Back on topic some constituency polling in Scotland would be helpful. I remain to be persuaded that this constituency polling is going to be particularly accurate, there are a lot of technical problems in getting a sample of 1000 that is balanced against the particular constituency, but given the scale of the movements reported in the Scotland wide polling this really should not matter too much. A 15% swing will give us a very good idea even if it is really somewhere between 10% and 20% in reality.
Evens on SLAB getting most Scottish seats still seems a hell of a bet to me. There are occasional earthquakes but that would be 2012 with stilts on. The SNP had a much, much better starting point as already the largest party before the Labour strongholds were washed away that time. Their starting point for Westminster is much lower and the "stop the tories" cry of SLAB much louder. This was behind Sturgeon's move ruling out any support for them.
Did not Ms Sturgeon rule out coalition with the Tories? Doesn't exclude voting with them on specific issues (as indeed, with the roles reversed, happened in the first SNP minority administration at Holyrood).
As it is, UKIP will do more damage to the Tories than the SNP will to Scottish Labour. Hence Ed will be a PM with a majority next May. The closer it gets, the more certain it becomes.
Let us not forget most of the Tories in UKIP are people who have defected from the base of the party, largely shire tories and social conservatives who have faithfully voted Conservative for most or all of their adult life. The fact that Dave thought he could court the Guardian vote, by adopting liberal policies and insulting the core of his party, without losing the traditional Tory vote is one of the mysteries of this age, and its a completely self inflicted wound. I wonder how many Guardian readers he picked up in exchange for losing about a quarter of his vote to UKIP ? Fingers of one hand ?
Most of the "multiple witnesses" said Brown was 20 feet away, with his hands up, and not rushing the cop. The forensics of Wilson's injuries showed that he had a small bruise on his face, inconsistent with the belief that the next punch would knock him out, and completely inconsistent with the fractured eye socket injury leaked by the police department in the days after the killing.
The fact you claim the beating of Rodney King was all completely legitimate behaviour shows how ridiculous your bias is here. Let's just have a look at that video again:
Brady could see Johnson at the front passenger side of the vehicle when he and Brown started running suddenly; he did not hear a gunshot or see what caused them to run. He saw Wilson get out of the vehicle and "start walking briskly while firing on Brown as he fled"
Witness #2
"I saw the police chase him ... down the street and shoot him down." When Brown then raised his arms, the officer shot him two more times, killing him.
Witness #3
"After the shot, the kid just breaks away. The cop follows him, kept shooting, the kid's body jerked as if he was hit. After his body jerked he turns around, puts his hands up, and the cop continues to walk up on him and continues to shoot until he goes all the way down."
Witness #4
About 90 feet away from the vehicle, Wilson fired a shot at Brown, whose back was turned. Brown stumbled, stopped, put his hands up and said "OK, OK, OK, OK, OK." The worker believed Brown had been wounded. With his hands up, Brown began walking toward the officer, at which point Wilson began firing at Brown and backing away... The worker disputed the claim, by defenders of Wilson, that Brown rushed at the officer, "I don't know if he was going after him or if he was falling down to die. It wasn't a bull rush."
Morning all and I do hope Scotland provides the greatest shocks in May to make up for the non-action of 2010. Yesterday it was announced Cllr Drew Hendry, SNP leader of Highland Council is to take on Danny Alexander so it will be a michtie fecht indeed.
Last night's YouGov Scottish split would be very interesting if replicated in May. SNP 40% LABOUR 29% TORIES 21% GREEN 7% UKIP 2% LIBDEMS 1%
As the Libdems are on the lowest rung of the ladder - would that be a wipe-out in Scotland?
In general in the UK, it would appear that the LDs are losing the argument for their continued existence as they are being pushed out by UKIP from one side and the Greens from the other side. Has anyone heard of a good reason from the LDs as to why they should continue to exist after 2015?
No, there's now no purpose to the Lib Dems at all that some other party or Independent label couldn't better fulfil: they're a party running solely on the momentum of past electoral achievements, themselves based mainly on not being someone else. The ultimate result of that electoral tactic, however, has been to deprive their party of any true sense of purpose - something the electorate is now understanding.
Re your first point, I don't believe the LDs are that low but yes, were they to take 1% then that would without question be wipeout. To put some numbers on it, there were 2.466m votes cast in Scotland in the 2010GE. Even if we allow that the 1% had decimals rounded down, it'd be unlikely that they'd have more than 30k votes - across the whole of the country. That might just be enough to hold O&S (won last time with just under 12k votes and a 10k majority over a three-way near-tie for second) but only if they were polling at MRLP levels across most of the rest. In reality, given other areas of deposit-saving strength, I suspect they'd need a Scotland-wide figure of 3%+ to hold at least one seat.
Most of the "multiple witnesses" said Brown was 20 feet away, with his hands up, and not rushing the cop. The forensics of Wilson's injuries showed that he had a small bruise on his face, inconsistent with the belief that the next punch would knock him out, and completely inconsistent with the fractured eye socket injury leaked by the police department in the days after the killing.
The fact you claim the beating of Rodney King was all completely legitimate behaviour shows how ridiculous your bias is here. Let's just have a look at that video again:
Brady could see Johnson at the front passenger side of the vehicle when he and Brown started running suddenly; he did not hear a gunshot or see what caused them to run. He saw Wilson get out of the vehicle and "start walking briskly while firing on Brown as he fled"
Witness #2
"I saw the police chase him ... down the street and shoot him down." When Brown then raised his arms, the officer shot him two more times, killing him.
Witness #3
"After the shot, the kid just breaks away. The cop follows him, kept shooting, the kid's body jerked as if he was hit. After his body jerked he turns around, puts his hands up, and the cop continues to walk up on him and continues to shoot until he goes all the way down."
Witness #4
About 90 feet away from the vehicle, Wilson fired a shot at Brown, whose back was turned. Brown stumbled, stopped, put his hands up and said "OK, OK, OK, OK, OK." The worker believed Brown had been wounded. With his hands up, Brown began walking toward the officer, at which point Wilson began firing at Brown and backing away... The worker disputed the claim, by defenders of Wilson, that Brown rushed at the officer, "I don't know if he was going after him or if he was falling down to die. It wasn't a bull rush."
The Labour message is vote for us because we are not the Tories, is that not the same thing?
No, that's part of it, but polling shows that many people tend to "like" the Labour Party and "dislike" the Conservatives. I think that's an odd question myself, as I wouldn't say I "like" any party, any more than I like my fridge - I think it's very good and I'm glad it's there, but I don't exactly feel emotional about it.
But the general feeling of gut-level identification does seem to be a factor that motivates a lot of voters who don't bother with detailed policies and leader stuff. A lot of Labour's appeal comes down to "When issues arise, we'll try to find solutions that help ordinary people". Rightly or wrongly, we tend to be seen as more credible than the Conservatives on that.
Campaigners have said Asian victims of sexual abuse are often forced to remain silent to protect what their families believe is their honour. They say it is a nationwide problem which is under-reported.
So why the hell is there not a nationwide police investigation? Why is there not a nationwide independent inquiry? There are thousands and thousands of victims.
What can you investigate if no one is talking? There was a similar story based in Birmingham a few days ago http://goo.gl/3uEP7I
"People tell me they have heard about Rochdale and Oxford and see it as something which happens elsewhere to other people, but it is happening in Birmingham, it's happening everywhere."
It just makes me so angry. How can our leaders sleep at night while they do nothing about this?
So, what can be done? While a knee-jerk “something must be" is all very well, and, Socrates, I sympathise with your feelings, but what is to be done? Presumably it’s not still happening in Rochdale or Oxford? Or is it? Does prosecution, assuming adequate evidence can be found, deter others? A lot of what “is being done” will, I suggest be under the radar. Police "talking to” apparrently mismatched, age-wise, couples or groups won’t get reported.
- A national police investigation, led by the Metropolitan police, as was done with Yewtree. - When that is completed, an independent inquiry into the full extent of child grooming, led by someone like Professor Jay
Could be. A “driven” Chief Constable in S Yorks might help.
It needs to be national. There will almost certainly be Rotherham-situations in individual police areas that haven't been looked into at all. In other situations there might be a push from someone centrally, but ownership is left with local forces/councils who are more concerned with covering up their own failures than getting to the bottom of this. It's not good enough. The scale of this abu And ypou really think the Met are the people to do it?
Acronyms : I do realise that the use of SLAB for Scottish Labour is an easy/lazy way to write, but it always confuses me for seconds when, north of the border, it means Scottish Legal Aid Board.
Perhaps OGH should have a Chrimbo competition for the most inappropriate acronyms that can be printed legally.
The Labour message is vote for us because we are not the Tories, is that not the same thing?
No, that's part of it, but polling shows that many people tend to "like" the Labour Party and "dislike" the Conservatives. I think that's an odd question myself, as I wouldn't say I "like" any party, any more than I like my fridge - I think it's very good and I'm glad it's there, but I don't exactly feel emotional about it.
But the general feeling of gut-level identification does seem to be a factor that motivates a lot of voters who don't bother with detailed policies and leader stuff. A lot of Labour's appeal comes down to "When issues arise, we'll try to find solutions that help ordinary people". Rightly or wrongly, we tend to be seen as more credible than the Conservatives on that.
Yes that is true.
The key question, come May next year, will be whether voters think, about Lab:
Whoever would've predicted Labour doing better than the Conservatives in England whilst simultaneously being at risk of a Caledonian catastrophe?
Of course, Labour is only ahead of the Tories in England because UKIP has stolen so many Tory votes. Disgruntled (and never was a word more appropriate as a descriptor) Tories, too thick to work out that they didn't actually win power in 2010 so can't just implement a Con Home wishlist, haven't switched to Labour, they've gone to Farage.
Without UKIP, the Tories would probably be over 40%.
Though that of course would have precipitated the end of Ed....
As it is, UKIP will do more damage to the Tories than the SNP will to Scottish Labour. Hence Ed will be a PM with a majority next May. The closer it gets, the more certain it becomes.
I agree with your " Tories...too thick to work out that they didn't actually win power in 2010 " comment. There have been numbers I have spoken too who appear unaware they are in a Coalition with written agreements...
You could of course argue that it's the Leadership's fault for not telling them.. but I got the feeling from those I spoke to that it would need repeating weekly for five years...
(It's in line with Labour supporters voting for Tristram Hunt - a posh, privately educated rich boy - in Stoke on Trent's Central Ward . As long as he had a red rosette he was sure of winning.)
I agree with your " Tories...too thick to work out that they didn't actually win power in 2010 " comment. There have been numbers I have spoken too who appear unaware they are in a Coalition with written agreements...
To be fair the issue which did Dave the most damage with his core was gay marriage which wasn't in the coalition deal as far as I am aware, and certainly not in the manifesto, irrespective of the merits of the policy, its was a foolhardy political decision to bring it to the fore when he didn't have a substantial majority, and rub his core votes face in it. As Zaphod said "10 out of 10 for style, but minus several million for good thinking"
If EdM becomes PM then he will want to stay the full 5 years as he knows that it will be his last chance of power. However he could leave a country more divided than ever, without having solved any of the economic or social problems due to intense and continuous prevarication. It could lead to civil unrest in various parts of the UK for differing reasons.
