Mr. 1000, ASBOs*, and it's indefensible to make legal activity a crime.
On the EU, it should not merely be left, but dismantled. They won't, though, and it'll crash and burn instead, sooner or later.
Normally I'd agree with you Mr Morris_Dancer. I have always hated ASBOs, they seem undemocratic and totally lacking in judicial oversight. (Bystander's criticisms of them are - IMHO - spot on.)
But this is Katie Hopkins we're talking about here. Just think: we could criminalise her being her. How good would that be?
I was talking to one of my Scottish friends about the tweets by Ms Hopkins.
His response is below (I paraphrase)
When did the Scots become such mewling quims?
A few years ago a terrorist attacked Glasgow Airport and what did a Scotsman do?
Went up and kicked the terrorist in the balls.
The best response, is humour.
Scotland has Ebola, England has Katie Hopkins. 1 nil to Scotland.
Point taken. As are those made by MD and RT. But what are the victims of such tweets as that and those around the Glasgow incident to feel? High honour at being singled out to public ridicule when they are at their lowest ebb in hospital, or (in the earlier incident) their nearest and dearest are dead? Even ignoring, for a moment, the obvious anti-Scottish element? It's the vulnerability of such people that worries me. Too much like a teenage gang baiting the disabled person on the corner - and one would expect the police to at least react to that (not that it always happens). At least the people who reported the tweets are showing public disapproval.
Anyway, we will see what happens. Now it's a nice sunny morning so I have to go out. Have a good day.
Mr. Flashman (deceased), it was some time ago (perhaps even 2012), but after the Scots banned a certain type of offensive football chanting (to try and reduce Celtic-Rangers hostility) an Englishman, in England, writing something obnoxious about football was arrested by Scottish officers who had crossed the border to do so, if memory serves.
A huge effigy of Mr Salmond was burned in England. The Scottish police answered the phone politely, put the note in the in tray for 3 weeks then quietly put in the bin.
They are humouring these frequent travellers on the offended bus.
They are humouring these frequent travellers on the offended bus.
@benatipsosmori: "a fruitful rel.ship has developed betwn the offensive and those whose every waking hour is a search to be offended" http://t.co/sZ7FjFX8oJ
The established parties will have more information about the voters in key wards, better organisational structures and no doubt ever more sophisticated technology but so what? Is there any substantive evidence that canvassing and door knocking actually increases turnout?
The statistics seem to show that turnout is every bit as high in safe tory seats as in marginals and only safe Labour seats have poorer turnout. This is probably because in safe inner city constituencies the electoral register is even more out of date and inaccurate than it is in more rural areas rather than the alleged tendency of Labour voters not to bother.
So much of what the parties do is displacement activity designed to make the activists feel good and a part of things rather than productive. At the last election the tories spent a fortune on posters and phone banks. I really doubt it made a difference.
As a simple example in the referendum campaign in Dundee a decision was made to allocate all of the available resources to traditional Labour areas to try and hold onto as many votes there as possible leaving tory, or at least more affluent areas to get themselves out. The SNP worked the same areas with greater success but guess which polling stations showed the highest turnout? Yep, the ones where no one had been active.
If the SNP or for that matter Labour or the tories convince themselves that a better ground game is going to make up for any deficiencies in their central message they are deluding themselves. Our politics becomes ever more presidential and media driven. If it is not on the news it didn't happen. This is why Ed might still be a problem. This is why the fact that Sturgeon can probably reach parts of greater Glasgow which Salmond couldn't reach is more important than waves of activists keeping themselves busy.
Mr. 1000, ASBOs*, and it's indefensible to make legal activity a crime.
On the EU, it should not merely be left, but dismantled. They won't, though, and it'll crash and burn instead, sooner or later.
Normally I'd agree with you Mr Morris_Dancer. I have always hated ASBOs, they seem undemocratic and totally lacking in judicial oversight. (Bystander's criticisms of them are - IMHO - spot on.)
But this is Katie Hopkins we're talking about here. Just think: we could criminalise her being her. How good would that be?
And you call yourself a civil libertarian.
Maybe I could just pay Katie Hopkins to go away? We could do a whipround.
As a simple example in the referendum campaign in Dundee a decision was made to allocate all of the available resources to traditional Labour areas to try and hold onto as many votes there as possible leaving tory, or at least more affluent areas to get themselves out. The SNP worked the same areas with greater success but guess which polling stations showed the highest turnout? Yep, the ones where no one had been active.
That simple example doesnt prove anything though (in the same way that NP's Broxtowe data doesnt prove the opposite case). Do you have data for demographically similar areas divided between those that were allocated resources and those that were not? That might prove something.
I've seen council seats (in big wards) won by one person working their socks off (where without that work their party would have come 4th). Those who think the ground game isnt important are deluding themselves.
I was talking to one of my Scottish friends about the tweets by Ms Hopkins.
His response is below (I paraphrase)
When did the Scots become such mewling quims?
A few years ago a terrorist attacked Glasgow Airport and what did a Scotsman do?
Went up and kicked the terrorist in the balls.
The best response, is humour.
Scotland has Ebola, England has Katie Hopkins. 1 nil to Scotland.
Point taken. As are those made by MD and RT. But what are the victims of such tweets as that and those around the Glasgow incident to feel? High honour at being singled out to public ridicule when they are at their lowest ebb in hospital, or (in the earlier incident) their nearest and dearest are dead? Even ignoring, for a moment, the obvious anti-Scottish element? It's the vulnerability of such people that worries me. Too much like a teenage gang baiting the disabled person on the corner - and one would expect the police to at least react to that (not that it always happens). At least the people who reported the tweets are showing public disapproval.
Anyway, we will see what happens. Now it's a nice sunny morning so I have to go out. Have a good day.
Is it offensive, yes undoubtedly, but really, we might as start getting the police involved in instances when say a First Minister of Scotland called a journalist a Gauleiter
I've not been following the new that closely over the New Year but is it really true that Katie "rent-a-gob Hopkins is being investigated by Plod for calling someone a "sweaty Glaswegian" and a "Jock" on twitter?
Can I make a formal complaint to the police about the police wasting police time?
Incidentally, I briefly watched a programme on musicals last night and a group called Four Poofs and a Piano appeared. I assume they have been arrested?
You might wish to look up the original tweets and consider whether they are unreasonably derogatory and insulting of a specific identifiable person, just as the Glasgow crash tweets were.
Carnyx, he is a cretin , he just wanted to insult Scots , no interest in what really happened.
Tut tut. Using disability as a term of abuse, yet again.
The established parties will have more information about the voters in key wards, better organisational structures and no doubt ever more sophisticated technology but so what? Is there any substantive evidence that canvassing and door knocking actually increases turnout?
The statistics seem to show that turnout is every bit as high in safe tory seats as in marginals and only safe Labour seats have poorer turnout. This is probably because in safe inner city constituencies the electoral register is even more out of date and inaccurate than it is in more rural areas rather than the alleged tendency of Labour voters not to bother.
There's a bit of both. Inner-city seats have out of date registration AND higher level of students AND higher levels of people with less education and comfort in filling out forms. Some of this doesn't sow up in turnout figures at all, since the problem is often the basic registration for people who have just moved (which is why I favour seats being proportionate to population, not to registration). But there's an inactivity issue too - if you're a single mum with a job and two kids, sorting out voting as well is just much harder than if you're a retired chap, and bothering for a local council election is really not on your radar.
The other point about canvassing etc. is targeting of people according to their expressed views and interests. Numerous Labour members in my area get mailshots from the Tories urging them to vote Tory because the alternative is Labour - this either winds them up or makes them laugh but it's a reflection of poor Tory canvass data: what the Tories are doing in their absence of sufficient canvass data is targeting by Experian demographics, which only works up to a point.
In principle, targeted mail is a good idea - if you're a pensioner and party X keeps writing to you about pensions, you'll be mildly impressed even though you know they're after your vote. But targeted political mail should reflect voting intentions (a UKIP-leaning pensioner needs a different letter from an ex-LibDem) and without the canvassing you can't do it.
Mr. 1000, ASBOs*, and it's indefensible to make legal activity a crime.
