No way are they going to nominate Paul. No frikkin way.
It comes down to whether the GOP wants a candidate it likes or a candidate that has a chance of winning. Hillary Clinton (assuming it is she) is a formidable political operator and nobody's fool. The GOP needs to think about a sensible, balanced ticket (Hispanic for VP perhaps ?) rather than a conservative tub-thumper who will ensure the GOP loses 53-47 or similar in 2016.
Well, not really. The GOP pretty much settled on their most moderate option (excepting Huntsman, I guess) for the last two Presidential elections and both times they still lost.
Similarly, George W Bush never particular struck me as a centrist, but he still managed to win twice.
The Tories have shown themselves cripplingly unwilling or unable to address the problems the country faces, particularly the crisis in living standards, an economy that doesn't work for so many people, and the rotten state of the Establishment (bankers who caused the crisis, the contempt shown by big business to ordinary workers, the unaccountable power of media moguls etc - the Tories are basically the political wing of these people)
For their part, Labour were in charge when the bankers caused the economic crisis, so rightly or wrongly aren't fully trusted yet (this would be a problem no matter who was leader).
Lib Dems have committed suicide.
It's no wonder people are exasperated and looking elsewhere (SNP switchers have an added incentive).
I have my doubts it will eventually lead to some sort of game-changing election outcome next year, more likely a humdrum small majority or minority / coalition. But we'll almost certainly see some "interesting" individual results.
I am no expert on swing-back, but why would it be less likely for Labour UKIPers to swing-back to Labour than it would be for Tory UKIPers to swing-back to the Tories, unless it is to unseat a Tory MP?
Because Labour are in opposition and the Tories are in government. The essence of swing-back is that people are protesting against the government. Sure, some UKIP --> Labour switchers may return, but I'm inclined to see that movement as more of a final verdict on the Opposition. I may well be wrong of course, but that's how I'm betting.
It is undoubtedly a verdict on the opposition, but what we don't know yet is its permanence. Will previous Labour voters back UKIP if it means making it easier for the Tories to hold onto power? I guess it is back to the toxicity issue - the Miliband brand v the Tory one.
Whenever someone uses the word brand in a political context I stop reading.
Forward looking economic indicators look great for the UK. That relentless Labour slide I and Dan Hodges predicted is all set to continue. Saudi attempts to take out the US shale patch couldn't have been timed better.
Whenever someone says they stop reading something after reading a certain word I think they are a bit of a tit.
My list of UKIP friendly seats as compiled 18 months ago
3 groups in order of favourability.. if UKIP didn't stand in 2010 they wont be on here
Barking Boston & Skegness Bromsgrove Dag & Rain 20s Dudley North 25s Halesown & Rowley Regis Morley & Outwood 33s Newcastle Under Lyme Plymouth Moor View 16s S Bas & E Thurrock 20s Staffordshire Moorlands Stoke on Trent South Telford 25s Thanet North Thanet South 5/2 Thurrock 16s Walsall North 16s Walsall South West Bromwich West Wolverhampton NE 33s
Bexhill & Battle Birmingham Yardley 100s Bournemouth East Bridgewater & W Somerset Brirmingham Northfield Broadland Burton Cannock Chase Christchurch Dartford Dover East Devon Erith & Thamesmead Folkestone & Hythe Great Yarmouth Hastings & Rye Hx & Upm Kingswood Ludlow N Devon 20s N Warks 50s Newton Abbot 50s Peterborough Poole SE Cornwall 33s Solihull Spelthorne Stoke on Trent Central Stoke on Trent North Stourbridge Torridge & W Devon Totnes Wells 50s West Brom East West Suffolk
Aldershot Bognor & Littlehampton Bournemouth West Camborne & Redruth Chatham & Aylseford Coventry NW East Surrey Eltham Gill & Rain Harlow Hereford & S Herefordshire 50s Horsham IoW Luton North N Swindon Norwich N NW Cambs Redditch Reigate S Cambs Sittingbourne & Sheppey Stratford on Avon Wolverhampton SE
I am no expert on swing-back, but why would it be less likely for Labour UKIPers to swing-back to Labour than it would be for Tory UKIPers to swing-back to the Tories, unless it is to unseat a Tory MP?
Because Labour are in opposition and the Tories are in government. The essence of swing-back is that people are protesting against the government. Sure, some UKIP --> Labour switchers may return, but I'm inclined to see that movement as more of a final verdict on the Opposition. I may well be wrong of course, but that's how I'm betting.
It is undoubtedly a verdict on the opposition, but what we don't know yet is its permanence. Will previous Labour voters back UKIP if it means making it easier for the Tories to hold onto power? I guess it is back to the toxicity issue - the Miliband brand v the Tory one.
Whenever someone uses the word brand in a political context I stop reading.
Forward looking economic indicators look great for the UK. That relentless Labour slide I and Dan Hodges predicted is all set to continue. Saudi attempts to take out the US shale patch couldn't have been timed better.
Whenever someone says they stop reading something after reading a certain word I think they are a bit of a tit.
I stopped reading that after the word "tit". How dare you use the name of one of our most loved garden birds as an insult? Etc, etc, ...
@hugh The Tories have shown themselves cripplingly unwilling or unable to address the problems the country faces, particularly the crisis in living standards, an economy that doesn't work for so many people, and the rotten state of the Establishment (bankers who caused the crisis, the contempt shown by big business to ordinary workers, the unaccountable power of media moguls etc - the Tories are basically the political wing of these people)
What a load of old tosh - you know the fall in living standards was an inevitable result of the inherited mess - the massive economic re-balancing is testimony to an extraordinary turnaround not least in employment. The medicine that had to be taken would have produced a swifter recovery had the LDs not been there with their endless agonising. The bankers are taxed and controlled more effectively now than they ever were under Labour. What on earth you mean by media moguls is beyond me unless you mean the BBC - in which case I agree!
President Rand Paul would be the most entertaining option - lets hope he wins it.
Yep
CiF would melt down to the centre of the planet and come out the other side - with a froth tsunami hitting Japan shortly afterwards.
Bah, that's nothing, imagine the reaction if Sarah Palin won.
As we'd be in a universe where water flows up hill, cold is hot and Ed Milliband is the most popular Labour leader ever I'd think there would be more pressing concerns to worry about.
I am no expert on swing-back, but why would it be less likely for Labour UKIPers to swing-back to Labour than it would be for Tory UKIPers to swing-back to the Tories, unless it is to unseat a Tory MP?
Because Labour are in opposition and the Tories are in government. The essence of swing-back is that people are protesting against the government. Sure, some UKIP --> Labour switchers may return, but I'm inclined to see that movement as more of a final verdict on the Opposition. I may well be wrong of course, but that's how I'm betting.
It is undoubtedly a verdict on the opposition, but what we don't know yet is its permanence. Will previous Labour voters back UKIP if it means making it easier for the Tories to hold onto power? I guess it is back to the toxicity issue - the Miliband brand v the Tory one.
Whenever someone uses the word brand in a political context I stop reading.
Forward looking economic indicators look great for the UK. That relentless Labour slide I and Dan Hodges predicted is all set to continue. Saudi attempts to take out the US shale patch couldn't have been timed better.
Whenever someone says they stop reading something after reading a certain word I think they are a bit of a tit.
I stopped reading that after the word "tit". How dare you use the name of one of our most loved garden birds as an insult? Etc, etc, ...
@hugh The Tories have shown themselves cripplingly unwilling or unable to address the problems the country faces, particularly the crisis in living standards, an economy that doesn't work for so many people, and the rotten state of the Establishment (bankers who caused the crisis, the contempt shown by big business to ordinary workers, the unaccountable power of media moguls etc - the Tories are basically the political wing of these people)
What a load of old tosh - you know the fall in living standards was an inevitable result of the inherited mess - the massive economic re-balancing is testimony to an extraordinary turnaround not least in employment. The medicine that had to be taken would have produced a swifter recovery had the LDs not been there with their endless agonising. The bankers are taxed and controlled more effectively now than they ever were under Labour. What on earth you mean by media moguls is beyond me unless you mean the BBC - in which case I agree!
