politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Polling analysis: LAB hopes that GRN voters will fall in li
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Polling analysis: LAB hopes that GRN voters will fall in line behind them in the marginals not supported by Lord A’s polling
Today’s YouGov of CON 31, LAB 34, LD 6, UKIP 17, GRN 7 highlights the need to analyse what is happening to the GRN vote and what might happen in the key battlegrounds that will decide GE15.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
http://standpointmag.co.uk/node/5798/full?page=1
LD's 2010 VI retention of 22% matches their 2014 lowest near the end of September.
Today's beneficiaries of this LD generosity are:
Labour: 32
Cons: 15
UKIP: 15
Green: 14
There needs to be all-party consensus to move forward,at least on a medical cannabis act.Green gold must be regulated to protect the young brains of our children and grandchildren.The status quo is no longer an option.Change has to come,a change not within the monopoly of the Green party.
Promises to be an interesting debate.All I ask is that policy is based on evidence,not prejudice and ignorance.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-chance-to-reform-the-uks-backwards-drug-policy-is-finally-here-and-we-cannot-waste-it-9826766.html
"All I ask is that policy is based on evidence,not prejudice and ignorance."
Emigrate?
I would repeal all existing drugs acts and would allow the sale and possession of drugs by and to anyone over the age of 18. It is no business of the state to regulate who possesses and sells plant products.
I would introduce three new offences
* Being in a public place while under the influence of drugs (equivalent of drunk and disorderly)
* Causing a nuisance while under the influence of drugs
* Driving while under the influence of drugs
Both would attract a mandatory six month sentence in a secure rehabilitation unit, which is not part of a prison where people convicted of other offences held.
To sell drugs a licence would be needed which any shop or individual could apply for. An excise duty would be introduced to pay for the drug rehabilitation above.
That would eliminate the gangs and restore reasonable liberties while criminising bad behaviour that causes a nuisance or danger to others.
I really don't like the Greens. The Labour party's refusal to live in the real world, address major issues like the deficit and to engage with the private sector rather than being almost entirely focussed on the public sector looks like hard edged realism compared to them. It is a middle class indulgence of the haves who want to draw the ladder up behind them. It does not say anything good about our politics that they are on the up. It is yet more evidence of the disengagement of the electorate from the hard decisions that our leaders have to make.
" It is yet more evidence of the disengagement of the electorate from the hard decisions that our leaders have to make. "
"Ministers are considering drastically cutting the main Employment and Support Allowance sickness benefit, internal documents seen by the BBC suggest"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29821696
Yes, I see what you mean.
Leave drugs in the hands of the criminals, "whatafrukinstroke" of genius.
(Worked really well during "prohibition")
2010 LD Voters: 425
2014 LD Voters: 91
Vote reduction 78.6%
Implies a vote share of c.5% in 2014, which mirrors most of the by election outcomes.
Do they stand to lose hundreds of thousands in lost deposits?
But the argument that the state does not have any legitimate interest in what people put into their bodies is specious. It is the state that has to pick up the consequences which are horrific. Are we to be free to eat contaminated food as well?
Of course anyone rational has to recognise that the war on drugs has gone slightly less well than the war in Afghanistan (which has a record opium crop we were supposed to be getting rid of) and a major change of tactics and emphasis is called for. Some decriminalisation around the edges such as possession of cannabis may well make sense. But hard drugs kill. Far too often for the state to stand idly by.
The 2010 Lib Dem vote splits as follows (with changes from July 2012)NB YouGov give their percentages as net of WNV/DK.
It is sad though that the Libdems are being punished for in part joining the real world in the coalition, which is very creditable of them, rather than their remaining attachment to other worldness such as Mr Huhnes and Daveys disastrous energy policies, the fruits of which are now becoming apparent as we face possible power cuts this winter.
It is places like Yeovil which should be Libdem shoo ins where the Greens splitting the Libdem vote will be significant and catastrophic (to the benefit of the Tories). Hence the Libdem suggestion of an alliance of some sort yesterday.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-29828706
"But hard drugs kill"
You can have a full blown heroin habit, still hold down a job, and be perfectly healthy.
It does of course need access to clean needles, and uncut heroin. (street heroin in Glasgow was about 10% pure)
OK if you are rich, but if not, you suffer.
Labour 516:571 = 10.65% up = 32.83% (applied to 2010 vote)
Tory 521: 446 = 14.4% down = 31.65% (applied to 2010 vote)
Labour lead 1.18%
Over the last ten days the average vote ratio lead has been 0.78%, with Labour ahead seven times, the Tories ahead on three.
It is only because we distort the market with welfare and state pension payments along with free healthcare that we disprortionately attract people from countries that don't.
If we abolished the welfare state completely it would be France that had the immigration problem as poverty stricken chavs desperately tried to get to France for the free money and healthcare on offer in western Europe.