On the EU, it should not merely be left, but dismantled. They won't, though, and it'll crash and burn instead, sooner or later.
Normally I'd agree with you Mr Morris_Dancer. I have always hated ASBOs, they seem undemocratic and totally lacking in judicial oversight. (Bystander's criticisms of them are - IMHO - spot on.)
But this is Katie Hopkins we're talking about here. Just think: we could criminalise her being her. How good would that be?
And you call yourself a civil libertarian.
Maybe I could just pay Katie Hopkins to go away? We could do a whipround.
I'd quite happily appoint her as our Ambassador to say the Islamic State, or Iraq or Somalia.
Mr. 1000, ASBOs*, and it's indefensible to make legal activity a crime.
On the EU, it should not merely be left, but dismantled. They won't, though, and it'll crash and burn instead, sooner or later.
Normally I'd agree with you Mr Morris_Dancer. I have always hated ASBOs, they seem undemocratic and totally lacking in judicial oversight. (Bystander's criticisms of them are - IMHO - spot on.)
But this is Katie Hopkins we're talking about here. Just think: we could criminalise her being her. How good would that be?
And you call yourself a civil libertarian.
Maybe I could just pay Katie Hopkins to go away? We could do a whipround.
I'd quite happily appoint her as our Ambassador to say the Islamic State, or Iraq or Somalia.
I like it: Katie Hopkins, first UK Ambassador to the Islamic State.
As a simple example in the referendum campaign in Dundee a decision was made to allocate all of the available resources to traditional Labour areas to try and hold onto as many votes there as possible leaving tory, or at least more affluent areas to get themselves out. The SNP worked the same areas with greater success but guess which polling stations showed the highest turnout? Yep, the ones where no one had been active.
That simple example doesnt prove anything though (in the same way that NP's Broxtowe data doesnt prove the opposite case). Do you have data for demographically similar areas divided between those that were allocated resources and those that were not? That might prove something.
I've seen council seats (in big wards) won by one person working their socks off (where without that work their party would have come 4th). Those who think the ground game isnt important are deluding themselves.
I would agree that in local elections a candidate who puts themselves about and gets well known for caring about the issues of the day can make a difference. I would also agree that there is some evidence from the Lib Dems that such efforts can even be scaled up to constituencies. It may be that someone like Nick might achieve this in Broxtowe.
But there is a difference between getting people to vote for the individual they know and have met and those who are simply knocked up by a party activist who is not the candidate. Is there any evidence that that latter actually affects turnout? The examples I have acknowledged are where the individual gets potential voters to make a choice for them rather than the opposition which is of course rather important if you want to win. But turnout does not seem to be affected.
Another example is bye elections. These are the most aggressively canvassed elections we have with volunteers coming from all over. But turnout is usually very disappointing. If ground games were so decisive why is turnout not at referendum levels in these seats?
I'd quite happily appoint her as our Ambassador to say the Islamic State, or Iraq or Somalia.
It's no good chaps, you're not going to get anyone to defend Hopkins. I'd give up trying if I were you.
I am looking forward to her thin to fat to thin program which is coming out soon. She is a welcome relief to the continuous PC droning on TV. She is like Farage but less anti brown people.
According to reports Labour have received significant personal donations to help them fund campaigning in their top 150 target seats. I read one person saying that they had received funding for 10 full time election staff in one seat and if they recruit enough volunteers, then Labour can match what the Tories appear to be throwing at it. What Labour will not be able to afford are the millons the Tories spend on billboard advertising and setting up large internet campaigning teams. The Tories will also have 95% of the printed newsmedia on their side.
By the way before I get dragged off for more first footing can I heartily recommend this track which is relevant to the references downthread about 4 poofs and a piano. It is extremely funny.
Re Katie Hopkins: hard to think the comments are worthy of police time.
On the other hand, if she were locked up for... ooohhhh... about 50 years, I think most people would cheer.
A major media presenter with a deliberately high profile, actively and publicly commenting on a specific named person in a very vulnerable position? Hmm. Perhaps you and MD may be right, but it doesn't seem so to a lot of people.
As she was presumably in England when the tweet was made your comments are noted but well.... We still have free speech down here.
The established parties will have more information about the voters in key wards, better organisational structures and no doubt ever more sophisticated technology but so what? Is there any substantive evidence that canvassing and door knocking actually increases turnout?
The statistics seem to show that turnout is every bit as high in safe tory seats as in marginals and only safe Labour seats have poorer turnout. This is probably because in safe inner city constituencies the electoral register is even more out of date and inaccurate than it is in more rural areas rather than the alleged tendency of Labour voters not to bother.
There's a bit of both. Inner-city seats have out of date registration AND higher level of students AND higher levels of people with less education and comfort in filling out forms. Some of this doesn't sow up in turnout figures at all, since the problem is often the basic registration for people who have just moved (which is why I favour seats being proportionate to population, not to registration). But there's an inactivity issue too - if you're a single mum with a job and two kids, sorting out voting as well is just much harder than if you're a retired chap, and bothering for a local council election is really not on your radar.
The other point about canvassing etc. is targeting of people according to their expressed views and interests. Numerous Labour members in my area get mailshots from the Tories urging them to vote Tory because the alternative is Labour - this either winds them up or makes them laugh but it's a reflection of poor Tory canvass data: what the Tories are doing in their absence of sufficient canvass data is targeting by Experian demographics, which only works up to a point.
In principle, targeted mail is a good idea - if you're a pensioner and party X keeps writing to you about pensions, you'll be mildly impressed even though you know they're after your vote. But targeted political mail should reflect voting intentions (a UKIP-leaning pensioner needs a different letter from an ex-LibDem) and without the canvassing you can't do it.
The trouble with equalising constituencies on the basis of population is that it would favour Labour even more than at the moment. I'm unsure whether you are one of those Labour people who favours electoral reform on principle of if you have an I'm Alright Jack attitude to FPTP. I would like to see a government significantly to the left of the coalition but 34% of the vote (especially on a not very high turnout) would be no serious mandate.
A comment or two on GOTV. As mentioned the main parties have sophisticated software packages which are not only important for voter ID but also for generating target mail and emails. Not only is this software held close but it is also password protected. In the particular product I am familiar with the password is changed monthly and there is a hierarchy of access (e.g some people can only access data, others can input it). On the effectiveness of GOTV I have many times seen a rush of people to the polling station from a patch that has just been knocked up.
The Tories will also have 95% of the printed newsmedia on their side.
How on earth do you work that out.
The Guardian will be Labour/green. The Express will be UKIP The Telegraph is mainly UKIP The Mirror/Record will be Labour. The FT is largely pro Labour if a bit exasperated. The Times are a bit sniffy about everyone but will probably support the Tories as the best of a bad job. The Sun is pretty unpredictable at the moment but will definitely have a UKIP tinge. The Mail will be largely tory but again with UKIP elements. The Herald might well support the SNP.
It is an interesting question as to whether any of this makes a difference but the fantasy that the printed media are heavily tory was probably never true and certainly isn't now.
In principle, targeted mail is a good idea - if you're a pensioner and party X keeps writing to you about pensions, you'll be mildly impressed even though you know they're after your vote. But targeted political mail should reflect voting intentions (a UKIP-leaning pensioner needs a different letter from an ex-LibDem) and without the canvassing you can't do it.
I think this is a very important point. It's not just targeted mail, it's political leaflets. They are pretty much universally awful, from all parties. The main mistake they make is to heap far too much into the leaflet - instead of one clear point, which might grab your attention just before you put in the bin, they tend to include an incoherent laundry-list of 'achievements' or 'pledges', together with a stupid photo of the candidate posing with some schoolchildren or (even worse) shaking hands with the party leader. And why does the graphic design always have to be so appalling?
I can think of one exception to the above: the LibDem bar-charts with their 'only the LibDems can beat the Tories/Labour here'. A nice, simple, clear message which, for a substantial proportion of the recipients, might actually motivate them to vote LibDem.
Mr. L, 'first footing'? Sounds like frolics and larks.
Fine old Scots tradition of visiting friends and relatives at New Year with a small token gift and getting some hospitality in return. Not as prevalent as it used to be but still fun.
