The most interesting number in today's polling is that 66% of 2010 Tories think immigration has risen over the last year or two. Yet the genius Crosby thought that ramping up the issue would somehow help the Tories. Utterly bizarre, anyone could've told him that people check in their logic when it comes to this issue as they do with crime stats.
And the Tory lead on immigration over Labour is down to 4 while they trail UKIP.
TBF you can see how they made this mistake, because this kind of thing _used_ to work. I suppose it still works in Australia, where they have AV. In a two-party system it doesn't matter how little you're going to do about something, it still makes sense to talk it up as long as you look like you'd do more about it than the other side.
Another bit of politics with the same problem: They've picked a fight with the EU by making rules about benefits for foreigners that are obviously illegal, timed so they get to argue about it in the run-up to the election. When they thought it up it must have looked like a great wheeze to give them a wedge issue to use against Labour, but it'll end up being a wedge issue for UKIP to use against them.
The most interesting number in today's polling is that 66% of 2010 Tories think immigration has risen over the last year or two. Yet the genius Crosby thought that ramping up the issue would somehow help the Tories. Utterly bizarre, anyone could've told him that people check in their logic when it comes to this issue as they do with crime stats.
And the Tory lead on immigration over Labour is down to 4 while they trail UKIP.
TBF you can see how they made this mistake, because this kind of thing _used_ to work. I suppose it still works in Australia, where they have AV. In a two-party system it doesn't matter how little you're going to do about something, it still makes sense to talk it up as long as you look like you'd do more about it than the other side.
Another bit of politics with the same problem: They've picked a fight with the EU by making rules about benefits for foreigners that are obviously illegal, timed so they get to argue about it in the run-up to the election. When they thought it up it must have looked like a great wheeze to give them a wedge issue to use against Labour, but it'll end up being a wedge issue for UKIP to use against them.
QT on Thursday illustrated how the second point you make helps UKIP.... While Anna Soubry and Alan Johnson banged on about micro details and EU law etc , Diane James was almost laughing as she just said we can't do anything about it while we are in the EU... So UKIP are speaking in simple terms while the big two tie themselves in boring wonky knots
The most interesting number in today's polling is that 66% of 2010 Tories think immigration has risen over the last year or two. Yet the genius Crosby thought that ramping up the issue would somehow help the Tories. Utterly bizarre, anyone could've told him that people check in their logic when it comes to this issue as they do with crime stats.
And the Tory lead on immigration over Labour is down to 4 while they trail UKIP.
TBF you can see how they made this mistake, because this kind of thing _used_ to work. I suppose it still works in Australia, where they have AV. In a two-party system it doesn't matter how little you're going to do about something, it still makes sense to talk it up as long as you look like you'd do more about it than the other side.
Another bit of politics with the same problem: They've picked a fight with the EU by making rules about benefits for foreigners that are obviously illegal, timed so they get to argue about it in the run-up to the election. When they thought it up it must have looked like a great wheeze to give them a wedge issue to use against Labour, but it'll end up being a wedge issue for UKIP to use against them.
QT on Thursday illustrated how the second point you make helps UKIP.... While Anna Soubry and Alan Johnson banged on about micro details and EU law etc , Diane James was almost laughing as she just said we can't do anything about it while we are in the EU... So UKIP are speaking in simple terms while the big two tie themselves in boring wonky knots
It all looks obvious to us now, but I can imagine a lot of seasoned political professionals are having a hard time getting their heads around it, especially people who only speak English and haven't really watched countries with multi-party systems in action.
The main parties may find they need to skip a generation just to avoid making what are (from the outside) mind-bogglingly obvious mistakes based on political techniques that used to work in the 1970s.
Dernbach needs more games for England. Just needs to play himself into form. LOL. There are no words to describe how s**t this team are. They are Ed x infinity crap.
Watching this piece on MPs' expenses, I wonder if there is any way for an MP to express dissatisfaction with IPSA without soundling like bleating lambs, whining away about how unfair it is that they are not trusted to manage expenses in house anymore. There do seem to be problems with the current system, but whenever those brave enough to point out what can be valid complaints, they always seem to give away something in their attitude that shows they don't quite understand why annoyance for them is currently the preferred option.
The thing is, unfortunately, is that it is not unfair that MPs are not trusted to keep these things in house, because the prevailing attitude even at the time of the scandal appeared to be 'I'm sorry the system was too generous, but I did nothing wrong because that trouser press was within the rules. What's that, I could have chosen not to purchase it because firm creases are not essential parts of my job? Madness!' (oh, they said sorry, but the deeper meaning was very clear on such trivial spending cases). That is, most still didn't think they'd done anything wrong, instead focusing only on whether things were illegal.