But Ed has nothing to say about this. Nothing at all. The Lib Dems do but no one is listening to them.
Perhaps you'd like to tell us how much more the subsidies should have been ?
And while you're at it would you remind us how much help the last Labour government gave to heavy industry.
Anyone who thinks they live anything close to a normal life whilst addicted to that substance is deluding themselves. Anyone who thinks that it will not have a terrible consequence on their health is frankly crazy.
It's absurd for the Tories to accuse other parties of not living in the real world on the deficit when Cameron persists in talking about "paying down the debt" when the debt pile is still growing at a rate of ~£100bn a year, for which he has been corrected by senior statistics officials.
Its an instructive lesson in politics. All politicians are seen as liars, but good liars. Clegg was a bad liar and blatantly so. And this is the result.
More working class communities in the UK were destroyed by the decline in heavy industry in the 80s and 90s than by anything else since 1945. I think it could have been much better managed if it had been done from a perspective that there are more important things than the market.
Why is it that you could quite legally buy heroin in a Chemist until 1914 and people were not keeling over everywhere?
Sorry but it is not the job of the state to protect consenting adults from their own lack of self control by banning things from everyone. The criminal law is for when those who don't have self control cause a nuisance to others as a result of their lack of self control.
Most addicts know their tolerance levels pretty well.
What does tend to happen though, is someone raids a chemist, or the addicts "supplier" gets busted, and then the poor sod is injecting 30%+ heroin, instead of the 10% he/she was getting before.
One reason the "drugs war" fails is because the people who think they know don't, and the people who do know are ignored.
But you don't mention what Cameron has to say.
Which is magic money tree promises of spending increases and tax cuts plus lies about "paying down Britain's debts".
Raids a chemist? This ain't the seventies you know.
Pretty difficult these days I admit.
A lot of the old working class professions have gone by the wayside,these days it is all fraud and computers, where is the craftsmanship in that?
(Of course you are in A&E upon your reawakening.)
Dunno why we don't try it here - timidity of politicians.
"That's the crux of the apostrophe", as dear old Frank used to say.
Drugs are easier than tobacco and booze to smuggle, this limits the amount of tax you can apply. (laffer curve?)
The Green supporters are: 2010-Con 9%, 2010-Lab 22%, 2010-LD 50%, 2010-other 18%
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/10/27/ukip-greens-and-new-politics-protest/
How so?
Better to have a bit of something than nothing - there aren't many illicit stills in the Uk despite the high booze taxes.
BTW, Chestnut posted last night about the increased Labour lead:
"Labour will be up with LD switchers/AB voters in London/South"
As Chestnut does this regularly, it's worth pointing out that he was mistaken. YG's samples today show Labour's lead in London low and a relatively poor score among AB voters and in the South. 2010 LibDems are 32/22/15/15 for Lab/Lib/Con/UKIP.
It shows a healthy Labour lead lead in the Midlands (37-31) and, a bit implausibly given this week's news cycle, a recovery in Scotland. Basically it's fool's gold to hunt for meaning in the subsamples in a single poll - in reality it's just a general slight Labour improvement, which may be sampling error or genuine, who knows? It reinforces the impression that Labour remains slightly ahead on votes (and probably therefore more so on seats) with 6 months to go.
Or do you have some other idea which would have helped.
Its easy to complain thirty years later on an internet forum but as you think it could have been much better managed please tell us how you would have helped places in the Welsh Valleys and County Durham which existed solely as a result of a heavy industry which was then massively uneconomic.
The decline of heavy industry happened throughout the Western World from the mid 1970s onwards - there's a reason the 'rustbelt' in the USA is called the rustbelt.
Recessions, rising costs, cheaper foreign competition, environmental controls, increased mechanisation all played a part.
While the mining industry in Britain had been in decline from 1914 onwards.
What do you do for a pit village when there's no more coal extractable down its pit ?
Welfare should be needs or contribution based. It shouldn't be like a non-contributory long service award or automatic pay progression.
Similar sorts of nonsense exist among pensioner benefits.
More likely than bringing Bbc3 down
Booze and tobacco smuggling is still quite lucrative, and as for a still, it's basic chemistry, or as an alternative, freeze wine to concentrate the alcohol (just scrape off the slush, as water freezes easier) and make your own brandy?
The SNP should legalise pot in Scotland - classic Nat wedge issue.
Arran would become a "Klondike", but it is boderline for planting out doors in Scotland.
Cornwall would be in with a good shout though.
Then the government would have no excuse for telling us how to live our own lives, as they impertinently think they have the right to at the moment.
As for drugs wars, etc - there is also of course a good deal of criminality that would be diminished if not erased via the legalisation of drugs. Perhaps outweighing the accepted harm increased drugs usage would cause.