The Tories will also have 95% of the printed newsmedia on their side.
How on earth do you work that out.
The Guardian will be Labour/green. The Express will be UKIP The Telegraph is mainly UKIP The Mirror/Record will be Labour. The FT is largely pro Labour if a bit exasperated. The Times are a bit sniffy about everyone but will probably support the Tories as the best of a bad job. The Sun is pretty unpredictable at the moment but will definitely have a UKIP tinge. The Mail will be largely tory but again with UKIP elements. The Herald might well support the SNP.
It is an interesting question as to whether any of this makes a difference but the fantasy that the printed media are heavily tory was probably never true and certainly isn't now.
Sunday Herald, and National too don't forget, will probably support the SNP - but if the evidence of the last 10 years is anything to go by the [daily] Herald will be pro-Labour as will, as you say, the Record. Not sure about the Scotsman - I haven't bothered to look at it for months now. I suspect it will depend on how Mr Murphy shifts his presentation to seem leftie.
The Tories will also have 95% of the printed newsmedia on their side.
How on earth do you work that out.
The Guardian will be Labour/green. The Express will be UKIP The Telegraph is mainly UKIP The Mirror/Record will be Labour. The FT is largely pro Labour if a bit exasperated. The Times are a bit sniffy about everyone but will probably support the Tories as the best of a bad job. The Sun is pretty unpredictable at the moment but will definitely have a UKIP tinge. The Mail will be largely tory but again with UKIP elements. The Herald might well support the SNP.
It is an interesting question as to whether any of this makes a difference but the fantasy that the printed media are heavily tory was probably never true and certainly isn't now.
And of course the BBC is resolutely pro-Labour - the most important and influential of all.
Mr. Eagles, Mercedes to win every race is 5/1 there but about 17 on Ladbrokes [I backed the latter. Odds against, but they're much shorter than 17, in my view].
Frankly, I wouldn't back any of that. Some are so-so, many of the odds are atrocious.
As well as the above bet, I backed Hamilton to break the current wins per season, at 9, and Alonso to win in Oz at 15. [Also with Ladbrokes. I put most on the Hamilton bet, a bit less on Mercedes, and a little sum on Alonso].
I am off to the races , hopefully a few winners will come my way. Weather dodgy so may spend most of day in bar
Have a great day! Which race event are you attending?
My 2015 social suggestion: there seem to be a few of us who are interested in racing (and associated betting opportunities). Perhaps an event at an appropriate course might be an idea?
Re. Hopkins, I can't remember the PB apostles of free speech piping up when J.K.Rowling was the subject of (admittedly fairly rancid) abuse. In fact as I recall it was a case of trawling the internet and twitterdom in search of further bile in order to whip up yet more manufactured outrage.
A comment or two on GOTV. As mentioned the main parties have sophisticated software packages which are not only important for voter ID but also for generating target mail and emails. Not only is this software held close but it is also password protected. In the particular product I am familiar with the password is changed monthly and there is a hierarchy of access (e.g some people can only access data, others can input it). On the effectiveness of GOTV I have many times seen a rush of people to the polling station from a patch that has just been knocked up.
That is the best evidence of effectiveness I have seen this morning. Was this national or local?
The Tories will also have 95% of the printed newsmedia on their side.
How on earth do you work that out.
The Guardian will be Labour/green. The Express will be UKIP The Telegraph is mainly UKIP The Mirror/Record will be Labour. The FT is largely pro Labour if a bit exasperated. The Times are a bit sniffy about everyone but will probably support the Tories as the best of a bad job. The Sun is pretty unpredictable at the moment but will definitely have a UKIP tinge. The Mail will be largely tory but again with UKIP elements. The Herald might well support the SNP.
It is an interesting question as to whether any of this makes a difference but the fantasy that the printed media are heavily tory was probably never true and certainly isn't now.
Sunday Herald, and National too don't forget, will probably support the SNP - but if the evidence of the last 10 years is anything to go by the [daily] Herald will be pro-Labour as will, as you say, the Record. Not sure about the Scotsman - I haven't bothered to look at it for months now. I suspect it will depend on how Mr Murphy shifts his presentation to seem leftie.
Does anybody read any of the Scotsman other than the obits?
The Tories will also have 95% of the printed newsmedia on their side.
How on earth do you work that out.
The Guardian will be Labour/green. The Express will be UKIP The Telegraph is mainly UKIP The Mirror/Record will be Labour. The FT is largely pro Labour if a bit exasperated. The Times are a bit sniffy about everyone but will probably support the Tories as the best of a bad job. The Sun is pretty unpredictable at the moment but will definitely have a UKIP tinge. The Mail will be largely tory but again with UKIP elements. The Herald might well support the SNP.
It is an interesting question as to whether any of this makes a difference but the fantasy that the printed media are heavily tory was probably never true and certainly isn't now.
And of course the BBC is resolutely pro-Labour - the most important and influential of all.
Watch Danny A. He will replace uncle Vince as the voice of reason on the BBC this time, I am sure of it.
A comment or two on GOTV. As mentioned the main parties have sophisticated software packages which are not only important for voter ID but also for generating target mail and emails. Not only is this software held close but it is also password protected. In the particular product I am familiar with the password is changed monthly and there is a hierarchy of access (e.g some people can only access data, others can input it). On the effectiveness of GOTV I have many times seen a rush of people to the polling station from a patch that has just been knocked up.
That is the best evidence of effectiveness I have seen this morning. Was this national or local?
It is best seen at local level because of the lower turnout - but it can also be seen at national elections at times of the day when polling is slack.
The Tories will also have 95% of the printed newsmedia on their side.
How on earth do you work that out.
The Guardian will be Labour/green. The Express will be UKIP The Telegraph is mainly UKIP The Mirror/Record will be Labour. The FT is largely pro Labour if a bit exasperated. The Times are a bit sniffy about everyone but will probably support the Tories as the best of a bad job. The Sun is pretty unpredictable at the moment but will definitely have a UKIP tinge. The Mail will be largely tory but again with UKIP elements. The Herald might well support the SNP.
It is an interesting question as to whether any of this makes a difference but the fantasy that the printed media are heavily tory was probably never true and certainly isn't now.
We will see. It'll certainly be interesting to see how the editorial lines come down. If what you assume is true it would be symbolic of the fracturing of Tory Britain. The press was always such an asset for them. On your predictions, I'm not sure the Telegraph will support Ukip but I may be wrong. I'm not sure why you expect the FT to support Labour. Nothing I've seen recently would suggest that. The Sun will probably wait and see if Cameron is likely to remain PM, then back the Tories if he does (so to be on the side of the winner) but otherwise I expect they'll reserve judgement and phonily claim that they'll be the voice of the people.
So the press may no longer be Tory but it still largely right wing in outlook.
The Tories will also have 95% of the printed newsmedia on their side.
How on earth do you work that out.
The Guardian will be Labour/green. The Express will be UKIP The Telegraph is mainly UKIP The Mirror/Record will be Labour. The FT is largely pro Labour if a bit exasperated. The Times are a bit sniffy about everyone but will probably support the Tories as the best of a bad job. The Sun is pretty unpredictable at the moment but will definitely have a UKIP tinge. The Mail will be largely tory but again with UKIP elements. The Herald might well support the SNP.
It is an interesting question as to whether any of this makes a difference but the fantasy that the printed media are heavily tory was probably never true and certainly isn't now.
And of course the BBC is resolutely pro-Labour - the most important and influential of all.
Watch Danny A. He will replace uncle Vince as the voice of reason on the BBC this time, I am sure of it.
The Sun usually backs whoever is perceived as the winner. Is Rupert so anti Europe as to override this?
According to reports Labour have received significant personal donations to help them fund campaigning in their top 150 target seats. I read one person saying that they had received funding for 10 full time election staff in one seat and if they recruit enough volunteers, then Labour can match what the Tories appear to be throwing at it. What Labour will not be able to afford are the millons the Tories spend on billboard advertising and setting up large internet campaigning teams. The Tories will also have 95% of the printed newsmedia on their side.