He will almost certainly be in a coalition, so the question is can he hold his coalition together for 5 years, also if he flails around too much he will lose by elections which might whittle away a thin majority as it did for Callaghan.
I'm not sure that a coalition can be on the table for Ed. neither the SNP nor the DUP can realistically hold office in a government that deals mainly with England (and in any case, their priorities are Holyrood and Stormont respectively, and going into govt with Lab in London would cut across those campaigns); UKIP, on the other hand, probably won't have the numbers but even if they do, the areas of common ground are few and far between.
That leaves the Tories and Lib Dems. I cannot see any realistic possibility of a Grand Coalition - the threats and challenges the government faces are not *that* serious - so the question is could the Lib Dems jump ship from one side to the other, and would Labour welcome them? (Also, would they have the numbers to make such a move worthwhile?). I wouldn't rule it out but at the same time, I could see it being in both parties' interests to settle a C&S arrangement rather than a full coalition.
The Labour message is vote for us because we are not the Tories, is that not the same thing?
No, that's part of it, but polling shows that many people tend to "like" the Labour Party and "dislike" the Conservatives. I think that's an odd question myself, as I wouldn't say I "like" any party, any more than I like my fridge - I think it's very good and I'm glad it's there, but I don't exactly feel emotional about it.
But the general feeling of gut-level identification does seem to be a factor that motivates a lot of voters who don't bother with detailed policies and leader stuff. A lot of Labour's appeal comes down to "When issues arise, we'll try to find solutions that help ordinary people". Rightly or wrongly, we tend to be seen as more credible than the Conservatives on that.
Yes that is true.
The key question, come May next year, will be whether voters think, about Lab:
"partly to blame, not learned, may do it again."
I suspect that many Labour voters believe, rightly or wrongly, that it was manipulation of the financial markets which were at the root of the problems. And scandals like PPI misselling and LIBOR, while not entirely understood (especially the latter) re-inforce that view. Add to that that under the “City’s friend’s party” no-one has gone to jail (compare that to benefit fraud) and you’ve a toxic mix for the Tories.
Mysteriously, given Farage’s background, he gets credit for not being involved in those shenanigans, too!
Incidentally I’ve just seen a sheet detailing the compensation someone close to me has got for being missold PPI. The PPI itself was just under £700, but with interest and compensation the total cheque is over £4k!
Brown's blood and DNA wrere found inside the police car and on Wilson's uniform. Translation - Brown attacked Wilson inside the car.
Only if you have a completely biased interpretation of events. That finding is completely consistent with both accounts. Wilson said that Brown attacked him in the car and was punching him when Wilson shot him. Brown's friend said Wilson opened the door so close to them it bounced back on him and then Wilson grabbed Brown through the window, and when Brown tried to get away, Wilson shot him. In both cases the blood would splatter inside the car.
A lot would come down to the extent and location of the spattering, and tbh we haven't seen that evidence, and the grand jury has.
Fair points, but the argument that TimB makes doesn't even hold if we accept Brown attacked Wilson. There was a point at which Brown ran off, and Wilson got out of his car, shot him in the back, and then when the guy turned around, shot him repeatedly in the front. Now, there are circumstances where that might be acceptable, but I find it stunning that it doesn't take a criminal trial to find out. Especially when multiple witnesses said Brown had his hands up and wasn't rushing Wilson.
Regardless of the facts, rioting and violence is not an appropriate response to an unwelcome decision by a grand jury.
Why is it an unwelcome decision by the jury? Should politics and the racial grievance industry trump law now? This happened in the UK with the removal of double jeopardy in the Stephen Lawrence cause celebre, Luckily I think the US respects its legal obligations a bit more.
Brown's blood and DNA wrere found inside the police car and on Wilson's uniform. Translation - Brown attacked Wilson inside the car.
Only if you have a completely biased interpretation of events. That finding is completely consistent with both accounts. Wilson said that Brown attacked him in the car and was punching him when Wilson shot him. Brown's friend said Wilson opened the door so close to them it bounced back on him and then Wilson grabbed Brown through the window, and when Brown tried to get away, Wilson shot him. In both cases the blood would splatter inside the car.
A lot would come down to the extent and location of the spattering, and tbh we haven't seen that evidence, and the grand jury has.
Fair points, but the argument that TimB makes doesn't even hold if we accept Brown attacked Wilson. There was a point at which Brown ran off, and Wilson got out of his car, shot him in the back, and then when the guy turned around, shot him repeatedly in the front. Now, there are circumstances where that might be acceptable, but I find it stunning that it doesn't take a criminal trial to find out. Especially when multiple witnesses said Brown had his hands up and wasn't rushing Wilson.
Regardless of the facts, rioting and violence is not an appropriate response to an unwelcome decision by a grand jury.
Not wishing to reignite the Duggan debate, but they weren't rioting because of a grand jury decision but because the decision indicated to them that the police/society is prejudiced against black people in their opinion and the grand jury decision has been a catalyst.
Although many on here see things as simple criminality (yo @Socrates), these behaviours are usually about power. Or lack or abuse of it.
They were rioting because they wanted free tings.
I am pretty sure nothing will be stolen from book shops.
Peter Kelner is very good at pointing out out the fact that Ukip has made UK politics more European as I said about 6 months ago.Unless Labour see they are being Passoked by Syriza and Irish Labour stuffed in favour of SinnFein,they will go the same way en Escotia.The election of SLAB leader needs to respect these international forces unleashed by austerity or it will go the same way. I see PP have taken down the Irish election market for 1st place.I am rather pleased with myself as recent polls put S/F in front. This needs a second look as it could be S/F who determine the make-up of the next government.We are on the way to an united British Isles-minus the euro. http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/10/will-sinn-fein-mps-take-their-seats-after-next-election
The Labour message is vote for us because we are not the Tories, is that not the same thing?
No, that's part of it, but polling shows that many people tend to "like" the Labour Party and "dislike" the Conservatives. I think that's an odd question myself, as I wouldn't say I "like" any party, any more than I like my fridge - I think it's very good and I'm glad it's there, but I don't exactly feel emotional about it.
But the general feeling of gut-level identification does seem to be a factor that motivates a lot of voters who don't bother with detailed policies and leader stuff. A lot of Labour's appeal comes down to "When issues arise, we'll try to find solutions that help ordinary people". Rightly or wrongly, we tend to be seen as more credible than the Conservatives on that.
Yes that is true.
The key question, come May next year, will be whether voters think, about Lab:
"partly to blame, not learned, may do it again."
I suspect that many Labour voters believe, rightly or wrongly, that it was manipulation of the financial markets which were at the root of the problems. And scandals like PPI misselling and LIBOR, while not entirely understood (especially the latter) re-inforce that view. Add to that that under the “City’s friend’s party” no-one has gone to jail (compare that to benefit fraud) and you’ve a toxic mix for the Tories.
Mysteriously, given Farage’s background, he gets credit for not being involved in those shenanigans, too!
Incidentally I’ve just seen a sheet detailing the compensation someone close to me has got for being missold PPI. The PPI itself was just under £700, but with interest and compensation the total cheque is over £4k!
Those parasites that phone up either about PPI or "the accident you've had" I tell quite alot of them to "fuck off" now in those exact words.
Really very interesting Times Red Box poll on what motivates people in voting: 57% "party reflecting my ideals and principles" 19% "best policies" 6% "best leaders".
That sums up the Tory problem. By focusing their message on "our leader is less bad than the other leader", they appeal at most to the 6%, while looking ever-nastier to the 57%.
We politics nerds would probably prefer 100% on "best policies". But in a way the voters are right - it's difficult to predict what issues will come up over 5 years, and voting for the party you feel best reflects your general view may be safer than voting for X because you like their plans on council tax or whatever.
How enlightening. 57% of Labour voters are motivated by class hatred and envy. I presume Labour will read this as 57% of Labour voters want unlimited immigration.
"Mysteriously, given Farage’s background, he gets credit for not being involved in those shenanigans, too"
Farage was a commodities trader on the London Metal Exchange. As such he had no more to do with the shenanigans of the Banks than you or I. Where is the mystery?
The Labour message is vote for us because we are not the Tories, is that not the same thing?
No, that's part of it, but polling shows that many people tend to "like" the Labour Party and "dislike" the Conservatives. I think that's an odd question myself, as I wouldn't say I "like" any party, any more than I like my fridge - I think it's very good and I'm glad it's there, but I don't exactly feel emotional about it.
But the general feeling of gut-level identification does seem to be a factor that motivates a lot of voters who don't bother with detailed policies and leader stuff. A lot of Labour's appeal comes down to "When issues arise, we'll try to find solutions that help ordinary people". Rightly or wrongly, we tend to be seen as more credible than the Conservatives on that.
Yes that is true.
The key question, come May next year, will be whether voters think, about Lab:
"partly to blame, not learned, may do it again."
I suspect that many Labour voters believe, rightly or wrongly, that it was manipulation of the financial markets which were at the root of the problems. And scandals like PPI misselling and LIBOR, while not entirely understood (especially the latter) re-inforce that view. Add to that that under the “City’s friend’s party” no-one has gone to jail (compare that to benefit fraud) and you’ve a toxic mix for the Tories.
Mysteriously, given Farage’s background, he gets credit for not being involved in those shenanigans, too!
Incidentally I’ve just seen a sheet detailing the compensation someone close to me has got for being missold PPI. The PPI itself was just under £700, but with interest and compensation the total cheque is over £4k!
Those parasites that phone up either about PPI or "the accident you've had" I tell quite alot of them to "fuck off" now in those exact words.
So much for the left wing obsession of how the UK was always a multicultural paradise with large long established non white communities. So say 20,000 out of 49m. So 0.04%.
Could Labour ever win an election without the non white vote? No wonder they are so keen on importing voters.
Is there any future mis-selling going on at the moment, I'd quite enjoy getting a free 5.7* return down the line...
I must say I’d always, like your goodself, told these vulture companies to do something unmentionable to themselves, but having seen that sheet I’m more inclined to investigate. I’m sure I never had any PPI ........ irrelevant and/or unnecessary as duing the relevant period I was either self-employed or, subsequently, an NHS employee.
But if someone will do it for me on a no-win, no fee basis .......
As it is, UKIP will do more damage to the Tories than the SNP will to Scottish Labour. Hence Ed will be a PM with a majority next May. The closer it gets, the more certain it becomes.
Let us not forget most of the Tories in UKIP are people who have defected from the base of the party, largely shire tories and social conservatives who have faithfully voted Conservative for most or all of their adult life. The fact that Dave thought he could court the Guardian vote, by adopting liberal policies and insulting the core of his party, without losing the traditional Tory vote is one of the mysteries of this age, and its a completely self inflicted wound. I wonder how many Guardian readers he picked up in exchange for losing about a quarter of his vote to UKIP ? Fingers of one hand ?
Or less. He got told to court the Grauniad vote by the sneering leftist metropolitan intellectual set who would never vote Tory in the first place. All a plan to make UK the reverse of Ireland. A country with 2 1/2 Labour parties.