It must really hurt Labourites given all the effort that they've put into the cost of living crisis that the voters expect to be better off under the Tories and not Lab
Will previous Labour voters back UKIP if it means making it easier for the Tories to hold onto power? I guess it is back to the toxicity issue - the Miliband brand v the Tory one.
Is Miliband now down to hoping that he can get one more seat than Cameron and then form some alliance of the left?
If not, are UKIP no longer toxic with the left? Is Farage preferable to Cameron?
The Tories may be the least worst option in some places for the left-inclined voter. It was certainly presented that way in Newark.
The Tories have swung right to reel in UKIPers. I doubt we'll see many direct Labour to Tory switchers, or vice versa.
I'm surprised that there are any Lefty Luvvies left in London. Weren't they all promising to flee the Appalling Junta that the election of Boris was going to usher in?
President Rand Paul would be the most entertaining option - lets hope he wins it.
Yep
CiF would melt down to the centre of the planet and come out the other side - with a froth tsunami hitting Japan shortly afterwards.
Bah, that's nothing, imagine the reaction if Sarah Palin won.
As we'd be in a universe where water flows up hill, cold is hot and Ed Milliband is the most popular Labour leader ever I'd think there would be more pressing concerns to worry about.
I don't expect it to happen, she's currently 80/1 to be the nominee, my money won't be going there.
Mind you I did back David Petraeus just before his inability keep the snake inside the pet store become public.
No way are they going to nominate Paul. No frikkin way.
It comes down to whether the GOP wants a candidate it likes or a candidate that has a chance of winning. Hillary Clinton (assuming it is she) is a formidable political operator and nobody's fool. The GOP needs to think about a sensible, balanced ticket (Hispanic for VP perhaps ?) rather than a conservative tub-thumper who will ensure the GOP loses 53-47 or similar in 2016.
Well, not really. The GOP pretty much settled on their most moderate option (excepting Huntsman, I guess) for the last two Presidential elections and both times they still lost.
Similarly, George W Bush never particular struck me as a centrist, but he still managed to win twice.
US Presidential elections are funny things.
They are and each needs to be looked at for its particular characteristics. Vice Presidents of two-term Presidents do sometime succeed but the inevitable swing of the pendulum makes it incredibly hard for them to survive more than one term as George H W Bush found out.
The GOP was always going to be in the driving seat after eight years of Democrat rule and conversely the Democrat candidate in 2008 was helped by eight years of GOP rule and an economic collapse.
The one-term President is a novelty these days - the last was George H W Bush (see above) so even if Hillary wins in 2016, I doubt she'd serve two terms. The GOP has a huge chance in two years but that's an eternity in politics though the Democrats' own midterm success in 2006 effectively made Bush a lame duck and Obama faces a similar fate.
By-elections are rarely good predictors of what will happen in a GE.
The closer the by-election is to the GE the better it is as a guide. Wirral South in 1997 was an extremely good indicator and it's possible to argue that the November 1991 by-election at Langbaurgh showed Labour wasn't going to get the big swing needed to beat the Conservatives.
Rochester & Strood will be informative in its way.
Rochester & Strood won't tell us very much as it's being fought by the incumbent, which makes it very, very unusual.
I note that there will be a double by-election in the crossbenchers' section of the House of Lords hereditary peers due to one death and one retirement. It is now possible due to a new law to retire from the House of Lords.
Whilst the electoral system remains ATV it is adapted to reflect two vacancies. The count is first run to elect the first peer. Then the count is rerun, with the secondary preferences, etc., of those voting for the winner counting. So in effect anyone successful in voting for the first winner will have their minor preferences counted in electing the second winner. This is strange, why do they not just use STV for two vacancies.
President Rand Paul would be the most entertaining option - lets hope he wins it.
Yep
CiF would melt down to the centre of the planet and come out the other side - with a froth tsunami hitting Japan shortly afterwards.
Bah, that's nothing, imagine the reaction if Sarah Palin won.
As we'd be in a universe where water flows up hill, cold is hot and Ed Milliband is the most popular Labour leader ever I'd think there would be more pressing concerns to worry about.
I don't care what anyone says; there is a time for presidential mavericks: the USA is in big trouble. Someone on the daily politics today said that the real unemployment rate in the US, is closer to to 12% than the official numbers allow, statistical falsifications abound.
I think that Sarah Palin would make a damn good president; she was damn good governor of Alaska for a while. She could put America in the direction it really wants to travel. At the moment the whole political situation stinks, it is closer to civil war there, than for 80 odd years in the early days of the Great depression.
Sometimes a country needs a leader that can make things happen and in the happening change direction and avert catastrophy. I think Palin could do it. But, will she, thats the rub?
A NEW poll has shown an increase in the SNP’s lead over Scottish Labour in voting intentions for the Scottish Parliament.
The Ipsos MORI poll, conducted for STV News, showed that 57 per cent of those ‘certain’ to vote would back the SNP, while 23 per cent would cast their constituency vote for Scottish Labour, giving the Nationalists a 34-point lead over Labour.
Eight per cent said they would vote for the Scottish Conservatives while six per cent indicated support for the Scottish Liberal Democrats.
President Rand Paul would be the most entertaining option - lets hope he wins it.
Yep
CiF would melt down to the centre of the planet and come out the other side - with a froth tsunami hitting Japan shortly afterwards.
Bah, that's nothing, imagine the reaction if Sarah Palin won.
As we'd be in a universe where water flows up hill, cold is hot and Ed Milliband is the most popular Labour leader ever I'd think there would be more pressing concerns to worry about.
I don't expect it to happen, she's currently 80/1 to be the nominee, my money won't be going there.
Mind you I did back David Petraeus just before his inability keep the snake inside the pet store become public.
I was deeply unhappy that I did not have the money available to take advantage of the ludicrous arbitrage opportunities that the last Presidential election afforded. I feel that it won't be as crazy one sided (yet with the other side plowing the money in for their candidate) this time round.
Went to Macau with Mrs Stodge in 2009 - an extraordinary place. For every ferry load from Hong Kong (nice coach from the terminal to the casino area) there were six busloads coming over from mainland China (grotty buses, different entrance to the rest).
A form of gambling apartheid with the small-spending tourists on one side and the high-spending locals on the other. Inside, you could really believe you were in Vegas - but fewer slots and more tables.
The government's tax statements are being exposed as a huge distortion.
I'd find it funny for its desperation, were it not for the fact that it's being paid for by my taxes, rather than Plato's Conservative Party membership subscription.
Interesting on the Labour List top 100 UKIP leaning Labour seats at number 10 we have Doncaster North.
To lose one main party leader (Nick) is unfortunate, to lose two (Ed) smacks of carelessness. Unfortunately I don't think Dave could complete the triumvirate.
"The European Commission slashed its economic outlook for the eurozone on Tuesday, predicting the currency bloc would grow only 1.1 per cent next year, down from a 1.7 per cent forecast just six months ago.
The revisions were particularly big in the two largest eurozone economies, Germany and France, for which the commission cut its projections by nearly a full percentage point for 2015. The gross domestic product forecast for Germany, the common currency’s economic engine, was cut from 2 per cent in May to 1.1 per cent; France went from 1.5 per cent to 0.7 per cent."
"The commission raised its forecast for Britain saying it expected the economy to grow 2.7 per cent next year, compared with the 2.5 per cent May forecast."
A NEW poll has shown an increase in the SNP’s lead over Scottish Labour in voting intentions for the Scottish Parliament.
The Ipsos MORI poll, conducted for STV News, showed that 57 per cent of those ‘certain’ to vote would back the SNP, while 23 per cent would cast their constituency vote for Scottish Labour, giving the Nationalists a 34-point lead over Labour.
Eight per cent said they would vote for the Scottish Conservatives while six per cent indicated support for the Scottish Liberal Democrats.
Extraordinary - looks like Scotland is opting for one party rule as a result of the Labour implosion. These sort of figures blow all GE predictions out of the water.
President Rand Paul would be the most entertaining option - lets hope he wins it.
Yep
CiF would melt down to the centre of the planet and come out the other side - with a froth tsunami hitting Japan shortly afterwards.
Bah, that's nothing, imagine the reaction if Sarah Palin won.