Which reports? Surely all donations have to be reported to the electoral commission.
The Tories will also have 95% of the printed newsmedia on their side.
How on earth do you work that out.
The Guardian will be Labour/green. The Express will be UKIP The Telegraph is mainly UKIP The Mirror/Record will be Labour. The FT is largely pro Labour if a bit exasperated. The Times are a bit sniffy about everyone but will probably support the Tories as the best of a bad job. The Sun is pretty unpredictable at the moment but will definitely have a UKIP tinge. The Mail will be largely tory but again with UKIP elements. The Herald might well support the SNP.
It is an interesting question as to whether any of this makes a difference but the fantasy that the printed media are heavily tory was probably never true and certainly isn't now.
And of course the BBC is resolutely pro-Labour - the most important and influential of all.
Watch Danny A. He will replace uncle Vince as the voice of reason on the BBC this time, I am sure of it.
You can hardly blame the BBC for the fact that Vince completely outclassed Cameron and Osborne during the financial crisis and the public could see it. Your one of the more sensible Tories yet you still try and blame others for your party's inadequacies. Why can't you see the truth?
Mr. 1000, ASBOs*, and it's indefensible to make legal activity a crime.
On the EU, it should not merely be left, but dismantled. They won't, though, and it'll crash and burn instead, sooner or later.
Normally I'd agree with you Mr Morris_Dancer. I have always hated ASBOs, they seem undemocratic and totally lacking in judicial oversight. (Bystander's criticisms of them are - IMHO - spot on.)
But this is Katie Hopkins we're talking about here. Just think: we could criminalise her being her. How good would that be?
And you call yourself a civil libertarian.
Maybe I could just pay Katie Hopkins to go away? We could do a whipround.
I'd quite happily appoint her as our Ambassador to say the Islamic State, or Iraq or Somalia.
I like it: Katie Hopkins, first UK Ambassador to the Islamic State.
She wouldn't go; she loaths the ragheads! What is all this fuss about Katie anyway? A couple of tongue in cheek tweets about ebola and, outrage. Mainly I think about the word EBOLA, that has frightened people out of their wits; if they had any to start with.
The Tories will also have 95% of the printed newsmedia on their side.
How on earth do you work that out.
The Guardian will be Labour/green. The Express will be UKIP The Telegraph is mainly UKIP The Mirror/Record will be Labour. The FT is largely pro Labour if a bit exasperated. The Times are a bit sniffy about everyone but will probably support the Tories as the best of a bad job. The Sun is pretty unpredictable at the moment but will definitely have a UKIP tinge. The Mail will be largely tory but again with UKIP elements. The Herald might well support the SNP.
It is an interesting question as to whether any of this makes a difference but the fantasy that the printed media are heavily tory was probably never true and certainly isn't now.
You misattribute Conservative support to UKIP.
Guardian LibDem Express -- Conservative though its stablemate the Daily Star might go UKIP. Telegraph -- Conservative Sun -- Conservative unless Rupert thinks there will be a Labour landslide
Sorry to miss the follow-up discussion on Ms Hopkins.
"Carnyx, he is a cretin , he just wanted to insult Scots , no interest in what really happened."
And I'm sorry you think that being called a "sweaty Glaswegian" or a "Jock" is worse than being called a cretin. I fear you are being factually inaccurate as I believe my thyroid hormone levels are normal.So if you could see your way clear to call me a turnip, I would appreciate it.
But I will accept that you are a sensitive soul of impeccable breeding and being called a Jock will cause you sleepless nights. I shall henceforth call you "The Marvellous Malcolm" if that's alright?.
The Tories will also have 95% of the printed newsmedia on their side.
How on earth do you work that out.
The Guardian will be Labour/green. The Express will be UKIP The Telegraph is mainly UKIP The Mirror/Record will be Labour. The FT is largely pro Labour if a bit exasperated. The Times are a bit sniffy about everyone but will probably support the Tories as the best of a bad job. The Sun is pretty unpredictable at the moment but will definitely have a UKIP tinge. The Mail will be largely tory but again with UKIP elements. The Herald might well support the SNP.
It is an interesting question as to whether any of this makes a difference but the fantasy that the printed media are heavily tory was probably never true and certainly isn't now.
You misattribute Conservative support to UKIP.
Guardian LibDem Express -- Conservative though its stablemate the Daily Star might go UKIP. Telegraph -- Conservative Sun -- Conservative unless Rupert thinks there will be a Labour landslide
The only way the Daily Star will take an interest in the GE is if all of the party leaders get locked up in the Big Brother House.
I got a sponsored Tweet from Reading Conservatives today asking me to help get their MP re-elected in May. Given I am nowhere near Reading and am resolutely not a Tory I am not sure they've nailed their profiling yet. There's clearly loads of money floating around though.
I can't help thinking that saying the same things on a Glasgow street, or in a newspaper, would cause just as much upset and lead to an arrest for attempted breach of the peace. So why should the internet be immune?
One reason that some people are more abusive online is that they feel safe from any consequence of their actions. No risk of being physically assaulted. This also means that the chance of causing a breach of the peace is minimal.
While many Scots [and, well, anyone with a bit of sense and decency] will doubtless be riled by whatever Hopkins has said to garner more notoriety, none of them will be motivated to travel to Devon to take it up with Hopkins in person. Thus no breach of the peace.
Sorry to miss the follow-up discussion on Ms Hopkins.
"Carnyx, he is a cretin , he just wanted to insult Scots , no interest in what really happened."
And I'm sorry you think that being called a "sweaty Glaswegian" or a "Jock" is worse than being called a cretin. I fear you are being factually inaccurate as I believe my thyroid hormone levels are normal.So if you could see your way clear to call me a turnip, I would appreciate it.
But I will accept that you are a sensitive soul of impeccable breeding and being called a Jock will cause you sleepless nights. I shall henceforth call you "The Marvellous Malcolm" if that's alright?.
Hasn't Hopkins misunderstood slang by calling Scottish people 'sweaty jocks'? It's 'sweaty sock' so as to rhyme with jock.
Sorry to miss the follow-up discussion on Ms Hopkins.
"Carnyx, he is a cretin , he just wanted to insult Scots , no interest in what really happened."
And I'm sorry you think that being called a "sweaty Glaswegian" or a "Jock" is worse than being called a cretin. I fear you are being factually inaccurate as I believe my thyroid hormone levels are normal.So if you could see your way clear to call me a turnip, I would appreciate it.
But I will accept that you are a sensitive soul of impeccable breeding and being called a Jock will cause you sleepless nights. I shall henceforth call you "The Marvellous Malcolm" if that's alright?.
Hasn't Hopkins misunderstood slang by calling Scottish people 'sweaty jocks'? It's 'sweaty sock' so as to rhyme with jock.
Thanks Sam, that's raised the level of the whole debate.
The Tories will also have 95% of the printed newsmedia on their side.
How on earth do you work that out.
The Guardian will be Labour/green. The Express will be UKIP The Telegraph is mainly UKIP The Mirror/Record will be Labour. The FT is largely pro Labour if a bit exasperated. The Times are a bit sniffy about everyone but will probably support the Tories as the best of a bad job. The Sun is pretty unpredictable at the moment but will definitely have a UKIP tinge. The Mail will be largely tory but again with UKIP elements. The Herald might well support the SNP.
It is an interesting question as to whether any of this makes a difference but the fantasy that the printed media are heavily tory was probably never true and certainly isn't now.
You misattribute Conservative support to UKIP.
Guardian LibDem Express -- Conservative though its stablemate the Daily Star might go UKIP. Telegraph -- Conservative Sun -- Conservative unless Rupert thinks there will be a Labour landslide
The Times is very pro-Tory - to the extent that its news and analysis has become pretty unreadable for us non-Tories. The Telegraph and Mail are resolutely Tory, but to the right of Cameron; the Sun is relentlessly anti-Miliband and its GE coverage will reflect that. In England the only papers Labour will get support from are the Grauniad and the Mirror. The idea that the FT is a pro-Labour paper is a touch far-fetched, to say the least.
The Tories will also have 95% of the printed newsmedia on their side.
How on earth do you work that out.