I agree with your " Tories...too thick to work out that they didn't actually win power in 2010 " comment. There have been numbers I have spoken too who appear unaware they are in a Coalition with written agreements...
To be fair the issue which did Dave the most damage with his core was gay marriage which wasn't in the coalition deal as far as I am aware, and certainly not in the manifesto, irrespective of the merits of the policy, its was a foolhardy political decision to bring it to the fore when he didn't have a substantial majority, and rub his core votes face in it. As Zaphod said "10 out of 10 for style, but minus several million for good thinking"
"Mysteriously, given Farage’s background, he gets credit for not being involved in those shenanigans, too"
Farage was a commodities trader on the London Metal Exchange. As such he had no more to do with the shenanigans of the Banks than you or I. Where is the mystery?
I know that, you know that. But he was “something in the City", wasn’t he!
I agree with your " Tories...too thick to work out that they didn't actually win power in 2010 " comment. There have been numbers I have spoken too who appear unaware they are in a Coalition with written agreements...
To be fair the issue which did Dave the most damage with his core was gay marriage which wasn't in the coalition deal as far as I am aware, and certainly not in the manifesto, irrespective of the merits of the policy, its was a foolhardy political decision to bring it to the fore when he didn't have a substantial majority, and rub his core votes face in it. As Zaphod said "10 out of 10 for style, but minus several million for good thinking"
I think it's more nuanced than that. I have, until now, been a lifelong Tory voter (I suppose I'm a shire Tory, but a socially liberal, fiscally conservative one).
As a transgender person, I thought it was courageous of Cameron to push a LGBT-friendly agenda. However, that was more of an aside - his government has failed to address the deficit or immigration (though immigration is but one symptom of our dysfunctional position within the EU). That means I'm not going to vote Conservative at the next election.
I would add that I don't plan on voting UKIP either - they're intellectually incoherent, and until I hear a well-thought argument (e.g. along the lines of Owen Patterson's excellent speech yesterday) from them, I don't think they're a serious contender.
The threat to Labour from the European forces of austerity exist in Wales too with P/C and the Greens in England so like the SD pool shrinks.Paradoxically,these parties of the left will gain at Labour's expense and then be in a position for a centre-left/left/green/pro-agreement coalition similar to Sweden.The alternative is a centre-right/right alliance of unionists,Tories,Ukip and LibDems. I make it evens on either coalition. All to play for.
25.11.14 LAB 319 (319) CON 267(268) LD 31(31) UKIP 2(2) Others 31(30) (Ed is crap is PM) Last weeks BJESUS in brackets Last weeks BJESUS in brackets BJESUS (Big John Election Service Uniform Swing) BJESUS (Big John Election Service Uniform Swing) Using current polling adjusted for 163 days left to go factor and using UKPR standard swingometer
The Labour message is vote for us because we are not the Tories, is that not the same thing?
No, that's part of it, but polling shows that many people tend to "like" the Labour Party and "dislike" the Conservatives. I think that's an odd question myself, as I wouldn't say I "like" any party, any more than I like my fridge - I think it's very good and I'm glad it's there, but I don't exactly feel emotional about it.
But the general feeling of gut-level identification does seem to be a factor that motivates a lot of voters who don't bother with detailed policies and leader stuff. A lot of Labour's appeal comes down to "When issues arise, we'll try to find solutions that help ordinary people". Rightly or wrongly, we tend to be seen as more credible than the Conservatives on that.
Yes that is true.
The key question, come May next year, will be whether voters think, about Lab:
"partly to blame, not learned, may do it again."
I suspect that many Labour voters believe, rightly or wrongly, that it was manipulation of the financial markets which were at the root of the problems. And scandals like PPI misselling and LIBOR, while not entirely understood (especially the latter) re-inforce that view. Add to that that under the “City’s friend’s party” no-one has gone to jail (compare that to benefit fraud) and you’ve a toxic mix for the Tories.
Mysteriously, given Farage’s background, he gets credit for not being involved in those shenanigans, too!
Incidentally I’ve just seen a sheet detailing the compensation someone close to me has got for being missold PPI. The PPI itself was just under £700, but with interest and compensation the total cheque is over £4k!
Those parasites that phone up either about PPI or "the accident you've had" I tell quite alot of them to "fuck off" now in those exact words.
Parasites, vile vile parasites.
I just put the phone to one side until they eventually ring off.
The threat to Labour from the European forces of austerity exist in Wales too with P/C and the Greens in England so like the SD pool shrinks.Paradoxically,these parties of the left will gain at Labour's expense and then be in a position for a centre-left/left/green/pro-agreement coalition similar to Sweden.The alternative is a centre-right/right alliance of unionists,Tories,Ukip and LibDems. I make it evens on either coalition. All to play for.
Depends to some extent at least on which LibDems survive.
The Labour message is vote for us because we are not the Tories, is that not the same thing?
No, that's part of it, but polling shows that many people tend to "like" the Labour Party and "dislike" the Conservatives. I think that's an odd question myself, as I wouldn't say I "like" any party, any more than I like my fridge - I think it's very good and I'm glad it's there, but I don't exactly feel emotional about it.
But the general feeling of gut-level identification does seem to be a factor that motivates a lot of voters who don't bother with detailed policies and leader stuff. A lot of Labour's appeal comes down to "When issues arise, we'll try to find solutions that help ordinary people". Rightly or wrongly, we tend to be seen as more credible than the Conservatives on that.
Yes that is true.
The key question, come May next year, will be whether voters think, about Lab:
"partly to blame, not learned, may do it again."
I suspect that many Labour voters believe, rightly or wrongly, that it was manipulation of the financial markets which were at the root of the problems. And scandals like PPI misselling and LIBOR, while not entirely understood (especially the latter) re-inforce that view. Add to that that under the “City’s friend’s party” no-one has gone to jail (compare that to benefit fraud) and you’ve a toxic mix for the Tories.
Mysteriously, given Farage’s background, he gets credit for not being involved in those shenanigans, too!
Incidentally I’ve just seen a sheet detailing the compensation someone close to me has got for being missold PPI. The PPI itself was just under £700, but with interest and compensation the total cheque is over £4k!
Those parasites that phone up either about PPI or "the accident you've had" I tell quite alot of them to "fuck off" now in those exact words.
Parasites, vile vile parasites.
I just put the phone to one side until they eventually ring off.
Industrial deafness ones are best just play along and get them to repeat things for 10 mins
Brown's blood and DNA wrere found inside the police car and on Wilson's uniform. Translation - Brown attacked Wilson inside the car.
Only if you have a completely biased interpretation of events. That finding is completely consistent with both accounts. Wilson said that Brown attacked him in the car and was punching him when Wilson shot him. Brown's friend said Wilson opened the door so close to them it bounced back on him and then Wilson grabbed Brown through the window, and when Brown tried to get away, Wilson shot him. In both cases the blood would splatter inside the car.
A lot would come down to the extent and location of the spattering, and tbh we haven't seen that evidence, and the grand jury has.
Fair points, but the argument that TimB makes doesn't even hold if we accept Brown attacked Wilson. There was a point at which Brown ran off, and Wilson got out of his car, shot him in the back, and then when the guy turned around, shot him repeatedly in the front. Now, there are circumstances where that might be acceptable, but I find it stunning that it doesn't take a criminal trial to find out. Especially when multiple witnesses said Brown had his hands up and wasn't rushing Wilson.
Regardless of the facts, rioting and violence is not an appropriate response to an unwelcome decision by a grand jury.
Why is it an unwelcome decision by the jury? Should politics and the racial grievance industry trump law now? This happened in the UK with the removal of double jeopardy in the Stephen Lawrence cause celebre, Luckily I think the US respects its legal obligations a bit more.
I meant unwelcome to the rioters!
I don't have a view on the details of the evidence, but providing the grand jury did their job properly and followed due process then of course the decision should stand
The Labour message is vote for us because we are not the Tories, is that not the same thing?
No, that's part of it, but polling shows that many people tend to "like" the Labour Party and "dislike" the Conservatives. I think that's an odd question myself, as I wouldn't say I "like" any party, any more than I like my fridge - I think it's very good and I'm glad it's there, but I don't exactly feel emotional about it.
But the general feeling of gut-level identification does seem to be a factor that motivates a lot of voters who don't bother with detailed policies and leader stuff. A lot of Labour's appeal comes down to "When issues arise, we'll try to find solutions that help ordinary people". Rightly or wrongly, we tend to be seen as more credible than the Conservatives on that.
Yes that is true.
The key question, come May next year, will be whether voters think, about Lab:
"partly to blame, not learned, may do it again."
I suspect that many Labour voters believe, rightly or wrongly, that it was manipulation of the financial markets which were at the root of the problems. And scandals like PPI misselling and LIBOR, while not entirely understood (especially the latter) re-inforce that view. Add to that that under the “City’s friend’s party” no-one has gone to jail (compare that to benefit fraud) and you’ve a toxic mix for the Tories.
Mysteriously, given Farage’s background, he gets credit for not being involved in those shenanigans, too!
Incidentally I’ve just seen a sheet detailing the compensation someone close to me has got for being missold PPI. The PPI itself was just under £700, but with interest and compensation the total cheque is over £4k!
Those parasites that phone up either about PPI or "the accident you've had" I tell quite alot of them to "fuck off" now in those exact words.
Parasites, vile vile parasites.
I just put the phone to one side until they eventually ring off.
Industrial deafness ones are best just play along and get them to repeat things for 10 mins
Like it. I like to play "Microsoft’s Technical Agency” people along, until I get bored and tell them I use Linux.
I agree with your " Tories...too thick to work out that they didn't actually win power in 2010 " comment. There have been numbers I have spoken too who appear unaware they are in a Coalition with written agreements...
To be fair the issue which did Dave the most damage with his core was gay marriage which wasn't in the coalition deal as far as I am aware, and certainly not in the manifesto, irrespective of the merits of the policy, its was a foolhardy political decision to bring it to the fore when he didn't have a substantial majority, and rub his core votes face in it. As Zaphod said "10 out of 10 for style, but minus several million for good thinking"
It was the right thing to do.
The right thing is not always easy or popular
That's as maybe, if you deliberately do unpopular things, even if they are right, you can't look surprised when people vote somewhere else.
Peter Kelner is very good at pointing out out the fact that Ukip has made UK politics more European as I said about 6 months ago.Unless Labour see they are being Passoked by Syriza and Irish Labour stuffed in favour of SinnFein,they will go the same way en Escotia.The election of SLAB leader needs to respect these international forces unleashed by austerity or it will go the same way. I see PP have taken down the Irish election market for 1st place.I am rather pleased with myself as recent polls put S/F in front. This needs a second look as it could be S/F who determine the make-up of the next government.We are on the way to an united British Isles-minus the euro. http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/10/will-sinn-fein-mps-take-their-seats-after-next-election
The joke is Peter Kellner as long time Labour supporter loves the EU. His wife was picked as the Foreign Secretary, who has just finished her stint but still wields power. The Kellner family can be relied on to be anti UKIP in everything they do.
As it is, UKIP will do more damage to the Tories than the SNP will to Scottish Labour. Hence Ed will be a PM with a majority next May. The closer it gets, the more certain it becomes.