As we'd be in a universe where water flows up hill, cold is hot and Ed Milliband is the most popular Labour leader ever I'd think there would be more pressing concerns to worry about.
I don't care what anyone says; there is a time for presidential mavericks: the USA is in big trouble. Someone on the daily politics today said that the real unemployment rate in the US, is closer to to 12% than the official numbers allow, statistical falsifications abound.
I think that Sarah Palin would make a damn good president; she was damn good governor of Alaska for a while. She could put America in the direction it really wants to travel. At the moment the whole political situation stinks, it is closer to civil war there, than for 80 odd years in the early days of the Great depression.
Sometimes a country needs a leader that can make things happen and in the happening change direction and avert catastrophy. I think Palin could do it. But, will she, thats the rub?
Palin would be a disaster. Were you rooting for Goldwater, or were you too young?
"The European Commission slashed its economic outlook for the eurozone on Tuesday, predicting the currency bloc would grow only 1.1 per cent next year, down from a 1.7 per cent forecast just six months ago.
The revisions were particularly big in the two largest eurozone economies, Germany and France, for which the commission cut its projections by nearly a full percentage point for 2015. The gross domestic product forecast for Germany, the common currency’s economic engine, was cut from 2 per cent in May to 1.1 per cent; France went from 1.5 per cent to 0.7 per cent."
"The commission raised its forecast for Britain saying it expected the economy to grow 2.7 per cent next year, compared with the 2.5 per cent May forecast."
The government's tax statements are being exposed as a huge distortion.
I'd find it funny for its desperation, were it not for the fact that it's being paid for by my taxes, rather than Plato's Conservative Party membership subscription.
Isn't the underlying purpose of these statements to provoke this kind of scrutiny?
'£20bn of welfare isn't going to poor people - it's actually going to public sector employee pensions'
'Most welfare doesn't go to the unemployed - it goes to pensioners including free bus passes, winter fuel payments for zillionaires'
Lord Ashcroft @LordAshcroft 7m7 minutes ago My wider marginal seats survey will be published tomorrow at 11am. Note to bookies...it's interesting especially in the following seats...
Went to Macau with Mrs Stodge in 2009 - an extraordinary place. For every ferry load from Hong Kong (nice coach from the terminal to the casino area) there were six busloads coming over from mainland China (grotty buses, different entrance to the rest).
A form of gambling apartheid with the small-spending tourists on one side and the high-spending locals on the other. Inside, you could really believe you were in Vegas - but fewer slots and more tables.
I went to Macau when it was still a Portuguese colony. The contrast with Hong Kong was huge. It was so much quieter; no bustle; rickshaws. We drank port and watched the sun go down over the Pearl River Delta. Then it was the stars and the moon shining bright in a jet black sky. And the lapping water the only noise breaking the silence. You never see stars when you are in Hong Kong. I have not been back since. I have heard it has changed completely.
Sunil Prasannan @Sunil_P2 · 4m4 minutes ago #Conservatives to #Labour swings at Westminster by-elections since GE 2010. Inverclyde only case of Lab to Con =0.03%
President Rand Paul would be the most entertaining option - lets hope he wins it.
Yep
CiF would melt down to the centre of the planet and come out the other side - with a froth tsunami hitting Japan shortly afterwards.
Bah, that's nothing, imagine the reaction if Sarah Palin won.
As we'd be in a universe where water flows up hill, cold is hot and Ed Milliband is the most popular Labour leader ever I'd think there would be more pressing concerns to worry about.
I don't care what anyone says; there is a time for presidential mavericks: the USA is in big trouble. Someone on the daily politics today said that the real unemployment rate in the US, is closer to to 12% than the official numbers allow, statistical falsifications abound.
I think that Sarah Palin would make a damn good president; she was damn good governor of Alaska for a while. She could put America in the direction it really wants to travel. At the moment the whole political situation stinks, it is closer to civil war there, than for 80 odd years in the early days of the Great depression.
Sometimes a country needs a leader that can make things happen and in the happening change direction and avert catastrophy. I think Palin could do it. But, will she, thats the rub?
Palin would be a disaster. Were you rooting for Goldwater, or were you too young?
Never Goldwater and I'm quite long in the tooth. Oh, and Obama is not a disaster?
A NEW poll has shown an increase in the SNP’s lead over Scottish Labour in voting intentions for the Scottish Parliament.
The Ipsos MORI poll, conducted for STV News, showed that 57 per cent of those ‘certain’ to vote would back the SNP, while 23 per cent would cast their constituency vote for Scottish Labour, giving the Nationalists a 34-point lead over Labour.
Eight per cent said they would vote for the Scottish Conservatives while six per cent indicated support for the Scottish Liberal Democrats.
Lord Ashcroft @LordAshcroft 7m7 minutes ago My wider marginal seats survey will be published tomorrow at 11am. Note to bookies...it's interesting especially in the following seats...
President Rand Paul would be the most entertaining option - lets hope he wins it.
Yep
CiF would melt down to the centre of the planet and come out the other side - with a froth tsunami hitting Japan shortly afterwards.
Bah, that's nothing, imagine the reaction if Sarah Palin won.
As we'd be in a universe where water flows up hill, cold is hot and Ed Milliband is the most popular Labour leader ever I'd think there would be more pressing concerns to worry about.
I don't care what anyone says; there is a time for presidential mavericks: the USA is in big trouble. Someone on the daily politics today said that the real unemployment rate in the US, is closer to to 12% than the official numbers allow, statistical falsifications abound.
I think that Sarah Palin would make a damn good president; she was damn good governor of Alaska for a while. She could put America in the direction it really wants to travel. At the moment the whole political situation stinks, it is closer to civil war there, than for 80 odd years in the early days of the Great depression.
Sometimes a country needs a leader that can make things happen and in the happening change direction and avert catastrophy. I think Palin could do it. But, will she, thats the rub?
Palin would be a disaster. Were you rooting for Goldwater, or were you too young?
"The European Commission slashed its economic outlook for the eurozone on Tuesday, predicting the currency bloc would grow only 1.1 per cent next year, down from a 1.7 per cent forecast just six months ago.
The revisions were particularly big in the two largest eurozone economies, Germany and France, for which the commission cut its projections by nearly a full percentage point for 2015. The gross domestic product forecast for Germany, the common currency’s economic engine, was cut from 2 per cent in May to 1.1 per cent; France went from 1.5 per cent to 0.7 per cent."
"The commission raised its forecast for Britain saying it expected the economy to grow 2.7 per cent next year, compared with the 2.5 per cent May forecast."
I don't care what anyone says; there is a time for presidential mavericks: the USA is in big trouble. Someone on the daily politics today said that the real unemployment rate in the US, is closer to to 12% than the official numbers allow, statistical falsifications abound.
I'm working so I don't have time to address this fully, but this is an excellent point. Unemployment numbers are hugely manipulated by (most) governments, with constant revisions to who's counted as part of the workforce, and whether you have to be claiming unemployment benefit, etc., to be counted as unemployed. In the UK, under the last administration (and before, tbf), there was a tendency to try and classify people as "Disabled" so that you didn't have to add them to the unemployment statistics.
In the US in 1999, 64% of those over the age of 15 were in employment (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.EMP.TOTL.SP.ZS), and the implied number for June 2014 was 59%. (Last published as 58%). That means 6-8% fewer people are working as a percentage of people over the age of 15. Some can be put down to an increased cohort of retirees, but most is because real unemployment is higher than the headline figures.
I think all of us should move to using employment ratios rather than raw unemployment numbers, because it is simply much harder to 'game' the employed statistics.
Just received an A3 leaflet through my letterbox from local MP Dame Angela Watkinson
"IMMIGRATION:WHAT YOU ARE TELLING US ABOUT YOUR FEARS
Immigration is the No1 concern of residents and the conservative led government is taking action to stem the immigrant tide and prevent benefit tourism. Too many have automatically received benefits and healthcare before making any contribution to British society This we have stopped: enough is enough. Now only those with the skills to contribute to our economy and the ability to be self sufficient are granted leave to remain. Our measures include:
Limiting EU immigrants access to benefits and removing those who are not here to work..."