The Guardian will be Labour/green. The Express will be UKIP The Telegraph is mainly UKIP The Mirror/Record will be Labour. The FT is largely pro Labour if a bit exasperated. The Times are a bit sniffy about everyone but will probably support the Tories as the best of a bad job. The Sun is pretty unpredictable at the moment but will definitely have a UKIP tinge. The Mail will be largely tory but again with UKIP elements. The Herald might well support the SNP.
It is an interesting question as to whether any of this makes a difference but the fantasy that the printed media are heavily tory was probably never true and certainly isn't now.
You misattribute Conservative support to UKIP.
Guardian LibDem Express -- Conservative though its stablemate the Daily Star might go UKIP. Telegraph -- Conservative Sun -- Conservative unless Rupert thinks there will be a Labour landslide
The Times is very pro-Tory - to the extent that its news and analysis has become pretty unreadable for us non-Tories. The Telegraph and Mail are resolutely Tory, but to the right of Cameron; the Sun is relentlessly anti-Miliband and its GE coverage will reflect that. In England the only papers Labour will get support from are the Grauniad and the Mirror. The idea that the FT is a pro-Labour paper is a touch far-fetched, to say the least.
I'd have thought the Independent would have lined up with Miliband.
The Metro seems to float a bit all over the place so not anti.
Speaking as someone who always votes, but always votes in the evening due to work, I have to say that being contacted by a GOTV operation on polling day would hugely irritate me. Not enough to change my vote, of course, but enough for me to give the GOTVer a piece of my mind.
Nick Wood has written an interesting article on how UKIP are starting to sound like the rest, courtesy of Carswell.
Is he a tory plant?
UKIP would do well to ditch him after the next election, it's a seat they would have won anyway without him. His ideology has little appeal and is in the opposite direction to which UKIP must move.
Sorry to miss the follow-up discussion on Ms Hopkins.
"Carnyx, he is a cretin , he just wanted to insult Scots , no interest in what really happened."
And I'm sorry you think that being called a "sweaty Glaswegian" or a "Jock" is worse than being called a cretin. I fear you are being factually inaccurate as I believe my thyroid hormone levels are normal.So if you could see your way clear to call me a turnip, I would appreciate it.
But I will accept that you are a sensitive soul of impeccable breeding and being called a Jock will cause you sleepless nights. I shall henceforth call you "The Marvellous Malcolm" if that's alright?.
Hasn't Hopkins misunderstood slang by calling Scottish people 'sweaty jocks'? It's 'sweaty sock' so as to rhyme with jock.
Thanks Sam, that's raised the level of the whole debate.
I think I have!
It has pointed out a mistake that might have led her to call people sweaty when what she meant was to use slang for jock
The Tories will also have 95% of the printed newsmedia on their side.
How on earth do you work that out.
The Guardian will be Labour/green. The Express will be UKIP The Telegraph is mainly UKIP The Mirror/Record will be Labour. The FT is largely pro Labour if a bit exasperated. The Times are a bit sniffy about everyone but will probably support the Tories as the best of a bad job. The Sun is pretty unpredictable at the moment but will definitely have a UKIP tinge. The Mail will be largely tory but again with UKIP elements. The Herald might well support the SNP.
It is an interesting question as to whether any of this makes a difference but the fantasy that the printed media are heavily tory was probably never true and certainly isn't now.
You misattribute Conservative support to UKIP.
Guardian LibDem Express -- Conservative though its stablemate the Daily Star might go UKIP. Telegraph -- Conservative Sun -- Conservative unless Rupert thinks there will be a Labour landslide
The Times is very pro-Tory - to the extent that its news and analysis has become pretty unreadable for us non-Tories. The Telegraph and Mail are resolutely Tory, but to the right of Cameron; the Sun is relentlessly anti-Miliband and its GE coverage will reflect that. In England the only papers Labour will get support from are the Grauniad and the Mirror. The idea that the FT is a pro-Labour paper is a touch far-fetched, to say the least.
I'd have thought the Independent would have lined up with Miliband.
The Metro seems to float a bit all over the place so not anti.
I doubt the Indie will endorse anyone. The Metro definitely won't.
Sorry to miss the follow-up discussion on Ms Hopkins.
"Carnyx, he is a cretin , he just wanted to insult Scots , no interest in what really happened."
And I'm sorry you think that being called a "sweaty Glaswegian" or a "Jock" is worse than being called a cretin. I fear you are being factually inaccurate as I believe my thyroid hormone levels are normal.So if you could see your way clear to call me a turnip, I would appreciate it.
But I will accept that you are a sensitive soul of impeccable breeding and being called a Jock will cause you sleepless nights. I shall henceforth call you "The Marvellous Malcolm" if that's alright?.
Hasn't Hopkins misunderstood slang by calling Scottish people 'sweaty jocks'? It's 'sweaty sock' so as to rhyme with jock.
Thanks Sam, that's raised the level of the whole debate.
I think I have!
It has pointed out a mistake that might have led her to call people sweaty when what she meant was to use slang for jock
If you're debating anything to do with KH you're starting off from below the pond. her entire raison d'etre is to be a celebrity through motormouthing.
I'm not sure if I pity her or the people who react to her obvious media trolling more.
Speaking as someone who always votes, but always votes in the evening due to work, I have to say that being contacted by a GOTV operation on polling day would hugely irritate me. Not enough to change my vote, of course, but enough for me to give the GOTVer a piece of my mind.
I agree, particularly the early morning knockers-up. I shimmied out of that on referendum day 'cos I thought it was counter productive.
Solve the free rider problem and people don't mind paying taxes to support a certain level of welfare. Immigration remains the priority, and it's an issue that unites left and right. Smart move.
The Tories will also have 95% of the printed newsmedia on their side.
How on earth do you work that out.
The Guardian will be Labour/green. The Express will be UKIP The Telegraph is mainly UKIP The Mirror/Record will be Labour. The FT is largely pro Labour if a bit exasperated. The Times are a bit sniffy about everyone but will probably support the Tories as the best of a bad job. The Sun is pretty unpredictable at the moment but will definitely have a UKIP tinge. The Mail will be largely tory but again with UKIP elements. The Herald might well support the SNP.
It is an interesting question as to whether any of this makes a difference but the fantasy that the printed media are heavily tory was probably never true and certainly isn't now.
You misattribute Conservative support to UKIP.
Guardian LibDem Express -- Conservative though its stablemate the Daily Star might go UKIP. Telegraph -- Conservative Sun -- Conservative unless Rupert thinks there will be a Labour landslide
The Guardian used to (wrongly) see Lib Dem as the Labour Lite party but became very anti Lib Dem after they went into a coalition with the Conservatives.
The Guardian is another example of emotive hate for Conservatives overwhelming any rational thought about the merits of the Lib Dems.
Speaking as someone who always votes, but always votes in the evening due to work, I have to say that being contacted by a GOTV operation on polling day would hugely irritate me. Not enough to change my vote, of course, but enough for me to give the GOTVer a piece of my mind.
I agree, particularly the early morning knockers-up. I shimmied out of that on referendum day 'cos I thought it was counter productive.
divvie a happy new year to you.
I was just wondering how the work side is going for you ?
Speaking as someone who always votes, but always votes in the evening due to work, I have to say that being contacted by a GOTV operation on polling day would hugely irritate me. Not enough to change my vote, of course, but enough for me to give the GOTVer a piece of my mind.
Yeah, but the key point is "not enough to change my vote". We all assume we will cheese some voters off by doing it, but most of them see the need for it and those that don't will get over it.
In principle, targeted mail is a good idea - if you're a pensioner and party X keeps writing to you about pensions, you'll be mildly impressed even though you know they're after your vote. But targeted political mail should reflect voting intentions (a UKIP-leaning pensioner needs a different letter from an ex-LibDem) and without the canvassing you can't do it.
I think this is a very important point. It's not just targeted mail, it's political leaflets. They are pretty much universally awful, from all parties. The main mistake they make is to heap far too much into the leaflet - instead of one clear point, which might grab your attention just before you put in the bin, they tend to include an incoherent laundry-list of 'achievements' or 'pledges', together with a stupid photo of the candidate posing with some schoolchildren or (even worse) shaking hands with the party leader. And why does the graphic design always have to be so appalling?