Let us not forget most of the Tories in UKIP are people who have defected from the base of the party, largely shire tories and social conservatives who have faithfully voted Conservative for most or all of their adult life. The fact that Dave thought he could court the Guardian vote, by adopting liberal policies and insulting the core of his party, without losing the traditional Tory vote is one of the mysteries of this age, and its a completely self inflicted wound. I wonder how many Guardian readers he picked up in exchange for losing about a quarter of his vote to UKIP ? Fingers of one hand ?
Or less. He got told to court the Grauniad vote by the sneering leftist metropolitan intellectual set who would never vote Tory in the first place. All a plan to make UK the reverse of Ireland. A country with 2 1/2 Labour parties.
The logic seemed to go. 1. We need to attract Lib Dems. 2. Which is the paper that is most read by the Lib Dem voters. 3. The only paper that backed the Lib Dems was the Guardian in 2010 and Cameron's mates prefer to read it..... But, he overlooked the fact that the paper most read by LD voters is the Mail.
Really very interesting Times Red Box poll on what motivates people in voting: 57% "party reflecting my ideals and principles" 19% "best policies" 6% "best leaders".
That sums up the Tory problem. By focusing their message on "our leader is less bad than the other leader", they appeal at most to the 6%, while looking ever-nastier to the 57%.
We politics nerds would probably prefer 100% on "best policies". But in a way the voters are right - it's difficult to predict what issues will come up over 5 years, and voting for the party you feel best reflects your general view may be safer than voting for X because you like their plans on council tax or whatever.
How enlightening. 57% of Labour voters are motivated by class hatred and envy. I presume Labour will read this as 57% of Labour voters want unlimited immigration.
Errr...do you want to explain the reasoning in your inference? - The poll isn't a poll of Labour voters. It's a poll of everyone, including your good self. - Your belief (if I understand you correctly) that Labour voters think that their ideals and principles are about class hatred and envy would be, to put it politely, more credible if documented by a link.
The interesting thing about that vote of confidence that brought down Callaghan and installed Thatcher for the next 11 years, which I didn't realise before, its its was almost entirely brought about by the SNP, ironic given the hatred of Thatcher north of the border. They were supporting the Callaghan government, but withdrew support when Labour imposed the 40% rule on the referendum for the Scottish Assembly, and in doing so saddled themselves with Thatcher instead, funny old world.
Really very interesting Times Red Box poll on what motivates people in voting: 57% "party reflecting my ideals and principles" 19% "best policies" 6% "best leaders".
That sums up the Tory problem. By focusing their message on "our leader is less bad than the other leader", they appeal at most to the 6%, while looking ever-nastier to the 57%.
We politics nerds would probably prefer 100% on "best policies". But in a way the voters are right - it's difficult to predict what issues will come up over 5 years, and voting for the party you feel best reflects your general view may be safer than voting for X because you like their plans on council tax or whatever.
How enlightening. 57% of Labour voters are motivated by class hatred and envy. I presume Labour will read this as 57% of Labour voters want unlimited immigration.
Errr...do you want to explain the reasoning in your inference? - The poll isn't a poll of Labour voters. It's a poll of everyone, including your good self. - Your belief (if I understand you correctly) that Labour voters think that their ideals and principles are about class hatred and envy would be, to put it politely, more credible if documented by a link.
Given that the most noteworthy Labour policies rolled out relate to Mansion Taxes and punitive taxation rates (50% higher rate and IHT but not for the Millibands or Benns), it seems the Labour high command believe their voters are motivated by class hatred and envy. Their continuous carping about posh boys just reinforces this message.
Really very interesting Times Red Box poll on what motivates people in voting: 57% "party reflecting my ideals and principles" 19% "best policies" 6% "best leaders".
That sums up the Tory problem. By focusing their message on "our leader is less bad than the other leader", they appeal at most to the 6%, while looking ever-nastier to the 57%.
We politics nerds would probably prefer 100% on "best policies". But in a way the voters are right - it's difficult to predict what issues will come up over 5 years, and voting for the party you feel best reflects your general view may be safer than voting for X because you like their plans on council tax or whatever.
How enlightening. 57% of Labour voters are motivated by class hatred and envy. I presume Labour will read this as 57% of Labour voters want unlimited immigration.
Errr...do you want to explain the reasoning in your inference? - The poll isn't a poll of Labour voters. It's a poll of everyone, including your good self. - Your belief (if I understand you correctly) that Labour voters think that their ideals and principles are about class hatred and envy would be, to put it politely, more credible if documented by a link.
Nick – you should know by now that lefties hate England and are deeply class envious, despite being middle class champagne swilling Londoners who are rich. I know all this – I need no poll – I learned it on PB!
Really very interesting Times Red Box poll on what motivates people in voting: 57% "party reflecting my ideals and principles" 19% "best policies" 6% "best leaders".
That sums up the Tory problem. By focusing their message on "our leader is less bad than the other leader", they appeal at most to the 6%, while looking ever-nastier to the 57%.
We politics nerds would probably prefer 100% on "best policies". But in a way the voters are right - it's difficult to predict what issues will come up over 5 years, and voting for the party you feel best reflects your general view may be safer than voting for X because you like their plans on council tax or whatever.
How enlightening. 57% of Labour voters are motivated by class hatred and envy. I presume Labour will read this as 57% of Labour voters want unlimited immigration.
Errr...do you want to explain the reasoning in your inference? - The poll isn't a poll of Labour voters. It's a poll of everyone, including your good self. - Your belief (if I understand you correctly) that Labour voters think that their ideals and principles are about class hatred and envy would be, to put it politely, more credible if documented by a link.
Given that the most noteworthy Labour policies rolled out relate to Mansion Taxes and punitive taxation rates (50% higher rate and IHT but not for the Millibands or Benns), it seems the Labour high command believe their voters are motivated by class hatred and envy. Their continuous carping about posh boys just reinforces this message.
Really very interesting Times Red Box poll on what motivates people in voting: 57% "party reflecting my ideals and principles" 19% "best policies" 6% "best leaders".
That sums up the Tory problem. By focusing their message on "our leader is less bad than the other leader", they appeal at most to the 6%, while looking ever-nastier to the 57%.
We politics nerds would probably prefer 100% on "best policies". But in a way the voters are right - it's difficult to predict what issues will come up over 5 years, and voting for the party you feel best reflects your general view may be safer than voting for X because you like their plans on council tax or whatever.
How enlightening. 57% of Labour voters are motivated by class hatred and envy. I presume Labour will read this as 57% of Labour voters want unlimited immigration.
Errr...do you want to explain the reasoning in your inference? - The poll isn't a poll of Labour voters. It's a poll of everyone, including your good self. - Your belief (if I understand you correctly) that Labour voters think that their ideals and principles are about class hatred and envy would be, to put it politely, more credible if documented by a link.
Given that the most noteworthy Labour policies rolled out relate to Mansion Taxes and punitive taxation rates (50% higher rate and IHT but not for the Millibands or Benns), it seems the Labour high command believe their voters are motivated by class hatred and envy. Their continuous carping about posh boys just reinforces this message.
Thrashing around aimlessly in your swamp...
Well. excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me!
Labour does not engage in class hatred or envy. It does not hate England. It does not import immigrant voters.
My mistake. Please send me to a reeducation gulag so I can learn from my mistakes.
Really very interesting Times Red Box poll on what motivates people in voting: 57% "party reflecting my ideals and principles" 19% "best policies" 6% "best leaders".
That sums up the Tory problem. By focusing their message on "our leader is less bad than the other leader", they appeal at most to the 6%, while looking ever-nastier to the 57%.
We politics nerds would probably prefer 100% on "best policies". But in a way the voters are right - it's difficult to predict what issues will come up over 5 years, and voting for the party you feel best reflects your general view may be safer than voting for X because you like their plans on council tax or whatever.
How enlightening. 57% of Labour voters are motivated by class hatred and envy. I presume Labour will read this as 57% of Labour voters want unlimited immigration.
Errr...do you want to explain the reasoning in your inference? - The poll isn't a poll of Labour voters. It's a poll of everyone, including your good self. - Your belief (if I understand you correctly) that Labour voters think that their ideals and principles are about class hatred and envy would be, to put it politely, more credible if documented by a link.
Nick – you should know by now that lefties hate England and are deeply class envious, despite being middle class champagne swilling Londoners who are rich. I know all this – I need no poll – I learned it on PB!
Well there are not many WWC left according to today's yougov: http://goo.gl/wLmKQZ
Which party do you think is most in touch with the views of white, working class people today?
Labour 21% Conservatives 9 % Liberal Democrats 2% UK Independence Party (UKIP) 27% None of them 29% Don't know 12%
If UKIP do well at the next general election, do you think this would make it more or less likely that Ed Miliband would end up becoming Prime Minister?
More likely that Ed Miliband would become Prime Minister - 28%
Less likely that Ed Miliband would become Prime Minister - 26%
If UKIP do well at the next general election, do you think this would make it more or less likely that Ed Miliband would end up becoming Prime Minister?
More likely that Ed Miliband would become Prime Minister - 28%
Less likely that Ed Miliband would become Prime Minister - 26%
I agree with your " Tories...too thick to work out that they didn't actually win power in 2010 ......
To be fair the issue which did Dave the most damage with his core was gay marriage which wasn't in the coalition deal as far as I am aware, ...
I think it's more nuanced than that. I have, until now, been a lifelong Tory voter (I suppose I'm a shire Tory, but a socially liberal, fiscally conservative one). As a transgender person, I thought it was courageous of Cameron to push a LGBT-friendly agenda. However ...failed to address the deficit or immigration ...
The opportunity for a free vote on day marriage was in the tory manifesto. Probably the LD one as well. Cameron is proposing a referendum on the EU. The govt have stopped the sub continent student scam and EU immigration is work and economy related. Economic times will change and many immigrants will return home.
The deficit... http://www.economicsuk.com/blog/002058.html#more '...the cyclically-adjusted deficit has come down from 10.3% of gross domestic product in 2009 to 4.1% this year, a big reduction. ...Osborne toughened his own target, aiming for an overall budget surplus in the next parliament rather than just eliminating the current deficit.'
http://www.economicsuk.com/blog/002037.html '... the striking thing is not that that spending has been relaxed but that it has been tightened – cut – relative to the 2010 plans. According to those plans, the government intended to spend £722bn in the 2013-14 fiscal year, that one that ended this spring. In fact it spent £714bn.' 'Public sector current spending was originally intended to be £679bn in 2013-14. In fact it was £668bn' 'By the end of this year ... 55% of the planned tightening will have occurred, leaving 45% to the next parliament ... however ... the OBR changed its view on the economy’s productive potential, so more of the deficit was deemed to be structural ... and less of it cyclical, in other words disappearing with the recovery. Osborne ... set himself the goal of achieving a sustained budget surplus, rather than merely getting the deficit down to zero.' 'By 2018-19, according to the IFS, a deficit reduction programme equivalent to 11.5% of GDP will have been achieved. Apart from in the special conditions of moving from war to peace, I do not think that has ever been done before.'
The govt is regaining control of spending and cutting it. It is sustaining the economy with the normal economic regulators during turbulent outside economic events (rather than willfully slashing more to meet an arbitrary target). We have a decent center right govt (more right than center with a 2015 tory majority) that is making the right economic decisions.