Is that true? I heard of a Romanian beggar on the streets of Manchester earlier today whose Aunty was on a monkey a week state top ups
Went to Macau with Mrs Stodge in 2009 - an extraordinary place. For every ferry load from Hong Kong (nice coach from the terminal to the casino area) there were six busloads coming over from mainland China (grotty buses, different entrance to the rest).
A form of gambling apartheid with the small-spending tourists on one side and the high-spending locals on the other. Inside, you could really believe you were in Vegas - but fewer slots and more tables.
I went to Macau when it was still a Portuguese colony. The contrast with Hong Kong was huge. It was so much quieter; no bustle; rickshaws. We drank port and watched the sun go down over the Pearl River Delta. Then it was the stars and the moon shining bright in a jet black sky. And the lapping water the only noise breaking the silence. You never see stars when you are in Hong Kong. I have not been back since. I have heard it has changed completely.
Macau is an unpleasant place now - very dodgy. Makes Durban look like Tunbridge Wells.
The lack of discussion of the US election TODAY is a bit astonishing. Normally we're chewing over these things for weeks, and the Senate appears amazingly finely balanced, though the GOP looks ahead by a nose in the swing seats. Real Clear Politics, which is seen as mildly pro-GOP but basically fact-oriented, has a GOP lead of 47-45 with 8 swing seats too close to call:
"The European Commission slashed its economic outlook for the eurozone on Tuesday, predicting the currency bloc would grow only 1.1 per cent next year, down from a 1.7 per cent forecast just six months ago.
The revisions were particularly big in the two largest eurozone economies, Germany and France, for which the commission cut its projections by nearly a full percentage point for 2015. The gross domestic product forecast for Germany, the common currency’s economic engine, was cut from 2 per cent in May to 1.1 per cent; France went from 1.5 per cent to 0.7 per cent."
"The commission raised its forecast for Britain saying it expected the economy to grow 2.7 per cent next year, compared with the 2.5 per cent May forecast."
Amusingly, that would result in one non-SNP constituency - Etterick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire, but only increases the SNP majority by 12 seats on what they acheived in 2011.
What comes above a high water mark? Tsunami damage level?
Went to Macau with Mrs Stodge in 2009 - an extraordinary place. For every ferry load from Hong Kong (nice coach from the terminal to the casino area) there were six busloads coming over from mainland China (grotty buses, different entrance to the rest).
A form of gambling apartheid with the small-spending tourists on one side and the high-spending locals on the other. Inside, you could really believe you were in Vegas - but fewer slots and more tables.
I'd liked to have been a "small spending tourist"...
I had a day in Macau about 18 months ago. Went to one of the larger casinos wanting to have a flutter and watch the showgirls (as you do). However the minimum bet on almost every table was about £120 (per hand of blackjack, or per roll of the dice, or per spin of the wheel), which was absurd given I budgeted to lose about double that over the whole evening.
My friend made one bet on red, won £120, and we spend it on drinks while watching the aforementioned showgirls.
In the end I'd not spent a penny, and had a very enjoyable evening!
"The European Commission slashed its economic outlook for the eurozone...
Given the size of the revisions to the first estimates of actual economic growth, news about forecasts of economic growth is merely microns away from being completely pointless.
I note that there will be a double by-election in the crossbenchers' section of the House of Lords hereditary peers due to one death and one retirement. It is now possible due to a new law to retire from the House of Lords.
Whilst the electoral system remains ATV it is adapted to reflect two vacancies. The count is first run to elect the first peer. Then the count is rerun, with the secondary preferences, etc., of those voting for the winner counting. So in effect anyone successful in voting for the first winner will have their minor preferences counted in electing the second winner. This is strange, why do they not just use STV for two vacancies.
Well, the electoral system is AV, not STV, so that answers the last part.
I suppose the logic is the presence of D on the ballot won't alter your relative ranking of A, B, and C.
If D happens to be elected first, re-use the same ballots to determine which of A, B and C is elected next, as if D was never on the ballot.
I don't care what anyone says; there is a time for presidential mavericks: the USA is in big trouble. Someone on the daily politics today said that the real unemployment rate in the US, is closer to to 12% than the official numbers allow, statistical falsifications abound.
I'm working so I don't have time to address this fully, but this is an excellent point. Unemployment numbers are hugely manipulated by (most) governments, with constant revisions to who's counted as part of the workforce, and whether you have to be claiming unemployment benefit, etc., to be counted as unemployed. In the UK, under the last administration (and before, tbf), there was a tendency to try and classify people as "Disabled" so that you didn't have to add them to the unemployment statistics.
In the US in 1999, 64% of those over the age of 15 were in employment (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.EMP.TOTL.SP.ZS), and the implied number for June 2014 was 59%. (Last published as 58%). That means 6-8% fewer people are working as a percentage of people over the age of 15. Some can be put down to an increased cohort of retirees, but most is because real unemployment is higher than the headline figures.
I think all of us should move to using employment ratios rather than raw unemployment numbers, because it is simply much harder to 'game' the employed statistics.
But what are your observations on the Devine Sarah, bearing in mind that six years has slipped the moorings. (I'm feeling nautical today, thinking of a sea trip)
The government's tax statements are being exposed as a huge distortion.
I'd find it funny for its desperation, were it not for the fact that it's being paid for by my taxes, rather than Plato's Conservative Party membership subscription.
Whereas I'm sure spending your money on the "union modernisation fund" fills you with joy.
Sunil Prasannan @Sunil_P2 · 4m4 minutes ago #Conservatives to #Labour swings at Westminster by-elections since GE 2010. Inverclyde only case of Lab to Con =0.03%
It's noticeable that most of those above the average line were already safe Labour seats and in the first half of the Parliament.
The government's tax statements are being exposed as a huge distortion.
I'd find it funny for its desperation, were it not for the fact that it's being paid for by my taxes, rather than Plato's Conservative Party membership subscription.
Err, I don't think an article in the Guardan, quoting Declan Gaffney ("a social security researcher" ha ha!), counts as anything 'being exposed', but it does show how worried Labour are by transparency.
The SNP surge could be vital in changing some of the rules of thumb that we have become accustomed to in terms of the % Tory lead needed to have (a) Most Seats and (b) a majority.
But, as shadsy notes, Labour are currently only favourites to lose 3 seats to the SNP - most of their gains are from the LDs.
The problem for the Tories is that LAB losses to the SNP in Scotland have zero impact on their majority chances. They just make it harder for LAB to secure a majority.
What's better value? 8/15 Tories most votes with Ladbrokes, or 6/5 Tories most seats on betfair?
The problem being that already the UKIP policy proposals in many cases are more attractive to Traditional Tories than the Tory alternatives and UKIP do not suffer from having a track record of being so terribly 'liberal'. In a lot of cases the reason UKIP are out Torying the Tories (Immigration, Aid, Energy etc) is because of the Tories clinging to EU membership. UKIP's big advantage is they are not constrained in their policy making by EU diktat.
It's as if the Tories intend to go into the election with both hands tied behind their back. The only way I can see they will succeed in getting large numbers of former Tories to return at this stage is if the MSM conspire to suppress UKIP's policy offering during the campaign or something goes very wrong for UKIP.
Sure, but those Tories who think that are in the UKIP column already, and the two main parties are level-pegging. I'm hypothesising that some of them will switch back to the Tories even though they are more sympathetic to the UKIP view of the world. A tactical vote for the Tories (because those same voters mostly think Ed would be a disaster).
Of course there will be some but I suspect nowhere near as many as the Tories are hoping for. This will be particularly so because they now know that they will have to be very specific in the way they target the 'Vote UKIP get Labour' narrative because whilst it will influence some former Tory voters it's also a dog whistle for the anti-Tory vote to vote UKIP in seats where the main contest is between the Tories and UKIP.
The other thing is that anyone who does more than a superficial calculation will likely recognise that the state of the economy and the public finances gives Miliband very little room to maneuver and as much as we might like to scaremonger about him the reality I suspect is greatly diminished. Miliband is a misfit. He will be a disaster but I suspect more likely a disaster for the Labour Party than for the country at large.........
Lord Ashcroft @LordAshcroft 7m7 minutes ago My wider marginal seats survey will be published tomorrow at 11am. Note to bookies...it's interesting especially in the following seats...
