeat in a Holyrood election.”
Knowing your politics I appreciate your dilemma. I guess you could just vote Conservative perhaps ?
Their hijacking of the Lee Rigby murder on their PPB was utterly disgusting.
The ethical thing to do is therefore to abstain, to send the message that the winner has no authority in any mandate.
With that said, these elections like the euros are utterly, utterly, utterly without point, in that nobody elected by them has ever been observed to achieve anything whatsoever for their constituents. Those who stand do so because they want the expenses, somewhere to go during the day, and an important-sounding job to boast about to prostitutes.
So the fun strategy for a Tory is probably to vote UKIP. This will mislead UKIP into thinking it can win some of these seats, and the arseclowns will therefore misallocate resources campaigning in these seats rather than wholly in those where it counts. On election day 2015, as Farage soars in his taxpayer-funded plane over Rotherham imagining he is a man of the people, the election will be won or lost elsewhere.
As far as the actual result goes, though, who gives a stuff. These clods return Labour politicians every time, even though those politicians have apparently abetted paedophiles. If that's not enough to cure you of voting Labour you aren't really a complete human being and there's really nothing to say.
SNP 55 respondents out of 175 in Scotland, once again very strong.
Also once again hat tip to @Antifrank
http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/scotland-pre-referendum-special.html
"As you can see, most seats are treated as longshots for the SNP. If I am right, the SNP can not just hope but expect to take many of these seats in the event of a Yes vote.
The last traded bet on Betfair placed a probability of a Yes vote at 9/2. I would far prefer to back the SNP in constituencies such as Glasgow East, Edinburgh North & Leith and Dunbartonshire East at odds of anything up to 50/1."
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/glasgow-east/winning-party
The SNP have moved into 7-2, but the real story is Labour in to 1-6 (They were 1-5 yesterday !)
So if you took Glasgow East at 50-1, you can now sit pretty by piling on Labour at 1-6.
Serendipity.
Yes, the question of the £5k deposit is no small matter and campaigning to 1m or so people isn't without cost either, if leaflets etc are to be produced, but their opting out has left a substantial section of the electorate with nowhere to go other than to turn right or to endorse the status quo.
@jamesmatthewsky: Anas Sarwar supporters say he'll concentrate on role as 'party unifier' rather than stand for Scottish Labour leadership
Eurobank
I read that as Eubank.
Top trolling by Mike - don't be silly - stopping Labour is in the national interest.
They will generally run with a very worthy cause - veterans support, poppy campaigns and animal charities are their favorites - and then use those as a front to gain social media support.
I notice they also have a candidate standing at R&S.
They are currently five points clear of Arsenal in fifth with a vastly superior goal difference, if I am betting they won't be in the top four on Jan 15th I will want at least 3/1.
"Which party would you most identify yourself with?"
UKIP -
unweighted : 12
weighted : 4
Any comments - or is it just Populus's method of applying strong weighting factors against UKIP in their methodology? (325 unweighted = 178 weighted)
That said, as far as the Conservative Party's interests go I think the discomfort for Labour is worth the cost of feeding the Tories' competitor, because Labour people will take it as a cue to bitch passive-aggressively about their leadership and that'll cost Labour votes.
No reply to this letter yet.
"This is how one Labour politician put it to me: “When I go to the pub in some of our northern heartlands, the debate is now mainly between UKIP and the EDL. We are barely in it.”
MSM catches up with what I've been saying here for a while now. If Labour wants to become relevant, the quota it needs of candidates who left full-time education at 16. But of course none of its existing MPs would have anything in common with them, would they?
As expected the highest turnout was in Lviv and Ternopol with 70% and 68% turnout, the lowest were in Kharkiv, Odessa, and govt-controlled areas of Lugansk and Donetsk with reported turnouts of 45%, 39%, 33%, and 31% respectively.
In the latter areas some of that turnout will be Western Ukrainian troops stationed in the area to deal with any potential uprising and a fair number will be spoiled ballots that are still included in the turnout figures. Indeed the overwhelming majority of invalid votes come from Eastern Ukraine.
Bad result for Kiev.
So "they won't be in the top four by the middle of January" means "I think there's a 75% chance they will be in the top four by the middle of January"?
If something "won't" happen, that's surely got to at least mean that it's highly unlikely (if you're speaking English)...
Even if you were offering me 3/1, that would be fair odds for two heads from two coin tosses, not fair odds for something that "won't" happen
http://news.sky.com/story/1361080/sarwar-wont-run-for-top-scottish-labour-job
http://joesaward.wordpress.com/2014/10/27/manor-grand-prix-racing-limited-enters-administration/
Sad to see. Yet not entirely unexpected. Many have complained for years of just how unfairly money is doled out and that many teams were in financial trouble.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2808822/Ordeal-OAP-quipped-m-not-Muslim-airport-security-stopped-Man-spends-six-months-facing-racism-charges-case-finally-dropped.html
I've only met him briefly but I'm pretty certain it's way off the mark. And to then associate him with the view that child rape is better than Labour losing their heartlands is stupid, and a disgusting slur.
Overall: LAB 35.5 CON 33.8 UKIP 13.5 LD 9 GRN 3.3
SE: CON 40.2 LAB 34.5 UKIP 11.7 LD 9.7 GRN 3.3
Mids: CON 36.2 LAB 33.3 UKIP 16.8 LD 7.7 GRN 4.5
North: LAB 42.5 CON 31 UKIP 15.5 LD 7.5 GRN 2.2
Wales/SW: LAB 36.3 CON 30.8 UKIP 14.8 LD 11.3 GRN 4
Scotland: SNP 38.2 LAB 24.8 CON 19.8 LD 9.5 UKIP 3.5 GRN 3
And the slur you mentioned is beyond the pale. UKIP is sometimes unfairly attacked as if its views are not valid or permitted, but the reverse happens as well. Not voting for UKIP does not equate to voting for child rape to continue.
Mr. Eagles is a top chap, ignorance of classical history left to one side.
I don't think they will be in the top four after that run of games, though as I said the City, Chelsea and Everton games are at home.
What odds are you looking for?
LAB 334 CON 273 LD 17 Other 26 EICIPM
Saints do have a very tough mid-November to mid-January but I'm not worried about any of the games in isolation. I think we'll give anyone a good game at the moment and likely take some points off our toughest fixtures. Our two losses were both away and we deserved at least a point off Liverpool, and played our worst game so far against Spurs.
What worries me is an injury to any of Pellè, Tadic or Forster - we don't have any cover at GK and our cover for the first two is nowhere near their quality. We've pretty good cover elsewhere
This from Yougov is surely worth a thread:
http://order-order.com/2014/10/27/ed-miliband-ratings-still-tanking/
Dave is slowly but surely improving (and WAY ahead of Redward) while Redward's nosedive into the Hollande zone continues apace. Has a leader in this position ever become PM?
I think it'll be Murphy - and it would be a very good choice but a 5-2 shot at 16-1 is always worthwhile. Tried to get on for £20, but Hills restricted me to a fiver.