The interesting thing about that vote of confidence that brought down Callaghan and installed Thatcher for the next 11 years, which I didn't realise before, its its was almost entirely brought about by the SNP, ironic given the hatred of Thatcher north of the border. They were supporting the Callaghan government, but withdrew support when Labour imposed the 40% rule on the referendum for the Scottish Assembly, and in doing so saddled themselves with Thatcher instead, funny old world.
Strictly speaking, the vote only brought down the government; it was the electorate that installed Thatcher in May 1979. Had the SNP and others not voted against Labour (not the same as voting for the Tories, it should be noted), the electorate would have had the same choice to make just a few months later. In the end, it probably didn't matter whether the election was in May or October 1979.
Labour also lost the vote because they chose not to bring a critically ill MP to be nodded through. Had they done so, they'd have survived on the Speaker's casting vote.
If UKIP do well at the next general election, do you think this would make it more or less likely that Ed Miliband would end up becoming Prime Minister?
More likely that Ed Miliband would become Prime Minister - 28%
Less likely that Ed Miliband would become Prime Minister - 26%
I agree with your " Tories...too thick to work out that they didn't actually win power in 2010 " comment. There have been numbers I have spoken too who appear unaware they are in a Coalition with written agreements...
To be fair the issue which did Dave the most damage with his core was gay marriage which wasn't in the coalition deal as far as I am aware, and certainly not in the manifesto, irrespective of the merits of the policy, its was a foolhardy political decision to bring it to the fore when he didn't have a substantial majority, and rub his core votes face in it. As Zaphod said "10 out of 10 for style, but minus several million for good thinking"
It was the right thing to do.
The right thing is not always easy or popular
That's as maybe, if you deliberately do unpopular things, even if they are right, you can't look surprised when people vote somewhere else.
The political logic was that the gay community had many of the characteristics of an upper middle class segment of society - but was not voting Tory in any meaningful way. The Tories were seen as delegitimised by their historical opposition to gay rights - gay marriage, as well as being the right thing to do, was an attempt legitimise a conversation with that community.
The calculation - and I suspect they are right - is that it is not enough of a salient issue with non-gays to change many votes. Many of people moving their support away from the Tories are opposed to gay marriage, but in how many cases is that the *true* reason?
If UKIP do well at the next general election, do you think this would make it more or less likely that Ed Miliband would end up becoming Prime Minister?
More likely that Ed Miliband would become Prime Minister - 28%
Less likely that Ed Miliband would become Prime Minister - 26%
If UKIP do well at the next general election, do you think this would make it more or less likely that Ed Miliband would end up becoming Prime Minister?
More likely that Ed Miliband would become Prime Minister - 28%
Less likely that Ed Miliband would become Prime Minister - 26%
I agree with your " Tories...too thick to work out that they didn't actually win power in 2010 " comment. There have been numbers I have spoken too who appear unaware they are in a Coalition with written agreements...
To be fair the issue which did Dave the most damage with his core was gay marriage which wasn't in the coalition deal as far as I am aware, and certainly not in the manifesto, irrespective of the merits of the policy, its was a foolhardy political decision to bring it to the fore when he didn't have a substantial majority, and rub his core votes face in it. As Zaphod said "10 out of 10 for style, but minus several million for good thinking"
It was the right thing to do.
The right thing is not always easy or popular
That's as maybe, if you deliberately do unpopular things, even if they are right, you can't look surprised when people vote somewhere else.
The political logic was that the gay community had many of the characteristics of an upper middle class segment of society - but was not voting Tory in any meaningful way. The Tories were seen as delegitimised by their historical opposition to gay rights - gay marriage, as well as being the right thing to do, was an attempt legitimise a conversation with that community.
The calculation - and I suspect they are right - is that it is not enough of a salient issue with non-gays to change many votes. Many of people moving their support away from the Tories are opposed to gay marriage, but in how many cases is that the *true* reason?
Simply shows Cameron isn't that good at politics, losing more people than you're gaining isn't a recipe for winning elections.
Don't get your knickers in a twist @MarqueeMark. I'm perfectly sure that Farage words were twisted to give a completely different meaning to that intended, by this hack writer, as so much news is these days.
Really very interesting Times Red Box poll on what motivates people in voting: 57% "party reflecting my ideals and principles" 19% "best policies" 6% "best leaders".
That sums up the Tory problem. By focusing their message on "our leader is less bad than the other leader", they appeal at most to the 6%, while looking ever-nastier to the 57%.
We politics nerds would probably prefer 100% on "best policies". But in a way the voters are right - it's difficult to predict what issues will come up over 5 years, and voting for the party you feel best reflects your general view may be safer than voting for X because you like their plans on council tax or whatever.
No, dead wrong.
When you go shopping for a car, you do not have "best steering-wheel" on your list of criteria. When you discover that a specific car on offer has no steering-wheel, steering-wheel issues go straight to the top of your criteria-list for that particular car.
Or, to improve the analogy, a home-made steering-wheel constructed out of old coat-hangers and duct tape.
If UKIP do well at the next general election, do you think this would make it more or less likely that Ed Miliband would end up becoming Prime Minister?
More likely that Ed Miliband would become Prime Minister - 28%
Less likely that Ed Miliband would become Prime Minister - 26%
The opportunity for a free vote on day marriage was in the tory manifesto. Probably the LD one as well.
No, it wasnt, it was announced in a document called "Contract for Equalities" which was published with little fanfair on 4th May 2010, two days before the general election. I am not personally anti- but underhand behaviour like that is almost purpose build to piss off people that are. It was a typic Osborne "too-clever-by-halfism"
The govt have stopped the sub continent student scam and EU immigration is work and economy related. Economic times will change and many immigrants will return home.
It "promised" the electorate it would cut net immigration, then it didnt, they its tried to weasel out by saying the promise was a comment, then it dropped the pledge completely, more silly lies and positioning. The economic times will only affect immigrant numbers from Eastern Europe if our economy turns down heavily, in which case there won't be any jobs for British Citizens either, otherwise earning 3-4 times as much with free healthcare, free schooling, in work benefits and just going to be too attractive.
I agree with your " Tories...too thick to work out that they didn't actually win power in 2010 " comment. There have been numbers I have spoken too who appear unaware they are in a Coalition with written agreements...
To be fair the issue which did Dave the most damage with his core was gay marriage which wasn't in the coalition deal as far as I am aware, and certainly not in the manifesto, irrespective of the merits of the policy, its was a foolhardy political decision to bring it to the fore when he didn't have a substantial majority, and rub his core votes face in it. As Zaphod said "10 out of 10 for style, but minus several million for good thinking"
It was the right thing to do.
The right thing is not always easy or popular
That's as maybe, if you deliberately do unpopular things, even if they are right, you can't look surprised when people vote somewhere else.
The political logic was that the gay community had many of the characteristics of an upper middle class segment of society - but was not voting Tory in any meaningful way. The Tories were seen as delegitimised by their historical opposition to gay rights - gay marriage, as well as being the right thing to do, was an attempt legitimise a conversation with that community.
The calculation - and I suspect they are right - is that it is not enough of a salient issue with non-gays to change many votes. Many of people moving their support away from the Tories are opposed to gay marriage, but in how many cases is that the *true* reason?
Of itself, I agree that it wasn't sufficient. I have, however, been surprised at how many people I've met who've cited it as the reason and I suspect that for many, it was the straw (or fairly hefty branch) that broke the camel's back, coming on top of windmills, huskies, international aid and the rest. It was a symbol of not being in touch with that part of the electorate.
That said, I supported the measure then, I support it now, and I believe the Party took the right decision.
Actually thinking further the truth is I don't know, I think from 0 -> 15 UKIP certainly hurts the Conservatives, but 16 + the distro of Lab/Con switchers is probably around parity or some such ?
I see PP have taken down the Irish election market for 1st place.I am rather pleased with myself as recent polls put S/F in front.
A recent poll. They also failed to win the Dublin South West by-election as they were outflanked on the left by Ireland's version of what remains of Militant. Whatever about the chances of SF getting most 1st preference votes in 2016 (minimal) there is zero chance that they will be in Government after that election.
Still surprised Marussia's in a seemingly worse state, given they've got tens of millions in prize money just waiting to be paid out.
Also, an interesting financial snippet I read about (unsure if true): it's claimed the money Williams will get for 3rd in the Constructors' is less than the money Ferrari gets just for being kind enough to participate in F1. If true, that makes Ferrari's ongoing failure even worse.
Must say I'm glad to see Williams back at the sharp end. They're rather likeable.
The threat to Labour from the European forces of austerity exist in Wales too with P/C and the Greens in England so like the SD pool shrinks.Paradoxically,these parties of the left will gain at Labour's expense and then be in a position for a centre-left/left/green/pro-agreement coalition similar to Sweden.The alternative is a centre-right/right alliance of unionists,Tories,Ukip and LibDems. I make it evens on either coalition. All to play for.
How many left-of-Labour MPs do you think will be returned in England? One?
Really very interesting Times Red Box poll on what motivates people in voting: 57% "party reflecting my ideals and principles" 19% "best policies" 6% "best leaders".
That sums up the Tory problem. By focusing their message on "our leader is less bad than the other leader", they appeal at most to the 6%, while looking ever-nastier to the 57%.
We politics nerds would probably prefer 100% on "best policies". But in a way the voters are right - it's difficult to predict what issues will come up over 5 years, and voting for the party you feel best reflects your general view may be safer than voting for X because you like their plans on council tax or whatever.
How enlightening. 57% of Labour voters are motivated by class hatred and envy. I presume Labour will read this as 57% of Labour voters want unlimited immigration.
Errr...do you want to explain the reasoning in your inference? - The poll isn't a poll of Labour voters. It's a poll of everyone, including your good self. - Your belief (if I understand you correctly) that Labour voters think that their ideals and principles are about class hatred and envy would be, to put it politely, more credible if documented by a link.
Nick – you should know by now that lefties hate England and are deeply class envious, despite being middle class champagne swilling Londoners who are rich. I know all this – I need no poll – I learned it on PB!
Hi Bob. I'd probably call myself a leftie. I don't live in London, don't drink champagne and don't consider myself class envious. Funny, eh? I might be middle class though.
Don't get your knickers in a twist @MarqueeMark. I'm perfectly sure that Farage words were twisted to give a completely different meaning to that intended, by this hack writer, as so much news is these days.
Actually none of this stuff is actually news – when the Sun runs a front page on a guy who hasn't been an MP for 17 years calling a cabbie a name, you know that the press has has its day. They have been truly laughably inept recently – what with EmilyGate and Klass War and now this. Risible.
Still surprised Marussia's in a seemingly worse state, given they've got tens of millions in prize money just waiting to be paid out.
Also, an interesting financial snippet I read about (unsure if true): it's claimed the money Williams will get for 3rd in the Constructors' is less than the money Ferrari gets just for being kind enough to participate in F1. If true, that makes Ferrari's ongoing failure even worse.
Must say I'm glad to see Williams back at the sharp end. They're rather likeable.
Williams were the team that got me into F1.
First with Mansell and then Hill.