Lord Ashcroft @LordAshcroft 7m7 minutes ago My wider marginal seats survey will be published tomorrow at 11am. Note to bookies...it's interesting especially in the following seats...
"The European Commission slashed its economic outlook for the eurozone on Tuesday, predicting the currency bloc would grow only 1.1 per cent next year, down from a 1.7 per cent forecast just six months ago.
The revisions were particularly big in the two largest eurozone economies, Germany and France, for which the commission cut its projections by nearly a full percentage point for 2015. The gross domestic product forecast for Germany, the common currency’s economic engine, was cut from 2 per cent in May to 1.1 per cent; France went from 1.5 per cent to 0.7 per cent."
"The commission raised its forecast for Britain saying it expected the economy to grow 2.7 per cent next year, compared with the 2.5 per cent May forecast."
A NEW poll has shown an increase in the SNP’s lead over Scottish Labour in voting intentions for the Scottish Parliament.
The Ipsos MORI poll, conducted for STV News, showed that 57 per cent of those ‘certain’ to vote would back the SNP, while 23 per cent would cast their constituency vote for Scottish Labour, giving the Nationalists a 34-point lead over Labour.
Eight per cent said they would vote for the Scottish Conservatives while six per cent indicated support for the Scottish Liberal Democrats.
The list vote is a little better for SLAB but has Greens at 10%, over Tories at 8% and [edit] LDs at 6%.
I really don't understand the drop in Tory vote - now seen in 3 polls (4 if you include the fact that one was repeated as incredible).I tried looking at the tables for the previous Mori Scotland poll, and the low Conservative score seems to be because there are more Conservative "don't knows". Could they be considering voting tactically in an attempt to stop the SNP?
The lack of discussion of the US election TODAY is a bit astonishing. Normally we're chewing over these things for weeks, and the Senate appears amazingly finely balanced, though the GOP looks ahead by a nose in the swing seats. Real Clear Politics, which is seen as mildly pro-GOP but basically fact-oriented, has a GOP lead of 47-45 with 8 swing seats too close to call:
By contrast, the GOP appears to have the House election in the bag.
Normally we'd be all over the mid terms. Not sure why we are not this time. Doesn't seem to have caught the imagination.
Given the GOP will at least retain the House I can guarantee there will be calls for "bipartisanship come Wednesday. Funny, it only happens when the GOP control something. There were no such calls between 2006 and 2010.
Sunil Prasannan @Sunil_P2 · 4m4 minutes ago #Conservatives to #Labour swings at Westminster by-elections since GE 2010. Inverclyde only case of Lab to Con =0.03%
It's noticeable that most of those above the average line were already safe Labour seats and in the first half of the Parliament.
That's true - though Heywood and a lesser extent Clacton weren't far off. I imagine the swing will be less than average at Rochester.
The government's tax statements are being exposed as a huge distortion.
I'd find it funny for its desperation, were it not for the fact that it's being paid for by my taxes, rather than Plato's Conservative Party membership subscription.
Whereas I'm sure spending your money on the "union modernisation fund" fills you with joy.
There are lots of items of government expenditure that I might take exception to, but it's not possible to talk about all of them in a single comment - there's a limit on the number of characters.
Mr. Eagles, surely nobody has ever called a 50/1 shot on the US presidential race before?
Mr. Me, might just be the very bad 2012 budget and its aftermath coinciding with the calm before the UKIP storm began. Also worth considering the Scottish situation.
In short, Miliband just happened to be around when the Conservatives cocked up the 45% tax rate (and were aided by an idiotic media over the pasty tax) but was helpless to resist when things turned against him.
It was more than that. Labour ran a very effective anti-Budget operation, which the 'omnishambles' definition they gave to it summed up very adequately. It was probably the last time they did anything any where that effective.
The government's tax statements are being exposed as a huge distortion.
I'd find it funny for its desperation, were it not for the fact that it's being paid for by my taxes, rather than Plato's Conservative Party membership subscription.
Err, I don't think an article in the Guardan, quoting Declan Gaffney ("a social security researcher" ha ha!), counts as anything 'being exposed', but it does show how worried Labour are by transparency.
The facts speak for themselves.
I warmly welcomed these statements when they were first announced, but your partisanship on the final presentation is glaring.
Mr. Isam, whilst right now I still think the blues likelier than the purples to axe Balls, 33 for UKIP here looks like a sound trading bet right now.
Oh that is 20/1 now, the prices on there were when I made the list
Boston & Skegness was 7/1, now 4/7 S Bas and E Thurrock was 20/1 now 5/2 Thurrock was 16/1 now 4/5 Dudley North was 25s now 5s Newcastle Under Lyme was 16s now 11/2 Plymouth Moor View was 25s now 8s
The government's tax statements are being exposed as a huge distortion.
I'd find it funny for its desperation, were it not for the fact that it's being paid for by my taxes, rather than Plato's Conservative Party membership subscription.
Err, I don't think an article in the Guardan, quoting Declan Gaffney ("a social security researcher" ha ha!), counts as anything 'being exposed', but it does show how worried Labour are by transparency.
"Throw in the conundrum of Scotland and you see the fogbanks of uncertainty hiding the iceberg of disaster for the unwary punter."
Good grief, my dear Stodgy, have you been on a creative writing course?!
Must say I am wholly in agreement with your sentiments though. It is very easy to construct wholly plausible scenarios in which not only does no Party have a Majority, but it is also very difficult to envisage what two-Party coalition might ensure.
Minority Government? Rainbow Coalition?
Buggered if I know.
My current thinking: a very plausible scenario IMHO is the Tories drop 5 seats to UKIP and around 18 marginals to Labour, but compensate with making 14 gains from the Lib Dems. That'd leave them with 297 seats (all things else considered)
Labour would likely have made some losses to the SNP so even given the pick ups from the Tories and Lib Dems would not be ahead on seats. Perhaps c.275 seats. The Lib Dems would likely be sub-30 seats, making it impossible to form a stable majority coalition with the Tories (although I wouldn't totally rule it out) and Cameron gets first dibs as the incumbent Prime Minister.
It's for that reason I backed a Conservative minority government on Ladbrokes a month ago at 10/1, which i thought a very good price. I'm starting to think that might actually now happen.
10/1 was an outstanding price. I'd concur with your reasoning.
No way are they going to nominate Paul. No frikkin way.
It comes down to whether the GOP wants a candidate it likes or a candidate that has a chance of winning. Hillary Clinton (assuming it is she) is a formidable political operator and nobody's fool. The GOP needs to think about a sensible, balanced ticket (Hispanic for VP perhaps ?) rather than a conservative tub-thumper who will ensure the GOP loses 53-47 or similar in 2016.
Well, not really. The GOP pretty much settled on their most moderate option (excepting Huntsman, I guess) for the last two Presidential elections and both times they still lost.
Similarly, George W Bush never particular struck me as a centrist, but he still managed to win twice.
US Presidential elections are funny things.
The GOP were up against an electoral phenomenon in 2008 and to a lesser extent in 2012. They actually did very creditably in the circumstances but sometimes there are elections you just can't win. Other times, there are elections you might just win if you play all your cards right but you then don't. I'm pretty sure that every other candidate the GOP considered in 2012 would have done a good deal worse than Romney did.
Re Bush, he did market himself as a Compassionate Conservative during his Texas days. Whether that was justified or not, the point is that it was his positioning and his campaign rhetoric and that things changed greatly post 11/9/01.
Just received an A3 leaflet through my letterbox from local MP Dame Angela Watkinson
"IMMIGRATION:WHAT YOU ARE TELLING US ABOUT YOUR FEARS
Immigration is the No1 concern of residents and the conservative led government is taking action to stem the immigrant tide and prevent benefit tourism. Too many have automatically received benefits and healthcare before making any contribution to British society This we have stopped: enough is enough. Now only those with the skills to contribute to our economy and the ability to be self sufficient are granted leave to remain. Our measures include:
Limiting EU immigrants access to benefits and removing those who are not here to work..."
Is that true? I heard of a Romanian beggar on the streets of Manchester earlier today whose Aunty was on a monkey a week state top ups
It's not a 'measure', so it can't be judged for truth.