The system is making MPs unhappy (I spit on the idea that it will dissuade the best people from standing for Parliament - there are thousands who could do the job just as well, and if bureaucratic annoyances are enough to force them out, unless they are being pushed to bankruptcy then they did not deserve the job in the first place) so alterations may be needed, but how can that be achieved when any suggestion comes with such baggage, and the clear implication from those complaining about how hard they have it, having to be scrutinized so? I can't really see how at the moment.
I think Miliband is sure to promise an EU referendum in the 2015 GE. And who'll this help? Not his party, or Cameron. It'll help both UKIP and the LDs. The LDs because they'll be seen as the only honest pro-Europe party. Some LDs still want to join the Euro, 'when the time is right'. (They are incapable of seeing that it can never right while the members are so economically different, and their govts subject to democracy). What % of the country is still uncritically pro-Europe? Probably more than the 10% who currently admit to be going to vote LD.
It will also help UKIP. It is not going to be tough to sell 'look what we are able to achieve with no MPs. A vote for UKIP carries plenty of weight'.
Very difficult to argue against, except that one of the things that of our personal expectancies, wages paid should be based on the level of importance.
We now have middle to junior level public servants earning more than the Prime Minister.
There are even a large number of elected officials earning more than the PM.
Watching this piece on MPs' expenses, I wonder if there is any way for an MP to express dissatisfaction with IPSA without soundling like bleating lambs, whining away about how unfair it is that they are not trusted to manage expenses in house anymore. There do seem to be problems with the current system, but whenever those brave enough to point out what can be valid complaints, they always seem to give away something in their attitude that shows they don't quite understand why annoyance for them is currently the preferred option.
The thing is, unfortunately, is that it is not unfair that MPs are not trusted to keep these things in house, because the prevailing attitude even at the time of the scandal appeared to be 'I'm sorry the system was too generous, but I did nothing wrong because that trouser press was within the rules. What's that, I could have chosen not to purchase it because firm creases are not essential parts of my job? Madness!' (oh, they said sorry, but the deeper meaning was very clear on such trivial spending cases). That is, most still didn't think they'd done anything wrong, instead focusing only on whether things were illegal.
The system is making MPs unhappy (I spit on the idea that it will dissuade the best people from standing for Parliament - there are thousands who could do the job just as well, and if bureaucratic annoyances are enough to force them out, unless they are being pushed to bankruptcy then they did not deserve the job in the first place) so alterations may be needed, but how can that be achieved when any suggestion comes with such baggage, and the clear implication from those complaining about how hard they have it, having to be scrutinized so? I can't really see how at the moment.
Comments
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-22745855
Another bit of politics with the same problem: They've picked a fight with the EU by making rules about benefits for foreigners that are obviously illegal, timed so they get to argue about it in the run-up to the election. When they thought it up it must have looked like a great wheeze to give them a wedge issue to use against Labour, but it'll end up being a wedge issue for UKIP to use against them.
60 % No
21 % Yes
19 % Undecided
Scotland's youngsters offer hope for the future.
The main parties may find they need to skip a generation just to avoid making what are (from the outside) mind-bogglingly obvious mistakes based on political techniques that used to work in the 1970s.
'Of the young people questioned, 67% said they would like more information ahead of their final decision.
There are no words to describe how s**t this team are. They are Ed x infinity crap.
Death penalty for England selectors.
Watching this piece on MPs' expenses, I wonder if there is any way for an MP to express dissatisfaction with IPSA without soundling like bleating lambs, whining away about how unfair it is that they are not trusted to manage expenses in house anymore. There do seem to be problems with the current system, but whenever those brave enough to point out what can be valid complaints, they always seem to give away something in their attitude that shows they don't quite understand why annoyance for them is currently the preferred option.
The thing is, unfortunately, is that it is not unfair that MPs are not trusted to keep these things in house, because the prevailing attitude even at the time of the scandal appeared to be 'I'm sorry the system was too generous, but I did nothing wrong because that trouser press was within the rules. What's that, I could have chosen not to purchase it because firm creases are not essential parts of my job? Madness!' (oh, they said sorry, but the deeper meaning was very clear on such trivial spending cases). That is, most still didn't think they'd done anything wrong, instead focusing only on whether things were illegal.
The system is making MPs unhappy (I spit on the idea that it will dissuade the best people from standing for Parliament - there are thousands who could do the job just as well, and if bureaucratic annoyances are enough to force them out, unless they are being pushed to bankruptcy then they did not deserve the job in the first place) so alterations may be needed, but how can that be achieved when any suggestion comes with such baggage, and the clear implication from those complaining about how hard they have it, having to be scrutinized so? I can't really see how at the moment.
It will also help UKIP. It is not going to be tough to sell 'look what we are able to achieve with no MPs. A vote for UKIP carries plenty of weight'.
Very difficult to argue against, except that one of the things that of our personal expectancies, wages paid should be based on the level of importance.
We now have middle to junior level public servants earning more than the Prime Minister.
There are even a large number of elected officials earning more than the PM.
Discuss!