Part of me wishes Williams and Massa wins the F1 Championship next year.
I see PP have taken down the Irish election market for 1st place.I am rather pleased with myself as recent polls put S/F in front.
A recent poll. They also failed to win the Dublin South West by-election as they were outflanked on the left by Ireland's version of what remains of Militant. Whatever about the chances of SF getting most 1st preference votes in 2016 (minimal) there is zero chance that they will be in Government after that election.
Neil, remember the Golden Rule of politics. Never say never!
Really very interesting Times Red Box poll on what motivates people in voting: 57% "party reflecting my ideals and principles" 19% "best policies" 6% "best leaders".
That sums up the Tory problem. By focusing their message on "our leader is less bad than the other leader", they appeal at most to the 6%, while looking ever-nastier to the 57%.
We politics nerds would probably prefer 100% on "best policies". But in a way the voters are right - it's difficult to predict what issues will come up over 5 years, and voting for the party you feel best reflects your general view may be safer than voting for X because you like their plans on council tax or whatever.
How enlightening. 57% of Labour voters are motivated by class hatred and envy. I presume Labour will read this as 57% of Labour voters want unlimited immigration.
Errr...do you want to explain the reasoning in your inference? - The poll isn't a poll of Labour voters. It's a poll of everyone, including your good self. - Your belief (if I understand you correctly) that Labour voters think that their ideals and principles are about class hatred and envy would be, to put it politely, more credible if documented by a link.
Nick – you should know by now that lefties hate England and are deeply class envious, despite being middle class champagne swilling Londoners who are rich. I know all this – I need no poll – I learned it on PB!
Hi Bob. I'd probably call myself a leftie. I don't live in London, don't drink champagne and don't consider myself class envious. Funny, eh? I might be middle class though.
Do you hate England and love London though? I bet you go to farmers' markets on Saturdays too? Scum!
I see PP have taken down the Irish election market for 1st place.I am rather pleased with myself as recent polls put S/F in front.
A recent poll. They also failed to win the Dublin South West by-election as they were outflanked on the left by Ireland's version of what remains of Militant. Whatever about the chances of SF getting most 1st preference votes in 2016 (minimal) there is zero chance that they will be in Government after that election.
Neil, remember the Golden Rule of politics. Never say never!
The Republic has been saying never to Sinn Féin for a long time and isnt quite ready to stop doing so. Even if Sinn Féin didnt have their toxic legacy to deal with they simply arent capable of agreeing on a programme for Government with enough TDs to command a majority. 4/1 from Paddy if you think FF / SF is a possibility but it's money down the drain.
Really very interesting Times Red Box poll on what motivates people in voting: 57% "party reflecting my ideals and principles" 19% "best policies" 6% "best leaders".
That sums up the Tory problem. By focusing their message on "our leader is less bad than the other leader", they appeal at most to the 6%, while looking ever-nastier to the 57%.
We politics nerds would probably prefer 100% on "best policies". But in a way the voters are right - it's difficult to predict what issues will come up over 5 years, and voting for the party you feel best reflects your general view may be safer than voting for X because you like their plans on council tax or whatever.
How enlightening. 57% of Labour voters are motivated by class hatred and envy. I presume Labour will read this as 57% of Labour voters want unlimited immigration.
Errr...do you want to explain the reasoning in your inference? - The poll isn't a poll of Labour voters. It's a poll of everyone, including your good self. - Your belief (if I understand you correctly) that Labour voters think that their ideals and principles are about class hatred and envy would be, to put it politely, more credible if documented by a link.
Nick – you should know by now that lefties hate England and are deeply class envious, despite being middle class champagne swilling Londoners who are rich. I know all this – I need no poll – I learned it on PB!
Hi Bob. I'd probably call myself a leftie. I don't live in London, don't drink champagne and don't consider myself class envious. Funny, eh? I might be middle class though.
Do you hate England and love London though? I bet you go to farmers' markets on Saturdays too? Scum!
I hate England at Rubgy and support them at Cricket! Where does that put me?
Really very interesting Times Red Box poll on what motivates people in voting: 57% "party reflecting my ideals and principles" 19% "best policies" 6% "best leaders".
That sums up the Tory problem. By focusing their message on "our leader is less bad than the other leader", they appeal at most to the 6%, while looking ever-nastier to the 57%.
We politics nerds would probably prefer 100% on "best policies". But in a way the voters are right - it's difficult to predict what issues will come up over 5 years, and voting for the party you feel best reflects your general view may be safer than voting for X because you like their plans on council tax or whatever.
How enlightening. 57% of Labour voters are motivated by class hatred and envy. I presume Labour will read this as 57% of Labour voters want unlimited immigration.
Errr...do you want to explain the reasoning in your inference? - The poll isn't a poll of Labour voters. It's a poll of everyone, including your good self. - Your belief (if I understand you correctly) that Labour voters think that their ideals and principles are about class hatred and envy would be, to put it politely, more credible if documented by a link.
Nick – you should know by now that lefties hate England and are deeply class envious, despite being middle class champagne swilling Londoners who are rich. I know all this – I need no poll – I learned it on PB!
Hi Bob. I'd probably call myself a leftie. I don't live in London, don't drink champagne and don't consider myself class envious. Funny, eh? I might be middle class though.
Do you hate England and love London though? I bet you go to farmers' markets on Saturdays too? Scum!
I hate England at Rubgy and support them at Cricket! Where does that put me?
Really very interesting Times Red Box poll on what motivates people in voting: 57% "party reflecting my ideals and principles" 19% "best policies" 6% "best leaders".
That sums up the Tory problem. By focusing their message on "our leader is less bad than the other leader", they appeal at most to the 6%, while looking ever-nastier to the 57%.
We politics nerds would probably prefer 100% on "best policies". But in a way the voters are right - it's difficult to predict what issues will come up over 5 years, and voting for the party you feel best reflects your general view may be safer than voting for X because you like their plans on council tax or whatever.
How enlightening. 57% of Labour voters are motivated by class hatred and envy. I presume Labour will read this as 57% of Labour voters want unlimited immigration.
Errr...do you want to explain the reasoning in your inference? - The poll isn't a poll of Labour voters. It's a poll of everyone, including your good self. - Your belief (if I understand you correctly) that Labour voters think that their ideals and principles are about class hatred and envy would be, to put it politely, more credible if documented by a link.
Nick – you should know by now that lefties hate England and are deeply class envious, despite being middle class champagne swilling Londoners who are rich. I know all this – I need no poll – I learned it on PB!
Hi Bob. I'd probably call myself a leftie. I don't live in London, don't drink champagne and don't consider myself class envious. Funny, eh? I might be middle class though.
Do you hate England and love London though? I bet you go to farmers' markets on Saturdays too? Scum!
I hate England at Rubgy and support them at Cricket! Where does that put me?
Let me consult Norman Tebbit
Well, I definitely Don’t Like him. Although I admire the way he’s looked after his wife since the Brighton Bomb.
Really very interesting Times Red Box poll on what motivates people in voting: 57% "party reflecting my ideals and principles" 19% "best policies" 6% "best leaders".
That sums up the Tory problem. By focusing their message on "our leader is less bad than the other leader", they appeal at most to the 6%, while looking ever-nastier to the 57%.
We politics nerds would probably prefer 100% on "best policies". But in a way the voters are right - it's difficult to predict what issues will come up over 5 years, and voting for the party you feel best reflects your general view may be safer than voting for X because you like their plans on council tax or whatever.
How enlightening. 57% of Labour voters are motivated by class hatred and envy. I presume Labour will read this as 57% of Labour voters want unlimited immigration.
Errr...do you want to explain the reasoning in your inference? - The poll isn't a poll of Labour voters. It's a poll of everyone, including your good self. - Your belief (if I understand you correctly) that Labour voters think that their ideals and principles are about class hatred and envy would be, to put it politely, more credible if documented by a link.
Nick – you should know by now that lefties hate England and are deeply class envious, despite being middle class champagne swilling Londoners who are rich. I know all this – I need no poll – I learned it on PB!
Hi Bob. I'd probably call myself a leftie. I don't live in London, don't drink champagne and don't consider myself class envious. Funny, eh? I might be middle class though.
Do you hate England and love London though? I bet you go to farmers' markets on Saturdays too? Scum!
Sorry I forgot to mention that I don't hate England either. I'm not English though. I haven't been to London for ages mainly due to the travelling expense. I'm not sure I'd like to live there as it's just so big, but who knows? I don't go to farmers' markets but I would if I had a bit more cash.
Really very interesting Times Red Box poll on what motivates people in voting: 57% "party reflecting my ideals and principles" 19% "best policies" 6% "best leaders".
That sums up the Tory problem. By focusing their message on "our leader is less bad than the other leader", they appeal at most to the 6%, while looking ever-nastier to the 57%.
We politics nerds would probably prefer 100% on "best policies". But in a way the voters are right - it's difficult to predict what issues will come up over 5 years, and voting for the party you feel best reflects your general view may be safer than voting for X because you like their plans on council tax or whatever.
How enlightening. 57% of Labour voters are motivated by class hatred and envy. I presume Labour will read this as 57% of Labour voters want unlimited immigration.
Errr...do you want to explain the reasoning in your inference? - The poll isn't a poll of Labour voters. It's a poll of everyone, including your good self. - Your belief (if I understand you correctly) that Labour voters think that their ideals and principles are about class hatred and envy would be, to put it politely, more credible if documented by a link.
Nick – you should know by now that lefties hate England and are deeply class envious, despite being middle class champagne swilling Londoners who are rich. I know all this – I need no poll – I learned it on PB!
Hi Bob. I'd probably call myself a leftie. I don't live in London, don't drink champagne and don't consider myself class envious. Funny, eh? I might be middle class though.
Do you hate England and love London though? I bet you go to farmers' markets on Saturdays too? Scum!
Sorry I forgot to mention that I don't hate England either. I'm not English though. I haven't been to London for ages mainly due to the travelling expense. I'm not sure I'd like to live there as it's just so big, but who knows? I don't go to farmers' markets but I would if I had a bit more cash.
Really very interesting Times Red Box poll on what motivates people in voting: 57% "party reflecting my ideals and principles" 19% "best policies" 6% "best leaders".
That sums up the Tory problem. By focusing their message on "our leader is less bad than the other leader", they appeal at most to the 6%, while looking ever-nastier to the 57%.
We politics nerds would probably prefer 100% on "best policies". But in a way the voters are right - it's difficult to predict what issues will come up over 5 years, and voting for the party you feel best reflects your general view may be safer than voting for X because you like their plans on council tax or whatever.
How enlightening. 57% of Labour voters are motivated by class hatred and envy. I presume Labour will read this as 57% of Labour voters want unlimited immigration.
Errr...do you want to explain the reasoning in your inference? - The poll isn't a poll of Labour voters. It's a poll of everyone, including your good self. - Your belief (if I understand you correctly) that Labour voters think that their ideals and principles are about class hatred and envy would be, to put it politely, more credible if documented by a link.
Nick – you should know by now that lefties hate England and are deeply class envious, despite being middle class champagne swilling Londoners who are rich. I know all this – I need no poll – I learned it on PB!