'Limiting' could mean anything -it's mealy mouthed politician speak that people are getting wise to. See also:
BOOSTING our border controls GETTING TOUGH with immigrants who claim out of work benefits TAKING ACTION to deport illegal immigrants STANDING UP for hard working families
None of it has any meaning; it cannot be measured -its success or failure cannot be judged. As empty as candy floss.
Tell us what the measure is, how much it will cost, how it is being implemented, what changes this will result in, what the positive outcome of these changes will be. Otherwise expect to continue to lose support in droves.
"The European Commission slashed its economic outlook for the eurozone on Tuesday, predicting the currency bloc would grow only 1.1 per cent next year, down from a 1.7 per cent forecast just six months ago.
The revisions were particularly big in the two largest eurozone economies, Germany and France, for which the commission cut its projections by nearly a full percentage point for 2015. The gross domestic product forecast for Germany, the common currency’s economic engine, was cut from 2 per cent in May to 1.1 per cent; France went from 1.5 per cent to 0.7 per cent."
"The commission raised its forecast for Britain saying it expected the economy to grow 2.7 per cent next year, compared with the 2.5 per cent May forecast."
"Throw in the conundrum of Scotland and you see the fogbanks of uncertainty hiding the iceberg of disaster for the unwary punter."
Good grief, my dear Stodgy, have you been on a creative writing course?!
Must say I am wholly in agreement with your sentiments though. It is very easy to construct wholly plausible scenarios in which not only does no Party have a Majority, but it is also very difficult to envisage what two-Party coalition might ensure.
Minority Government? Rainbow Coalition?
Buggered if I know.
My current thinking: a very plausible scenario IMHO is the Tories drop 5 seats to UKIP and around 18 marginals to Labour, but compensate with making 14 gains from the Lib Dems. That'd leave them with 297 seats (all things else considered)
Labour would likely have made some losses to the SNP so even given the pick ups from the Tories and Lib Dems would not be ahead on seats. Perhaps c.275 seats. The Lib Dems would likely be sub-30 seats, making it impossible to form a stable majority coalition with the Tories (although I wouldn't totally rule it out) and Cameron gets first dibs as the incumbent Prime Minister.
It's for that reason I backed a Conservative minority government on Ladbrokes a month ago at 10/1, which i thought a very good price. I'm starting to think that might actually now happen.
10/1 was an outstanding price. I'd concur with your reasoning.
Thanks David. I did share the tip on here in a couple of the comments threads. I hope a few other punters got on.
The government's tax statements are being exposed as a huge distortion.
I'd find it funny for its desperation, were it not for the fact that it's being paid for by my taxes, rather than Plato's Conservative Party membership subscription.
Err, I don't think an article in the Guardan, quoting Declan Gaffney ("a social security researcher" ha ha!), counts as anything 'being exposed', but it does show how worried Labour are by transparency.
The facts speak for themselves.
I warmly welcomed these statements when they were first announced, but your partisanship on the final presentation is glaring.
I'm not being partisan at all, but I can recognise ludicrously biased party-political and union propaganda when I see it. For example, from the article you quoted:
“The Treasury needs to clarify exactly how it arrived at these figures, and publish the workings – spelling out exactly whose pensions it included. Does it, for example, include MPs and the prime minister himself?”
Have you ever seen a dafter comment (except perhaps from Farage)? What if it does include MPs and the PM's pensions? They would total, what, less than a millionth of the total.
If you want more detail, the article from the IFS is a more sensible critique:
Of course you can split things up in different ways, or in more detail, but, as the IFS acccepts: "Welfare" spending, at 25% of the total, is taken directly from the government's public expenditure statistical analyses. It is the total spending defined as "social protection" in these analyses, less spending on state pensions
In other words these are the officially-accepted classifications, which I'm pretty sure won't have changed since the last government.
1918 was the only time (I think) that 4 parties were within a range of 20% in votes. Could it happen again in 2015?
It's arguable as to whether that's true. It only is if you count the Coalition Conservatives and Non-Coalition Conservatives as different parties (otherwise, the Tory total is more than 20% ahead of both Lloyd George's and Asquith's Liberals).
While the LG and official Liberals stood against each other and so should be counted separately, I'm not sure whether that's also true of the Coalition and dissenting Tories, who certainly sat together afterwards.
Mr. Isam, 20 may still be a bit long, I think. UKIP are in third place (effectively, last time they were fourth behind the Lib Dems).
Mr. Herdson, indeed. Whilst I don't think in terms of substance the 2012 Budget was bad, it was a PR disaster due to some obvious errors and a shallow, easily led media (the pasty tax was utter nonsense). The Conservatives were (as they often seem to be) very bad at predicting how things would go (the 45% rate was obviously a problem) and at managing the media.
Just received an A3 leaflet through my letterbox from local MP Dame Angela Watkinson
"IMMIGRATION:WHAT YOU ARE TELLING US ABOUT YOUR FEARS
Immigration is the No1 concern of residents and the conservative led government is taking action to stem the immigrant tide and prevent benefit tourism. Too many have automatically received benefits and healthcare before making any contribution to British society This we have stopped: enough is enough. Now only those with the skills to contribute to our economy and the ability to be self sufficient are granted leave to remain. Our measures include:
Limiting EU immigrants access to benefits and removing those who are not here to work..."
Is that true? I heard of a Romanian beggar on the streets of Manchester earlier today whose Aunty was on a monkey a week state top ups
It's not a 'measure', so it can't be judged for truth.
'Limiting' could mean anything -it's mealy mouthed politician speak that people are getting wise to. See also:
BOOSTING our border controls GETTING TOUGH with immigrants who claim out of work benefits TAKING ACTION to deport illegal immigrants STANDING UP for hard working families
None of it has any meaning; it cannot be measured -its success or failure cannot be judged. As empty as candy floss.
Tell us what the measure is, how much it will cost, how it is being implemented, what changes this will result in, what the positive outcome of these changes will be. Otherwise expect to continue to lose support in droves.
Try EDUCATION, EDUCATION, EDUCATION and TOUGH ON CRIME, TOUGH ON THE CAUSES OF CRIME for empty hollow phrases.
1918 was the only time (I think) that 4 parties were within a range of 20% in votes. Could it happen again in 2015?
It's arguable as to whether that's true. It only is if you count the Coalition Conservatives and Non-Coalition Conservatives as different parties (otherwise, the Tory total is more than 20% ahead of both Lloyd George's and Asquith's Liberals).
While the LG and official Liberals stood against each other and so should be counted separately, I'm not sure whether that's also true of the Coalition and dissenting Tories, who certainly sat together afterwards.
I know, as discussed in the Indian example yesterday, which is suspiciously similar to the 1918 situation!. Metrics like ENP, etc are not really calculable/comparable unless all parties fight all seats.
"The commission raised its forecast for Britain saying it expected the economy to grow 2.7 per cent next year, compared with the 2.5 per cent May forecast."
Luckily the French and Germans have us, the Dutch, Greeks and Italians to bail them out.
Maybe....
What if time. BIG what if time. What if Cameron stood up in Parliament - sometime early in the New Year perhaps - and said something along the lines of:
"We have reached an impasse in discussions with Brussels on their demand for a further £1.7 billion to prop up the French and German economies. They are now charging us interest at £x million a day.
Well let me tell them this. The British people will decide when and if we pay that sum. We have promised the people an In or Out referendum by 2017 if we are re-elected. Well, today I bring that date forward to May 2016. In the meantime, I will go to Brussels to try and get them to see some sense in fixing their dysfunctional institutions. They can work with me, or not.
But to get their attention, I am today announcing that we will not be paying the £1.7 billion. We will not be paying their interest demands. And further, we will pay NO FURTHER CONTRIBUTIONS TO BRUSSELS - NONE AT ALL - UNTIL THE PEOPLE HAVE HAD THEIR SAY in that referendum.
I know people will say this is in breach of a million Treaty obligations. But frankly, if the British people decide they don't want in, then I would rather our contributions in the meantime were being spent on our NHS, not on the Germans or the French having better hospitals using the UK's money"
That would throw a big stone in a small pond. The EU could respond by throwing us out. The LibDems could be the party of boo-hoo. UKIP - who they any more? Labour could join the LibDems - or try and match the Tory position (good luck with Ed convincing people on that) - or more likely, they would come up with some hopeless, fudgy compromise that suites no-one. They would have to answer the question "If you win in May, would you overturn the contributions freeze?" Watch them squirm on that one.