I can think of one exception to the above: the LibDem bar-charts with their 'only the LibDems can beat the Tories/Labour here'. A nice, simple, clear message which, for a substantial proportion of the recipients, might actually motivate them to vote LibDem.
There's a lot in what you say there. I'd also say that most Focus leaflets remain an exception - they (a) maintain an air of being knocked out by a hard-working local councillor in a back room and (b) contain 60% genuinely useful information and only 40% or less political stuff.
There was a technical local issue that we argued over how to handle: most people in the ward affected were be just vaguely interested, though some very interested. Option A was to send a letter from me to the affected people explaining the position in great detail, with illustrations showing more about it and explaining what we're doing and why we're doing it. Option B was to send a short and simple Labour-branded leaflet which essentially would have said don't worry, we're dealing with it effectively, with glossy headers and some pictures, basically to reinforce the party brand. Proponents of B said almost nobody would read A.
I insisted on A. My theory is that you get some credit for a detailed explanation EVEN if people don't read it, as they are pleased that you're bothering even if they don't want to.
The Tories will also have 95% of the printed newsmedia on their side.
How on earth do you work that out.
The Guardian will be Labour/green. The Express will be UKIP The Telegraph is mainly UKIP The Mirror/Record will be Labour. The FT is largely pro Labour if a bit exasperated. The Times are a bit sniffy about everyone but will probably support the Tories as the best of a bad job. The Sun is pretty unpredictable at the moment but will definitely have a UKIP tinge. The Mail will be largely tory but again with UKIP elements. The Herald might well support the SNP.
It is an interesting question as to whether any of this makes a difference but the fantasy that the printed media are heavily tory was probably never true and certainly isn't now.
You misattribute Conservative support to UKIP.
Guardian LibDem Express -- Conservative though its stablemate the Daily Star might go UKIP. Telegraph -- Conservative Sun -- Conservative unless Rupert thinks there will be a Labour landslide
The Guardian used to (wrongly) see Lib Dem as the Labour Lite party but became very anti Lib Dem after they went into a coalition with the Conservatives.
The Guardian is another example of emotive hate for Conservatives overwhelming any rational thought about the merits of the Lib Dems.
Just about the only positive coverage the LDs get anywhere is from the Guardian.
Speaking as someone who always votes, but always votes in the evening due to work, I have to say that being contacted by a GOTV operation on polling day would hugely irritate me. Not enough to change my vote, of course, but enough for me to give the GOTVer a piece of my mind.
I agree, particularly the early morning knockers-up. I shimmied out of that on referendum day 'cos I thought it was counter productive.
A nice little reminder leaflet with a picture of a sun is enough,happy,smiley,but quiet.
Solve the free rider problem and people don't mind paying taxes to support a certain level of welfare. Immigration remains the priority, and it's an issue that unites left and right. Smart move.
The two policies identified in that article are both Tory ones. UKIP is not going to win votes from left-leaning members of the electorate based on any policy outside of immigration or perhaps EU withdrawal. If neither of those is the primary concern for a voter he/she will not vote UKIP; if either is they will vote UKIP whatever its other policies are.
Sadly most newspapers are inclined to have political bias in their news stories instead of straight reporting.
One paper that reports the news factually without political bias is the Financial Times. Of course they also have comment sections as well and opinions set out in editorials but keep these separate from news stories
Perhaps counter intuitively they have sometimes endorsed Labout in past elections.
The publications which only tentatively backed Cameron in 2010 are in a difficult place as the Conservatives standing has gone down since then but not enough for them to switch to Labour. Getting the FT and Economist would be a boost for Labour but they'd need to set out in far more detail what they are going to do first.
I think the Guardian will support the Green Party but urge tactical voting for Labour. The Evening Standard will claim to be neutral but will slant their output towards the Conservatives.
Speaking as someone who always votes, but always votes in the evening due to work, I have to say that being contacted by a GOTV operation on polling day would hugely irritate me. Not enough to change my vote, of course, but enough for me to give the GOTVer a piece of my mind.
I agree, particularly the early morning knockers-up. I shimmied out of that on referendum day 'cos I thought it was counter productive.
divvie a happy new year to you.
I was just wondering how the work side is going for you ?
Same to you, and thanks for asking re. work. Unfortunately I got the black spot in November. As an added bonus, the insurance company to whom I've been paying income protection insurance for the last 4 years has weaselled out of payment, so not a good year all in all I'll have to get my ass into job-hunting gear now Christmas is over.
Speaking as someone who always votes, but always votes in the evening due to work, I have to say that being contacted by a GOTV operation on polling day would hugely irritate me. Not enough to change my vote, of course, but enough for me to give the GOTVer a piece of my mind.
It is possible to tag you as 'only contact after 6pm.'
The publications which only tentatively backed Cameron in 2010 are in a difficult place as the Conservatives standing has gone down since then but not enough for them to switch to Labour. Getting the FT and Economist would be a boost for Labour but they'd need to set out in far more detail what they are going to do first.
I think the Guardian will support the Green Party but urge tactical voting for Labour. The Evening Standard will claim to be neutral but will slant their output towards the Conservatives.
The Guardian will unenthusiastically support Labour but will also back voting LD in seats where they they have the incumbent or main challenger. They may back the Greens in Hove.
The Economist and the FT will lean more Tory than Labour in terms of endorsement. But there will be strong caveats. I agree with you on the Standard.
The Tories will also have 95% of the printed newsmedia on their side.
How on earth do you work that out.
The Guardian will be Labour/green. The Express will be UKIP The Telegraph is mainly UKIP The Mirror/Record will be Labour. The FT is largely pro Labour if a bit exasperated. The Times are a bit sniffy about everyone but will probably support the Tories as the best of a bad job. The Sun is pretty unpredictable at the moment but will definitely have a UKIP tinge. The Mail will be largely tory but again with UKIP elements. The Herald might well support the SNP.
It is an interesting question as to whether any of this makes a difference but the fantasy that the printed media are heavily tory was probably never true and certainly isn't now.
Sunday Herald, and National too don't forget, will probably support the SNP - but if the evidence of the last 10 years is anything to go by the [daily] Herald will be pro-Labour as will, as you say, the Record. Not sure about the Scotsman - I haven't bothered to look at it for months now. I suspect it will depend on how Mr Murphy shifts his presentation to seem leftie.
Does anybody read any of the Scotsman other than the obits?
A good question, especially after they (and to be fair also the Herald) left the ABC audit system. Must be time soon for what circulation figures they do release, though.
In principle, targeted mail is a good idea - if you're a pensioner and party X keeps writing to you about pensions, you'll be mildly impressed even though you know they're after your vote. But targeted political mail should reflect voting intentions (a UKIP-leaning pensioner needs a different letter from an ex-LibDem) and without the canvassing you can't do it.
I think this is a very important point. It's not just targeted mail, it's political leaflets. They are pretty much universally awful, from all parties. The main mistake they make is to heap far too much into the leaflet - instead of one clear point, which might grab your attention just before you put in the bin, they tend to include an incoherent laundry-list of 'achievements' or 'pledges', together with a stupid photo of the candidate posing with some schoolchildren or (even worse) shaking hands with the party leader. And why does the graphic design always have to be so appalling?
I can think of one exception to the above: the LibDem bar-charts with their 'only the LibDems can beat the Tories/Labour here'. A nice, simple, clear message which, for a substantial proportion of the recipients, might actually motivate them to vote LibDem.
The best way to engage is through the questionnaire format I've found,asking the simple customer service question,"What can x do for you? How can x help"
Speaking as someone who always votes, but always votes in the evening due to work, I have to say that being contacted by a GOTV operation on polling day would hugely irritate me. Not enough to change my vote, of course, but enough for me to give the GOTVer a piece of my mind.
I object to the tellers asking for the polling cards. Too many just passively hand them over as if it was part of the formal voting process. I refuse to show them mine.
I do wonder whether the tellers get permission to distribute their voter information. It seems to me that if they fail to do so then they are breaching the Data Protection Act. Could any PB lawyers comment on this?