Hi Bob. I'd probably call myself a leftie. I don't live in London, don't drink champagne and don't consider myself class envious. Funny, eh? I might be middle class though.
Do you hate England and love London though? I bet you go to farmers' markets on Saturdays too? Scum!
I hate England at Rubgy and support them at Cricket! Where does that put me?
Let me consult Norman Tebbit
Well, I definitely Don’t Like him. Although I admire the way he’s looked after his wife since the Brighton Bomb.
I kinda like him for that, and his union busting tactics that smashed the power of the trade unions, I don't like him for the Tebbit test.
I think it was Michael Foot who described Norman Tebbit as a semi house trained pole cat
So what we all knew has been confirmed. A poster has been using various different names to troll, and accusing anyone who rumbled of stalking or being obsessed. Similar to how a teenage girl flirts then pretends not to understand why she is getting attention.
When I pointed out almost a year ago this was happening, Mike emailed me to warn that accusing new posters of being old ones was something that could result in a ban.
It was also said that anyone using more than one account would be banned.
As the truth is now known, and I was right all along, surely the person involved should be banned?
On gay marriage, I remember John Prescott saying he urged Ton Blair not to ditch Clause 4 because it would 'tear the heart out of the party'. Did gay marriage tear the heart out of the Tories? It's possible I guess. But Blair ditched clause 4 and went on to win 3 elections, in large part because his grassroots were desperate to win. Are the Tory grassroots desperate to win? I think not. There was a small chunk of the electorate who had many of the self-reliant characteristics of Tories but were rigidly opposed to the party because of its apparent dislike of their lifestyle. Here was a chance to win some of them over. Did they want to?
Labour now to agree to give Scotland full control of income tax ahead of Smith Cssion report on Thursday and Murphy to back 50% top tax rate opposed by SNP
Really very interesting Times Red Box poll on what motivates people in voting: 57% "party reflecting my ideals and principles" 19% "best policies" 6% "best leaders".
That sums up the Tory problem. By focusing their message on "our leader is less bad than the other leader", they appeal at most to the 6%, while looking ever-nastier to the 57%.
We politics nerds would probably prefer 100% on "best policies". But in a way the voters are right - it's difficult to predict what issues will come up over 5 years, and voting for the party you feel best reflects your general view may be safer than voting for X because you like their plans on council tax or whatever.
How enlightening. 57% of Labour voters are motivated by class hatred and envy. I presume Labour will read this as 57% of Labour voters want unlimited immigration.
Errr...do you want to explain the reasoning in your inference? - The poll isn't a poll of Labour voters. It's a poll of everyone, including your good self. - Your belief (if I understand you correctly) that Labour voters think that their ideals and principles are about class hatred and envy would be, to put it politely, more credible if documented by a link.
Nick – you should know by now that lefties hate England and are deeply class envious, despite being middle class champagne swilling Londoners who are rich. I know all this – I need no poll – I learned it on PB!
Hi Bob. I'd probably call myself a leftie. I don't live in London, don't drink champagne and don't consider myself class envious. Funny, eh? I might be middle class though.
Do you hate England and love London though? I bet you go to farmers' markets on Saturdays too? Scum!
I hate England at Rubgy and support them at Cricket! Where does that put me?
Really very interesting Times Red Box poll on what motivates people in voting: 57% "party reflecting my ideals and principles" 19% "best policies" 6% "best leaders".
That sums up the Tory problem. By focusing their message on "our leader is less bad than the other leader", they appeal at most to the 6%, while looking ever-nastier to the 57%.
We politics nerds would probably prefer 100% on "best policies". But in a way the voters are right - it's difficult to predict what issues will come up over 5 years, and voting for the party you feel best reflects your general view may be safer than voting for X because you like their plans on council tax or whatever.
How enlightening. 57% of Labour voters are motivated by class hatred and envy. I presume Labour will read this as 57% of Labour voters want unlimited immigration.
Errr...do you want to explain the reasoning in your inference? - The poll isn't a poll of Labour voters. It's a poll of everyone, including your good self. - Your belief (if I understand you correctly) that Labour voters think that their ideals and principles are about class hatred and envy would be, to put it politely, more credible if documented by a link.
Nick – you should know by now that lefties hate England and are deeply class envious, despite being middle class champagne swilling Londoners who are rich. I know all this – I need no poll – I learned it on PB!
Hi Bob. I'd probably call myself a leftie. I don't live in London, don't drink champagne and don't consider myself class envious. Funny, eh? I might be middle class though.
Do you hate England and love London though? I bet you go to farmers' markets on Saturdays too? Scum!
I hate England at Rubgy and support them at Cricket! Where does that put me?
Let me consult Norman Tebbit
Well, I definitely Don’t Like him. Although I admire the way he’s looked after his wife since the Brighton Bomb.
I kinda like him for that, and his union busting tactics that smashed the power of the trade unions, I don't like him for the Tebbit test.
I think it was Michael Foot who described Norman Tebbit as a semi house trained pole cat
Michael Foot had a good line in invective. One of his good points
On gay marriage, I remember John Prescott saying he urged Ton Blair not to ditch Clause 4 because it would 'tear the heart out of the party'. Did gay marriage tear the heart out of the Tories? It's possible I guess. But Blair ditched clause 4 and went on to win 3 elections, in large part because his grassroots were desperate to win. Are the Tory grassroots desperate to win? I think not. There was a small chunk of the electorate who had many of the self-reliant characteristics of Tories but were rigidly opposed to the party because of its apparent dislike of their lifestyle. Here was a chance to win some of them over. Did they want to?
I dont think its tore the heart out of the tories, I think Mr Herdson was right on the money below
Of itself, I agree that it wasn't sufficient. I have, however, been surprised at how many people I've met who've cited it as the reason and I suspect that for many, it was the straw (or fairly hefty branch) that broke the camel's back, coming on top of windmills, huskies, international aid and the rest. It was a symbol of not being in touch with that part of the electorate.
Which ever way we dress it up, the factor remains that Dave managed to lose a previous rock solid loyal 25%+ of his core vote to UKIP, whilst not regaining anything of substance from the Guardianista, hence his languishing in the polls at the moment.
Mr. Eagles, 2008 had a very exciting finale. Massa was looking very quick at the end of this season. It's not impossible he'll be in contention next year, but the Mercedes was so dominant this year I'm not sure I can see anyone else winning.
Williams might be able to finish 2nd in the Constructors', though.
Yes, America totally doesn't have a history of unarmed black men being shot by the police without repercussion. This is all just a conspiracy to drum up votes.
same as white and black men in UK, never prosecuted ever.
Really very interesting Times Red Box poll on what motivates people in voting: 57% "party reflecting my ideals and principles" 19% "best policies" 6% "best leaders".
That sums up the Tory problem. By focusing their message on "our leader is less bad than the other leader", they appeal at most to the 6%, while looking ever-nastier to the 57%.
We politics nerds would probably prefer 100% on "best policies". But in a way the voters are right - it's difficult to predict what issues will come up over 5 years, and voting for the party you feel best reflects your general view may be safer than voting for X because you like their plans on council tax or whatever.
How enlightening. 57% of Labour voters are motivated by class hatred and envy. I presume Labour will read this as 57% of Labour voters want unlimited immigration.
Errr...do you want to explain the reasoning in your inference? - The poll isn't a poll of Labour voters. It's a poll of everyone, including your good self. - Your belief (if I understand you correctly) that Labour voters think that their ideals and principles are about class hatred and envy would be, to put it politely, more credible if documented by a link.
Nick – you should know by now that lefties hate England and are deeply class envious, despite being middle class champagne swilling Londoners who are rich. I know all this – I need no poll – I learned it on PB!
Hi Bob. I'd probably call myself a leftie. I don't live in London, don't drink champagne and don't consider myself class envious. Funny, eh? I might be middle class though.
Do you hate England and love London though? I bet you go to farmers' markets on Saturdays too? Scum!
I hate England at Rubgy and support them at Cricket! Where does that put me?
Let me consult Norman Tebbit
Well, I definitely Don’t Like him. Although I admire the way he’s looked after his wife since the Brighton Bomb.
I read Mr Tebbit's autobiography "Upwardly Mobile" recently. I got the impression he's a very nice man.
I'm not sure that a coalition can be on the table for Ed. neither the SNP nor the DUP can realistically hold office in a government that deals mainly with England (and in any case, their priorities are Holyrood and Stormont respectively, and going into govt with Lab in London would cut across those campaigns); UKIP, on the other hand, probably won't have the numbers but even if they do, the areas of common ground are few and far between.
That leaves the Tories and Lib Dems. I cannot see any realistic possibility of a Grand Coalition - the threats and challenges the government faces are not *that* serious - so the question is could the Lib Dems jump ship from one side to the other, and would Labour welcome them? (Also, would they have the numbers to make such a move worthwhile?). I wouldn't rule it out but at the same time, I could see it being in both parties' interests to settle a C&S arrangement rather than a full coalition.
My reply to David - If there is to be a coalition Con + LD might still work again or indeed Lab + LD if differences can be sorted. But forget Con + LD + Ukip. Any notion of working with the fruitloop brigade who are their diametric opposite politically will be a step too far for virtually all LDs,
So what we all knew has been confirmed. A poster has been using various different names to troll, and accusing anyone who rumbled of stalking or being obsessed. Similar to how a teenage girl flirts then pretends not to understand why she is getting attention.
When I pointed out almost a year ago this was happening, Mike emailed me to warn that accusing new posters of being old ones was something that could result in a ban.
It was also said that anyone using more than one account would be banned.
As the truth is now known, and I was right all along, surely the person involved should be banned?
Comments
Brady could see Johnson at the front passenger side of the vehicle when he and Brown started running suddenly; he did not hear a gunshot or see what caused them to run. He saw Wilson get out of the vehicle and "start walking briskly while firing on Brown as he fled"
Witness #2
"I saw the police chase him ... down the street and shoot him down." When Brown then raised his arms, the officer shot him two more times, killing him.
Witness #3
"After the shot, the kid just breaks away. The cop follows him, kept shooting, the kid's body jerked as if he was hit. After his body jerked he turns around, puts his hands up, and the cop continues to walk up on him and continues to shoot until he goes all the way down."
Witness #4
About 90 feet away from the vehicle, Wilson fired a shot at Brown, whose back was turned. Brown stumbled, stopped, put his hands up and said "OK, OK, OK, OK, OK." The worker believed Brown had been wounded. With his hands up, Brown began walking toward the officer, at which point Wilson began firing at Brown and backing away... The worker disputed the claim, by defenders of Wilson, that Brown rushed at the officer, "I don't know if he was going after him or if he was falling down to die. It wasn't a bull rush."
Re your first point, I don't believe the LDs are that low but yes, were they to take 1% then that would without question be wipeout. To put some numbers on it, there were 2.466m votes cast in Scotland in the 2010GE. Even if we allow that the 1% had decimals rounded down, it'd be unlikely that they'd have more than 30k votes - across the whole of the country. That might just be enough to hold O&S (won last time with just under 12k votes and a 10k majority over a three-way near-tie for second) but only if they were polling at MRLP levels across most of the rest. In reality, given other areas of deposit-saving strength, I suspect they'd need a Scotland-wide figure of 3%+ to hold at least one seat.