Meanwhile, the Tories are on about 39% - and can't see anyone in their rear-view mirror.....
Comments
Similarly, George W Bush never particular struck me as a centrist, but he still managed to win twice.
US Presidential elections are funny things.
The Tories have shown themselves cripplingly unwilling or unable to address the problems the country faces, particularly the crisis in living standards, an economy that doesn't work for so many people, and the rotten state of the Establishment (bankers who caused the crisis, the contempt shown by big business to ordinary workers, the unaccountable power of media moguls etc - the Tories are basically the political wing of these people)
For their part, Labour were in charge when the bankers caused the economic crisis, so rightly or wrongly aren't fully trusted yet (this would be a problem no matter who was leader).
Lib Dems have committed suicide.
It's no wonder people are exasperated and looking elsewhere (SNP switchers have an added incentive).
I have my doubts it will eventually lead to some sort of game-changing election outcome next year, more likely a humdrum small majority or minority / coalition. But we'll almost certainly see some "interesting" individual results.
Sounds about right.
3 groups in order of favourability.. if UKIP didn't stand in 2010 they wont be on here
Barking
Boston & Skegness
Bromsgrove
Dag & Rain 20s
Dudley North 25s
Halesown & Rowley Regis
Morley & Outwood 33s
Newcastle Under Lyme
Plymouth Moor View 16s
S Bas & E Thurrock 20s
Staffordshire Moorlands
Stoke on Trent South
Telford 25s
Thanet North
Thanet South 5/2
Thurrock 16s
Walsall North 16s
Walsall South
West Bromwich West
Wolverhampton NE 33s
Bexhill & Battle
Birmingham Yardley 100s
Bournemouth East
Bridgewater & W Somerset
Brirmingham Northfield
Broadland
Burton
Cannock Chase
Christchurch
Dartford
Dover
East Devon
Erith & Thamesmead
Folkestone & Hythe
Great Yarmouth
Hastings & Rye
Hx & Upm
Kingswood
Ludlow
N Devon 20s
N Warks 50s
Newton Abbot 50s
Peterborough
Poole
SE Cornwall 33s
Solihull
Spelthorne
Stoke on Trent Central
Stoke on Trent North
Stourbridge
Torridge & W Devon
Totnes
Wells 50s
West Brom East
West Suffolk
Aldershot
Bognor & Littlehampton
Bournemouth West
Camborne & Redruth
Chatham & Aylseford
Coventry NW
East Surrey
Eltham
Gill & Rain
Harlow
Hereford & S Herefordshire 50s
Horsham
IoW
Luton North
N Swindon
Norwich N
NW Cambs
Redditch
Reigate
S Cambs
Sittingbourne & Sheppey
Stratford on Avon
Wolverhampton SE
CON 302 LAB 291
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html
LAB 302 CON 263
2010 was NOM,
Labour on course to do worse than 2010.
The Tories have shown themselves cripplingly unwilling or unable to address the problems the country faces, particularly the crisis in living standards, an economy that doesn't work for so many people, and the rotten state of the Establishment (bankers who caused the crisis, the contempt shown by big business to ordinary workers, the unaccountable power of media moguls etc - the Tories are basically the political wing of these people)
What a load of old tosh - you know the fall in living standards was an inevitable result of the inherited mess - the massive economic re-balancing is testimony to an extraordinary turnaround not least in employment. The medicine that had to be taken would have produced a swifter recovery had the LDs not been there with their endless agonising. The bankers are taxed and controlled more effectively now than they ever were under Labour. What on earth you mean by media moguls is beyond me unless you mean the BBC - in which case I agree!
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B1h4Sb5IQAAiUIj.jpg:large
Which sounds about right to me.
Mind you I did back David Petraeus just before his inability keep the snake inside the pet store become public.
The GOP was always going to be in the driving seat after eight years of Democrat rule and conversely the Democrat candidate in 2008 was helped by eight years of GOP rule and an economic collapse.
The one-term President is a novelty these days - the last was George H W Bush (see above) so even if Hillary wins in 2016, I doubt she'd serve two terms. The GOP has a huge chance in two years but that's an eternity in politics though the Democrats' own midterm success in 2006 effectively made Bush a lame duck and Obama faces a similar fate.
I've backed Liverpool to beat Real Madrid tonight, you can get 12/1 or more if you shop around.
But most of my money is going on their being over 6.5 goals at 11/1 with Corals.
I can foresee Real Madrid giving us the Dockside Hooker treatment.
Dejan Lovren versus Rodriguez, Ronaldo et al is giving me nightmares.
With Brendan reportedly resting Steven Gerrard and Raheem Sterling, this could get embarrassing.
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-information-office/2014/Lords-notice-hereditary-peers-by-election-Nov-2014-allenby-cobbold.pdf
Whilst the electoral system remains ATV it is adapted to reflect two vacancies. The count is first run to elect the first peer. Then the count is rerun, with the secondary preferences, etc., of those voting for the winner counting. So in effect anyone successful in voting for the first winner will have their minor preferences counted in electing the second winner. This is strange, why do they not just use STV for two vacancies.
I think that Sarah Palin would make a damn good president; she was damn good governor of Alaska for a while. She could put America in the direction it really wants to travel. At the moment the whole political situation stinks, it is closer to civil war there, than for 80 odd years in the early days of the Great depression.
Sometimes a country needs a leader that can make things happen and in the happening change direction and avert catastrophy. I think Palin could do it. But, will she, thats the rub?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29892529
Went to Macau with Mrs Stodge in 2009 - an extraordinary place. For every ferry load from Hong Kong (nice coach from the terminal to the casino area) there were six busloads coming over from mainland China (grotty buses, different entrance to the rest).
A form of gambling apartheid with the small-spending tourists on one side and the high-spending locals on the other. Inside, you could really believe you were in Vegas - but fewer slots and more tables.
I'd find it funny for its desperation, were it not for the fact that it's being paid for by my taxes, rather than Plato's Conservative Party membership subscription.
Labour 2010 VI Retention
End of August: 83.5
End of September: 81.5
End of October: 78
November start: 77
Red LDs:
End of August: 33.6
End of September: 32.7
End of October: 31.7
November start: 25
To lose one main party leader (Nick) is unfortunate, to lose two (Ed) smacks of carelessness. Unfortunately I don't think Dave could complete the triumvirate.
"The European Commission slashed its economic outlook for the eurozone on Tuesday, predicting the currency bloc would grow only 1.1 per cent next year, down from a 1.7 per cent forecast just six months ago.
The revisions were particularly big in the two largest eurozone economies, Germany and France, for which the commission cut its projections by nearly a full percentage point for 2015. The gross domestic product forecast for Germany, the common currency’s economic engine, was cut from 2 per cent in May to 1.1 per cent; France went from 1.5 per cent to 0.7 per cent."
"The commission raised its forecast for Britain saying it expected the economy to grow 2.7 per cent next year, compared with the 2.5 per cent May forecast."
I don't think the BBC even mentioned it.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6c327312-6400-11e4-8ade-00144feabdc0.html?ftcamp=published_links/rss/brussels/feed//product&siteedition=uk#axzz3HzzeOh64
Extraordinary - looks like Scotland is opting for one party rule as a result of the Labour implosion. These sort of figures blow all GE predictions out of the water.
I guess the Commission will shortly be asking us for more money then?
'£20bn of welfare isn't going to poor people - it's actually going to public sector employee pensions'
'Most welfare doesn't go to the unemployed - it goes to pensioners including free bus passes, winter fuel payments for zillionaires'
My wider marginal seats survey will be published tomorrow at 11am. Note to bookies...it's interesting especially in the following seats...
Tim Montgomerie @montie 6m6 minutes ago
@LordAshcroft can't wait Lordie
"We will cope without him.."
#Conservatives to #Labour swings at Westminster by-elections since GE 2010. Inverclyde only case of Lab to Con =0.03%
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/529682180784816128
The list vote is a little better for SLAB but has Greens at 10%, over Tories at 8% and [edit] LDs at 6%.