(Edit: which, re drugs/criminality, is of course a trivially obvious observation)
We cannae compete Captain!
http://tinyurl.com/o55zfz5
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-chance-to-reform-the-uks-backwards-drug-policy-is-finally-here-and-we-cannot-waste-it-9826766.html
In other words YOU CANNOT BUCK THE MARKET
I would repeal all existing drugs acts and would allow the sale and possession of drugs by and to anyone over the age of 18. It is no business of the state to regulate who possesses and sells plant products.
I would introduce three new offences
* Being in a public place while under the influence of drugs (equivalent of drunk and disorderly)
* Causing a nuisance while under the influence of drugs
* Driving while under the influence of drugs
Both would attract a mandatory six month sentence in a secure rehabilitation unit, which is not part of a prison where people convicted of other offences held.
To sell drugs a licence would be needed which any shop or individual could apply for. An excise duty would be introduced to pay for the drug rehabilitation above.
That would eliminate the gangs and restore reasonable liberties while criminising bad behaviour that causes a nuisance or danger to others.
Some decriminalisation around the edges such as possession of cannabis may well make sense. But hard drugs kill. Far too often for the state to stand idly by.
Whereas you wake up after 10 pints of lager and a few bottles of WKD feeling refreshed and raring to go.
(Of course you are in A&E upon your reawakening.)
I'm not sure that a lost war on alcohol can justify opening new fronts on heroin and cocaine - unless you want massive tax hikes to pay for the subsequent NHS costs.
Actually, legalising them will probably reduce NHS costs. Many years ago I heard a senior policeman argue that legalising cannabis and heroin would lead to a massive fall in crime soince the drugs would be easily obtainable and consequently cheaper. Those “on the edge” would haven’t have to steal, and sell the products in pubs etc to fund their life-style.
I can see how this might save the Police money but not the NHS - easier access to heroin, cocaine and worse is unlikely to lead to a healthier lifestyle and save the NHS money - that was my point.
I'm still involved with rugby and spend a lot of time with a lot of 17-25 year olds. They are all fit, strong young men, but these days - when they party - they abuse drugs more than alcohol. It's the culture these days.
There is a big difference between recreationally using drugs like they do (weed, meow, MDMA, (poor quality) coke) and lifestyle drugs (daily weed smoking, heroin, crack, prescription meds (there is a lot of web-bought valium abuse going on).
Recreational drug (ab)use is probably having little more effect than binger drinking would on their health and I certainly think legalisation would remove the chances of buying something lethal (there was bad ecstasy going about last year, cut with (poisonous) PMA, not MDMA - it killed a handful of people at festivals). I'd legalise and control the lot on that front.
But would I legalise heroin and crack cocaine and crystal meth? Highly addictive stuff that 99% of young party-goers would never countenance using? It'd be a big call.
Then you have the complication of internet (legal high) type drugs like that Ivory Wave coming on the market. Some guy in Florida tried to eat the face of a tramp when he used it, so powerfully hallucinatory was its effect. Should we legalise that stuff?
And what about that Krokodil drug over in Russia, killing people twice as quickly as cut-heroin. It rots flesh (go see on Youtube) and is highly addictive. It is hard to prohibit because it can be made at home using cleaning products. It's the Russian drug-equivalent of drinking your aftershave.
I suppose there will always be people who want to screw themselves up, and legalisation of all drugs would kill them more quickly. But then, they are the type of people doing hard drugs anyway, and no laws are ever going to stop them.
I tend to think that criminalising a bunch of college students for sharing a joint on their break-time is a bit pointless. And as Bill Hicks memorably alluded to, recreational drug users ain't beating eachother up on the streets. They are generally hugging and smiling.
I could cut the link for you instead, but I think the mods get upset if the thread gets spammed by YouTube links.
https: //www.youtube.com/watch?v=lc8nwRHAplU
Q.5 Are there any of the following political parties that you would definitely not vote for at the next General Election?
Green voters:
not LD 59%
not UKIP 89%
not Con 79%
not Lab 43%
They might be, but why take the chance? I like to obey the law.
You got my zimbawaen dollars ready yet?
I get the sense that more and more right-wing Peebies are picking up on this essential contradiction. Since Marx said that politics is determinant in the last instance we may be sure that, in fact, the reverse is true and that societies which do not tailor their political arrangements to the iron laws of the dismal science will, over time, lose out to those which do.
The main reason I come here each morning is to pick up on political trends which do not surface elsewhere until much later. The trend I see these days is that of the "Weimarization" of our politics. More and more, people are coming to see that the twin pressures of economic decline (at least relative, if not absolute) and identity politics are such that Parliamentary democracy is no longer capable of governing the country.
How long before a jury acquits a defendant of murder by accepting his plea of self-defence: "the guy was a leftie, he was therefore a threat to us all, so by killing him I am not a criminal but a hero"?
Yes, agreed rates in intergalactic spacebucks?