"Community Politics" (to give it its title) works only when it is consistent and persistent. It means very targeted leaflets (sometimes just a street) on a planning issue or a small survey but it's only when that activity is repeated and residents see some benefit deriving that the possibility of gaining votes begins.
IF you can get an unpopular development stopped or save a community facility from closure (even if you are part of a wider campaign) that's fine. Representative democracy means representing everyone - when I was politically active, I got a couple of known local Tories to deliver some leaflets opposing a horrendous backfilling development - they were never going to vote for me but that wasn't the point.
I was able to knock out an A4 leaflet and get it round 250 houses while the Residents' Association were still talking about it. Completely non-ideological and non-political the leaflets were more about information - people didn't know what was happening and wanted to know. The local Conservative Councillors came to the party late but in all fairness spoke up against the plan and it was dropped.
Doing that consistently raises profile and enhances credibility - turning up with a carload of activists on January 2nd and hoping a pliant supporter will re-tweet will spread the word as some kind of campaigning coup achieves little and impresses no-one.
The publications which only tentatively backed Cameron in 2010 are in a difficult place as the Conservatives standing has gone down since then but not enough for them to switch to Labour. Getting the FT and Economist would be a boost for Labour but they'd need to set out in far more detail what they are going to do first.
I think the Guardian will support the Green Party but urge tactical voting for Labour. The Evening Standard will claim to be neutral but will slant their output towards the Conservatives.
The Guardian will unenthusiastically support Labour but will also back voting LD in seats where they they have the incumbent or main challenger. They may back the Greens in Hove.
The Economist and the FT will lean more Tory than Labour in terms of endorsement. But there will be strong caveats. I agree with you on the Standard.
But which party will receive an endorsement from "The Sunil on Sunday"? My hunch is UKIP.
Speaking as someone who always votes, but always votes in the evening due to work, I have to say that being contacted by a GOTV operation on polling day would hugely irritate me. Not enough to change my vote, of course, but enough for me to give the GOTVer a piece of my mind.
I agree, particularly the early morning knockers-up. I shimmied out of that on referendum day 'cos I thought it was counter productive.
divvie a happy new year to you.
I was just wondering how the work side is going for you ?
Same to you, and thanks for asking re. work. Unfortunately I got the black spot in November. As an added bonus, the insurance company to whom I've been paying income protection insurance for the last 4 years has weaselled out of payment, so not a good year all in all I'll have to get my ass into job-hunting gear now Christmas is over.
On the insurance company, you should not let it lie. There are a few options - miss-selling may be one of them.
It really is no coincidence that it was: (a) the sorting out of the trade unions, (b) the end of bail outs, and (c) a willingness to let foreign businesses in to the UK led to (c) better management of British businesses. This is not about the EU - it's about why our economy turned around in the 1980s and has yet to turn back around.
not forgetting (d) 9.5% of tax revenue coming from oil.
Yeah, but the key point is "not enough to change my vote". We all assume we will cheese some voters off by doing it, but most of them see the need for it and those that don't will get over it.
That's a perfectly fair point - and I'm sure that you're correct that it's a minority of voters who get irritated otherwise you obviously wouldn't bother with GOTV at all.
Do you consider the likelihood of a particular voter turning out on their own initiative before you decide whether or not to nudge them into voting? I assume if it's a person that you know will always turn out, because they always have done before, then it's a waste of your time and theirs to GOTV them?
My own personal view (which I'm sure will not find much favour on this site) is that the candidates and their teams should back off entirely on election day. No GOTV calls, no "telling", nothing. They've had over a month in which to get their messages across. Election day should belong to the voters and not to the candidates.
The Economist and the FT will lean more Tory than Labour in terms of endorsement. But there will be strong caveats. I agree with you on the Standard.
The FT tends to lean towards Labour because it is an EU newspaper (I don't mean this in a derogratory sense, simply that its prime market is businessmen and women in the European Union, not just the UK). It also has quite a pro-state-intervention slant. It will certainly be horrified at the prospect of an EU referendum.
Of course, it's an excellent newspaper and it's not going to be crudely partisan - it will certainly cover the risks of Milibandism. But I don't think it will support the Tories.
Speaking as someone who always votes, but always votes in the evening due to work, I have to say that being contacted by a GOTV operation on polling day would hugely irritate me. Not enough to change my vote, of course, but enough for me to give the GOTVer a piece of my mind.
I agree, particularly the early morning knockers-up. I shimmied out of that on referendum day 'cos I thought it was counter productive.
divvie a happy new year to you.
I was just wondering how the work side is going for you ?
Same to you, and thanks for asking re. work. Unfortunately I got the black spot in November. As an added bonus, the insurance company to whom I've been paying income protection insurance for the last 4 years has weaselled out of payment, so not a good year all in all I'll have to get my ass into job-hunting gear now Christmas is over.
My friend had a similar issue with an insurance company when he was made redundant, he challenged it and eventually won.
It really is no coincidence that it was: (a) the sorting out of the trade unions, (b) the end of bail outs, and (c) a willingness to let foreign businesses in to the UK led to (c) better management of British businesses. This is not about the EU - it's about why our economy turned around in the 1980s and has yet to turn back around.
not forgetting (d) 9.5% of tax revenue coming from oil.
Spot on. And I am not sure that the management of British businesses ever really progressed.
Speaking as someone who always votes, but always votes in the evening due to work, I have to say that being contacted by a GOTV operation on polling day would hugely irritate me. Not enough to change my vote, of course, but enough for me to give the GOTVer a piece of my mind.
I agree, particularly the early morning knockers-up. I shimmied out of that on referendum day 'cos I thought it was counter productive.
divvie a happy new year to you.
I was just wondering how the work side is going for you ?
Same to you, and thanks for asking re. work. Unfortunately I got the black spot in November. As an added bonus, the insurance company to whom I've been paying income protection insurance for the last 4 years has weaselled out of payment, so not a good year all in all I'll have to get my ass into job-hunting gear now Christmas is over.
Speaking as someone who always votes, but always votes in the evening due to work, I have to say that being contacted by a GOTV operation on polling day would hugely irritate me. Not enough to change my vote, of course, but enough for me to give the GOTVer a piece of my mind.
I agree, particularly the early morning knockers-up. I shimmied out of that on referendum day 'cos I thought it was counter productive.
divvie a happy new year to you.
I was just wondering how the work side is going for you ?
Same to you, and thanks for asking re. work. Unfortunately I got the black spot in November. As an added bonus, the insurance company to whom I've been paying income protection insurance for the last 4 years has weaselled out of payment, so not a good year all in all I'll have to get my ass into job-hunting gear now Christmas is over.
On the insurance company, you should not let it lie. There are a few options - miss-selling may be one of them.
Definitely unleash the Insurance Ombudsman on their asses. Free, and can be robust.
The Economist and the FT will lean more Tory than Labour in terms of endorsement. But there will be strong caveats. I agree with you on the Standard.
The FT tends to lean towards Labour because it is an EU newspaper (I don't mean this in a derogratory sense, simply that its prime market is businessmen and women in the European Union, not just the UK). It also has quite a pro-state-intervention slant. It will certainly be horrified at the prospect of an EU referendum.
Of course, it's an excellent newspaper and it's not going to be crudely partisan - it will certainly cover the risks of Milibandism. But I don't think it will support the Tories.
It will lean Tory, but not endorse. Maybe it will go LD and press for a continuation of the Coalition. I can see the Economist possibly doing that too. Miliband guarantees that neither the FT nor the Economist will support Labour.
Speaking as someone who always votes, but always votes in the evening due to work, I have to say that being contacted by a GOTV operation on polling day would hugely irritate me. Not enough to change my vote, of course, but enough for me to give the GOTVer a piece of my mind.
I agree, particularly the early morning knockers-up. I shimmied out of that on referendum day 'cos I thought it was counter productive.
divvie a happy new year to you.
I was just wondering how the work side is going for you ?
Same to you, and thanks for asking re. work. Unfortunately I got the black spot in November. As an added bonus, the insurance company to whom I've been paying income protection insurance for the last 4 years has weaselled out of payment, so not a good year all in all I'll have to get my ass into job-hunting gear now Christmas is over.