I really don't understand the drop in Tory vote - now seen in 3 polls (4 if you include the fact that one was repeated as incredible).
No Ron, no Rand...
And if euro countries continue at this downward rate, UK will be picking up the entire tab.
In the US in 1999, 64% of those over the age of 15 were in employment (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.EMP.TOTL.SP.ZS), and the implied number for June 2014 was 59%. (Last published as 58%). That means 6-8% fewer people are working as a percentage of people over the age of 15. Some can be put down to an increased cohort of retirees, but most is because real unemployment is higher than the headline figures.
I think all of us should move to using employment ratios rather than raw unemployment numbers, because it is simply much harder to 'game' the employed statistics.
"IMMIGRATION:WHAT YOU ARE TELLING US ABOUT YOUR FEARS
Immigration is the No1 concern of residents and the conservative led government is taking action to stem the immigrant tide and prevent benefit tourism. Too many have automatically received benefits and healthcare before making any contribution to British society This we have stopped: enough is enough. Now only those with the skills to contribute to our economy and the ability to be self sufficient are granted leave to remain. Our measures include:
Limiting EU immigrants access to benefits and removing those who are not here to work..."
Is that true? I heard of a Romanian beggar on the streets of Manchester earlier today whose Aunty was on a monkey a week state top ups
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2014/senate/2014_elections_senate_map.html
By contrast, the GOP appears to have the House election in the bag.
What comes above a high water mark? Tsunami damage level?
I had a day in Macau about 18 months ago. Went to one of the larger casinos wanting to have a flutter and watch the showgirls (as you do). However the minimum bet on almost every table was about £120 (per hand of blackjack, or per roll of the dice, or per spin of the wheel), which was absurd given I budgeted to lose about double that over the whole evening.
My friend made one bet on red, won £120, and we spend it on drinks while watching the aforementioned showgirls.
In the end I'd not spent a penny, and had a very enjoyable evening!
I suppose the logic is the presence of D on the ballot won't alter your relative ranking of A, B, and C.
If D happens to be elected first, re-use the same ballots to determine which of A, B and C is elected next, as if D was never on the ballot.
But there's probably a pathology somewhere...
57% SNP
23% Labour
8% Con
6% LD
EDIT: I am very slow.
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/11/raqqa-syria-islamic-state-activists-threatened.html?utm_source=Al-Monitor+Newsletter+[English]&utm_campaign=9b2761c891-November_4_2014&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_28264b27a0-9b2761c891-102410225
The other thing is that anyone who does more than a superficial calculation will likely recognise that the state of the economy and the public finances gives Miliband very little room to maneuver and as much as we might like to scaremonger about him the reality I suspect is greatly diminished. Miliband is a misfit. He will be a disaster but I suspect more likely a disaster for the Labour Party than for the country at large.........
Northampton North- 8/11- 6/5
Bury North-1/2 -13/8
Kingswood-1/2-6/4
Erewash 1/2-6/4
Blackpool Nth 8/15- 6/4
City of Chester 4/7 -5/4
Croydon Central 8/11- 11/10
Worcester 5/6-5/6
Keighley-5/6 -5/6
Wirral West 5/6- 5/6
I reckon Labour could be doing better in Northampton North and Croydon Central.
Conservatives could be value in Kingswood and Worcester
I really don't understand the drop in Tory vote - now seen in 3 polls (4 if you include the fact that one was repeated as incredible).I tried looking at the tables for the previous Mori Scotland poll, and the low Conservative score seems to be because there are more Conservative "don't knows". Could they be considering voting tactically in an attempt to stop the SNP?
Normally we'd be all over the mid terms.
Not sure why we are not this time. Doesn't seem to have caught the imagination.
Given the GOP will at least retain the House I can guarantee there will be calls for "bipartisanship come Wednesday. Funny, it only happens when the GOP control something. There were no such calls between 2006 and 2010.
I warmly welcomed these statements when they were first announced, but your partisanship on the final presentation is glaring.
Boston & Skegness was 7/1, now 4/7
S Bas and E Thurrock was 20/1 now 5/2
Thurrock was 16/1 now 4/5
Dudley North was 25s now 5s
Newcastle Under Lyme was 16s now 11/2
Plymouth Moor View was 25s now 8s
Much derided I believe when first published
http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7424
Re Bush, he did market himself as a Compassionate Conservative during his Texas days. Whether that was justified or not, the point is that it was his positioning and his campaign rhetoric and that things changed greatly post 11/9/01.
'Limiting' could mean anything -it's mealy mouthed politician speak that people are getting wise to. See also:
BOOSTING our border controls
GETTING TOUGH with immigrants who claim out of work benefits
TAKING ACTION to deport illegal immigrants
STANDING UP for hard working families
None of it has any meaning; it cannot be measured -its success or failure cannot be judged. As empty as candy floss.
Tell us what the measure is, how much it will cost, how it is being implemented, what changes this will result in, what the positive outcome of these changes will be. Otherwise expect to continue to lose support in droves.
http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/eu/forecasts/2014_autumn_forecast_en.htm
“The Treasury needs to clarify exactly how it arrived at these figures, and publish the workings – spelling out exactly whose pensions it included. Does it, for example, include MPs and the prime minister himself?”
Have you ever seen a dafter comment (except perhaps from Farage)? What if it does include MPs and the PM's pensions? They would total, what, less than a millionth of the total.
If you want more detail, the article from the IFS is a more sensible critique:
http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7424
Of course you can split things up in different ways, or in more detail, but, as the IFS acccepts: "Welfare" spending, at 25% of the total, is taken directly from the government's public expenditure statistical analyses. It is the total spending defined as "social protection" in these analyses, less spending on state pensions
In other words these are the officially-accepted classifications, which I'm pretty sure won't have changed since the last government.
While the LG and official Liberals stood against each other and so should be counted separately, I'm not sure whether that's also true of the Coalition and dissenting Tories, who certainly sat together afterwards.
Mr. Herdson, indeed. Whilst I don't think in terms of substance the 2012 Budget was bad, it was a PR disaster due to some obvious errors and a shallow, easily led media (the pasty tax was utter nonsense). The Conservatives were (as they often seem to be) very bad at predicting how things would go (the 45% rate was obviously a problem) and at managing the media.
As for the good Lord, my guess is that he has found his ceiling.
He had a 5% swing to Labour on his September polling, yet we are down to 3-4 % on his polling yesterday.
It must show.
Try EDUCATION, EDUCATION, EDUCATION and TOUGH ON CRIME, TOUGH ON THE CAUSES OF CRIME for empty hollow phrases.
I am happy to say, both now totally discredited.
What if time. BIG what if time. What if Cameron stood up in Parliament - sometime early in the New Year perhaps - and said something along the lines of:
"We have reached an impasse in discussions with Brussels on their demand for a further £1.7 billion to prop up the French and German economies. They are now charging us interest at £x million a day.
Well let me tell them this. The British people will decide when and if we pay that sum. We have promised the people an In or Out referendum by 2017 if we are re-elected. Well, today I bring that date forward to May 2016. In the meantime, I will go to Brussels to try and get them to see some sense in fixing their dysfunctional institutions. They can work with me, or not.
But to get their attention, I am today announcing that we will not be paying the £1.7 billion. We will not be paying their interest demands. And further, we will pay NO FURTHER CONTRIBUTIONS TO BRUSSELS - NONE AT ALL - UNTIL THE PEOPLE HAVE HAD THEIR SAY in that referendum.
I know people will say this is in breach of a million Treaty obligations. But frankly, if the British people decide they don't want in, then I would rather our contributions in the meantime were being spent on our NHS, not on the Germans or the French having better hospitals using the UK's money"
That would throw a big stone in a small pond. The EU could respond by throwing us out. The LibDems could be the party of boo-hoo. UKIP - who they any more? Labour could join the LibDems - or try and match the Tory position (good luck with Ed convincing people on that) - or more likely, they would come up with some hopeless, fudgy compromise that suites no-one. They would have to answer the question "If you win in May, would you overturn the contributions freeze?" Watch them squirm on that one.
Meanwhile, the Tories are on about 39% - and can't see anyone in their rear-view mirror.....