But the general feeling of gut-level identification does seem to be a factor that motivates a lot of voters who don't bother with detailed policies and leader stuff. A lot of Labour's appeal comes down to "When issues arise, we'll try to find solutions that help ordinary people". Rightly or wrongly, we tend to be seen as more credible than the Conservatives on that.
The key question, come May next year, will be whether voters think, about Lab:
"partly to blame, not learned, may do it again."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/new-evidence-supports-officers-account-of-shooting-in-ferguson/2014/10/22/cf38c7b4-5964-11e4-bd61-346aee66ba29_story.html
There have been numbers I have spoken too who appear unaware they are in a Coalition with written agreements...
You could of course argue that it's the Leadership's fault for not telling them.. but I got the feeling from those I spoke to that it would need repeating weekly for five years...
(It's in line with Labour supporters voting for Tristram Hunt - a posh, privately educated rich boy - in Stoke on Trent's Central Ward . As long as he had a red rosette he was sure of winning.)
That leaves the Tories and Lib Dems. I cannot see any realistic possibility of a Grand Coalition - the threats and challenges the government faces are not *that* serious - so the question is could the Lib Dems jump ship from one side to the other, and would Labour welcome them? (Also, would they have the numbers to make such a move worthwhile?). I wouldn't rule it out but at the same time, I could see it being in both parties' interests to settle a C&S arrangement rather than a full coalition.
Mysteriously, given Farage’s background, he gets credit for not being involved in those shenanigans, too!
Incidentally I’ve just seen a sheet detailing the compensation someone close to me has got for being missold PPI. The PPI itself was just under £700, but with interest and compensation the total cheque is over £4k!
Why is it an unwelcome decision by the jury? Should politics and the racial grievance industry trump law now? This happened in the UK with the removal of double jeopardy in the Stephen Lawrence cause celebre, Luckily I think the US respects its legal obligations a bit more.
I am pretty sure nothing will be stolen from book shops.
How much did they spend removing the democratically elected government in Ukraine?
I see PP have taken down the Irish election market for 1st place.I am rather pleased with myself as recent polls put S/F in front.
This needs a second look as it could be S/F who determine the make-up of the next government.We are on the way to an united British Isles-minus the euro.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/10/will-sinn-fein-mps-take-their-seats-after-next-election
Parasites, vile vile parasites.
How enlightening. 57% of Labour voters are motivated by class hatred and envy. I presume Labour will read this as 57% of Labour voters want unlimited immigration.
"Mysteriously, given Farage’s background, he gets credit for not being involved in those shenanigans, too"
Farage was a commodities trader on the London Metal Exchange. As such he had no more to do with the shenanigans of the Banks than you or I. Where is the mystery?
I believe the collective term is "lawyers"
So much for the left wing obsession of how the UK was always a multicultural paradise with large long established non white communities. So say 20,000 out of 49m. So 0.04%.
Could Labour ever win an election without the non white vote? No wonder they are so keen on importing voters.
But if someone will do it for me on a no-win, no fee basis .......
Or less.
He got told to court the Grauniad vote by the sneering leftist metropolitan intellectual set who would never vote Tory in the first place. All a plan to make UK the reverse of Ireland. A country with 2 1/2 Labour parties.
The right thing is not always easy or popular
As a transgender person, I thought it was courageous of Cameron to push a LGBT-friendly agenda. However, that was more of an aside - his government has failed to address the deficit or immigration (though immigration is but one symptom of our dysfunctional position within the EU). That means I'm not going to vote Conservative at the next election.
I would add that I don't plan on voting UKIP either - they're intellectually incoherent, and until I hear a well-thought argument (e.g. along the lines of Owen Patterson's excellent speech yesterday) from them, I don't think they're a serious contender.
I make it evens on either coalition.
All to play for.
25.11.14 LAB 319 (319) CON 267(268) LD 31(31) UKIP 2(2) Others 31(30) (Ed is crap is PM)
Last weeks BJESUS in brackets Last weeks BJESUS in brackets
BJESUS (Big John Election Service Uniform Swing) BJESUS (Big John Election Service Uniform Swing)
Using current polling adjusted for 163 days left to go factor and using UKPR standard swingometer
I don't have a view on the details of the evidence, but providing the grand jury did their job properly and followed due process then of course the decision should stand
I like to play "Microsoft’s Technical Agency” people along, until I get bored and tell them I use Linux.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/nigel-farage/11250905/Nigel-Farage-says-sensible-women-are-still-not-backing-Ukip.html
1. We need to attract Lib Dems.
2. Which is the paper that is most read by the Lib Dem voters.
3. The only paper that backed the Lib Dems was the Guardian in 2010 and Cameron's mates prefer to read it.....
But, he overlooked the fact that the paper most read by LD voters is the Mail.
Basic maths and research failure.
- The poll isn't a poll of Labour voters. It's a poll of everyone, including your good self.
- Your belief (if I understand you correctly) that Labour voters think that their ideals and principles are about class hatred and envy would be, to put it politely, more credible if documented by a link.
Labour does not engage in class hatred or envy. It does not hate England. It does not import immigrant voters.
My mistake. Please send me to a reeducation gulag so I can learn from my mistakes.
Which party do you think is most in touch with the views of white, working class people today?
Labour 21%
Conservatives 9 %
Liberal Democrats 2%
UK Independence Party (UKIP) 27%
None of them 29%
Don't know 12%
"Party of the Working Man" eh ?
More likely that Ed Miliband would become Prime Minister - 28%
Less likely that Ed Miliband would become Prime Minister - 26%
No difference - 21%
DK - 25%
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/otdfzsrr0r/Times_Results_141124_Working_Class_People_Website.pdf
Cameron is proposing a referendum on the EU.
The govt have stopped the sub continent student scam and EU immigration is work and economy related. Economic times will change and many immigrants will return home.
The deficit...
http://www.economicsuk.com/blog/002058.html#more
'...the cyclically-adjusted deficit has come down from 10.3% of gross domestic product in 2009 to 4.1% this year, a big reduction. ...Osborne toughened his own target, aiming for an overall budget surplus in the next parliament rather than just eliminating the current deficit.'
http://www.economicsuk.com/blog/002037.html
'... the striking thing is not that that spending has been relaxed but that it has been tightened – cut – relative to the 2010 plans.
According to those plans, the government intended to spend £722bn in the 2013-14 fiscal year, that one that ended this spring. In fact it spent £714bn.'
'Public sector current spending was originally intended to be £679bn in 2013-14. In fact it was £668bn'
'By the end of this year ... 55% of the planned tightening will have occurred, leaving 45% to the next parliament ... however ... the OBR changed its view on the economy’s productive potential, so more of the deficit was deemed to be structural ... and less of it cyclical, in other words disappearing with the recovery.
Osborne ... set himself the goal of achieving a sustained budget surplus, rather than merely getting the deficit down to zero.'
'By 2018-19, according to the IFS, a deficit reduction programme equivalent to 11.5% of GDP will have been achieved. Apart from in the special conditions of moving from war to peace, I do not think that has ever been done before.'
The govt is regaining control of spending and cutting it.
It is sustaining the economy with the normal economic regulators during turbulent outside economic events (rather than willfully slashing more to meet an arbitrary target). We have a decent center right govt (more right than center with a 2015 tory majority) that is making the right economic decisions.
Labour also lost the vote because they chose not to bring a critically ill MP to be nodded through. Had they done so, they'd have survived on the Speaker's casting vote.
UKIP should get that President Erdogan as a candidate. He'd fit in nicely.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30183711
The calculation - and I suspect they are right - is that it is not enough of a salient issue with non-gays to change many votes. Many of people moving their support away from the Tories are opposed to gay marriage, but in how many cases is that the *true* reason?
BUT
The effect is very marginal and will not in itself make Ed PM or not.
When you go shopping for a car, you do not have "best steering-wheel" on your list of criteria. When you discover that a specific car on offer has no steering-wheel, steering-wheel issues go straight to the top of your criteria-list for that particular car.
Or, to improve the analogy, a home-made steering-wheel constructed out of old coat-hangers and duct tape.
The economic times will only affect immigrant numbers from Eastern Europe if our economy turns down heavily, in which case there won't be any jobs for British Citizens either, otherwise earning 3-4 times as much with free healthcare, free schooling, in work benefits and just going to be too attractive.
That said, I supported the measure then, I support it now, and I believe the Party took the right decision.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/30190179
Still surprised Marussia's in a seemingly worse state, given they've got tens of millions in prize money just waiting to be paid out.
Also, an interesting financial snippet I read about (unsure if true): it's claimed the money Williams will get for 3rd in the Constructors' is less than the money Ferrari gets just for being kind enough to participate in F1. If true, that makes Ferrari's ongoing failure even worse.
Must say I'm glad to see Williams back at the sharp end. They're rather likeable.
Batsman is fighting for his life in an induced coma after being struck on head during Sheffield Shield contest at SCG
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/international/australia/11251923/Australian-batsman-Phil-Hughes-in-critical-condition-after-being-hit-on-head-by-a-bouncer-during-match.html
First with Mansell and then Hill.
Part of me wishes Williams and Massa wins the F1 Championship next year.
I still feel for Massa in 2008
'Sainsbury's axes Left-wing blogger for vile PM slur'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2847731/Sainsbury-s-disowns-anti-austerity-cook-used-face-supermarket-stands-claim-Cameron-uses-dead-son-sell-NHS.html
Will there be a boycott, or a petition?
I think it was Michael Foot who described Norman Tebbit as a semi house trained pole cat
When I pointed out almost a year ago this was happening, Mike emailed me to warn that accusing new posters of being old ones was something that could result in a ban.
It was also said that anyone using more than one account would be banned.
As the truth is now known, and I was right all along, surely the person involved should be banned?
Cricket, like boxing, rugby, F1 carries an element of risk which can never be fully mitigated -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Aziz_(cricketer) died to a SLOW off break.
Williams might be able to finish 2nd in the Constructors', though.
Unfortunately for him, everyone remembers him for the donkey jacket* and being the Ed Miliband of his day.
*It wasn't a donkey jacket.
That leaves the Tories and Lib Dems. I cannot see any realistic possibility of a Grand Coalition - the threats and challenges the government faces are not *that* serious - so the question is could the Lib Dems jump ship from one side to the other, and would Labour welcome them? (Also, would they have the numbers to make such a move worthwhile?). I wouldn't rule it out but at the same time, I could see it being in both parties' interests to settle a C&S arrangement rather than a full coalition.
My reply to David - If there is to be a coalition Con + LD might still work again or indeed Lab + LD if differences can be sorted. But forget Con + LD + Ukip. Any notion of working with the fruitloop brigade who are their diametric opposite politically will be a step too far for virtually all LDs,
"He's passed from rising hope to elder statesman without any intervening period whatsoever"
Edit: apparently that wasn't said at the debate, but before. Silly me!
@LordAshcroft has told Tory Lords that there is more grim marginals poll news for them out this week via Via @Mancman10 & @joncraig )
@LordAshcroft
@MSmithsonPB @Mancman10 @joncraig I didn't. I only said more marginal polls would be released later this week