On the insurance company, you should not let it lie. There are a few options - miss-selling may be one of them.
Definitely unleash the Insurance Ombudsman on their asses. Free, and can be robust.
Speaking as someone who always votes, but always votes in the evening due to work, I have to say that being contacted by a GOTV operation on polling day would hugely irritate me. Not enough to change my vote, of course, but enough for me to give the GOTVer a piece of my mind.
I agree, particularly the early morning knockers-up. I shimmied out of that on referendum day 'cos I thought it was counter productive.
divvie a happy new year to you.
I was just wondering how the work side is going for you ?
Same to you, and thanks for asking re. work. Unfortunately I got the black spot in November. As an added bonus, the insurance company to whom I've been paying income protection insurance for the last 4 years has weaselled out of payment, so not a good year all in all I'll have to get my ass into job-hunting gear now Christmas is over.
On the insurance company, you should not let it lie. There are a few options - miss-selling may be one of them.
Definitely unleash the Insurance Ombudsman on their asses. Free, and can be robust.
I had a friend having trouble with a holiday insurance claim. He mentioned he intended to contact the insurance ombudsman (now the financial ombudsman) and suddenly his claim was accepted. Definitely worth trying.
The publications which only tentatively backed Cameron in 2010 are in a difficult place as the Conservatives standing has gone down since then but not enough for them to switch to Labour. Getting the FT and Economist would be a boost for Labour but they'd need to set out in far more detail what they are going to do first.
I think the Guardian will support the Green Party but urge tactical voting for Labour. The Evening Standard will claim to be neutral but will slant their output towards the Conservatives.
The Guardian will unenthusiastically support Labour but will also back voting LD in seats where they they have the incumbent or main challenger. They may back the Greens in Hove.
The Economist and the FT will lean more Tory than Labour in terms of endorsement. But there will be strong caveats. I agree with you on the Standard.
It's a bit of a mystery as to why The Guardian chose to back the Lib Dems in 2010. Obviously they didn't want to endorse Labour, but it seems like they felt the need to officially back someone. I don't think there is anything wrong with a Newspaper being indecisive in such matters, it's not like the paper actually has a vote of its own. I suspect they will support Labour but without much enthusiasm as you say.
Anyone here work for the Guardian? If so, could you explain to your editors what a 'Hedge Fund' is? Here's a hint: not every City institution or fund manager is a hedge fund - most of the names mentioned here have nothing to do with hedge funds:
Comments
Anyway, we will see what happens. Now it's a nice sunny morning so I have to go out. Have a good day.
They are humouring these frequent travellers on the offended bus.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/half-of-cases-in-controversial-anti-sectarian-law-acquitted.114724045
The dogs on the street now know if you plead not guilty you get off - the conviction rate is plummeting.
@MrHarryCole: On the first day of General Election campaigning proper, the Chancellor has decided to target the Business Secretary's own seat.
The statistics seem to show that turnout is every bit as high in safe tory seats as in marginals and only safe Labour seats have poorer turnout. This is probably because in safe inner city constituencies the electoral register is even more out of date and inaccurate than it is in more rural areas rather than the alleged tendency of Labour voters not to bother.
So much of what the parties do is displacement activity designed to make the activists feel good and a part of things rather than productive. At the last election the tories spent a fortune on posters and phone banks. I really doubt it made a difference.
As a simple example in the referendum campaign in Dundee a decision was made to allocate all of the available resources to traditional Labour areas to try and hold onto as many votes there as possible leaving tory, or at least more affluent areas to get themselves out. The SNP worked the same areas with greater success but guess which polling stations showed the highest turnout? Yep, the ones where no one had been active.
If the SNP or for that matter Labour or the tories convince themselves that a better ground game is going to make up for any deficiencies in their central message they are deluding themselves. Our politics becomes ever more presidential and media driven. If it is not on the news it didn't happen. This is why Ed might still be a problem. This is why the fact that Sturgeon can probably reach parts of greater Glasgow which Salmond couldn't reach is more important than waves of activists keeping themselves busy.
I've seen council seats (in big wards) won by one person working their socks off (where without that work their party would have come 4th). Those who think the ground game isnt important are deluding themselves.
The other point about canvassing etc. is targeting of people according to their expressed views and interests. Numerous Labour members in my area get mailshots from the Tories urging them to vote Tory because the alternative is Labour - this either winds them up or makes them laugh but it's a reflection of poor Tory canvass data: what the Tories are doing in their absence of sufficient canvass data is targeting by Experian demographics, which only works up to a point.
In principle, targeted mail is a good idea - if you're a pensioner and party X keeps writing to you about pensions, you'll be mildly impressed even though you know they're after your vote. But targeted political mail should reflect voting intentions (a UKIP-leaning pensioner needs a different letter from an ex-LibDem) and without the canvassing you can't do it.
It's no good chaps, you're not going to get anyone to defend Hopkins. I'd give up trying if I were you.
But there is a difference between getting people to vote for the individual they know and have met and those who are simply knocked up by a party activist who is not the candidate. Is there any evidence that that latter actually affects turnout? The examples I have acknowledged are where the individual gets potential voters to make a choice for them rather than the opposition which is of course rather important if you want to win. But turnout does not seem to be affected.
Another example is bye elections. These are the most aggressively canvassed elections we have with volunteers coming from all over. But turnout is usually very disappointing. If ground games were so decisive why is turnout not at referendum levels in these seats?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSfSV5BSZ2g
I hadn't heard of her since she was a Sugarbabe.
Nick Wood has written an interesting article on how UKIP are starting to sound like the rest, courtesy of Carswell.
Is he a tory plant?
http://news.coral.co.uk/other/f1/coral-tasty-year-formula-1-specials_56153.html
The Guardian will be Labour/green.
The Express will be UKIP
The Telegraph is mainly UKIP
The Mirror/Record will be Labour.
The FT is largely pro Labour if a bit exasperated.
The Times are a bit sniffy about everyone but will probably support the Tories as the best of a bad job.
The Sun is pretty unpredictable at the moment but will definitely have a UKIP tinge.
The Mail will be largely tory but again with UKIP elements.
The Herald might well support the SNP.
It is an interesting question as to whether any of this makes a difference but the fantasy that the printed media are heavily tory was probably never true and certainly isn't now.
I can think of one exception to the above: the LibDem bar-charts with their 'only the LibDems can beat the Tories/Labour here'. A nice, simple, clear message which, for a substantial proportion of the recipients, might actually motivate them to vote LibDem.
Frankly, I wouldn't back any of that. Some are so-so, many of the odds are atrocious.
As well as the above bet, I backed Hamilton to break the current wins per season, at 9, and Alonso to win in Oz at 15. [Also with Ladbrokes. I put most on the Hamilton bet, a bit less on Mercedes, and a little sum on Alonso].
My 2015 social suggestion: there seem to be a few of us who are interested in racing (and associated betting opportunities). Perhaps an event at an appropriate course might be an idea?
I guess that situation was entirely different.
It's the mark of a decadent (in the fullest meaning of that word) society that increasing numbers of people think it should.
So the press may no longer be Tory but it still largely right wing in outlook.
Carswell and Reckless will be overjoyed no ?
Only on PB (and in the Mail, the Sun and the Telegraph).
What is all this fuss about Katie anyway? A couple of tongue in cheek tweets about ebola and, outrage. Mainly I think about the word EBOLA, that has frightened people out of their wits; if they had any to start with.
Guardian LibDem
Express -- Conservative though its stablemate the Daily Star might go UKIP.
Telegraph -- Conservative
Sun -- Conservative unless Rupert thinks there will be a Labour landslide
Sorry to miss the follow-up discussion on Ms Hopkins.
"Carnyx, he is a cretin , he just wanted to insult Scots , no interest in what really happened."
And I'm sorry you think that being called a "sweaty Glaswegian" or a "Jock" is worse than being called a cretin. I fear you are being factually inaccurate as I believe my thyroid hormone levels are normal.So if you could see your way clear to call me a turnip, I would appreciate it.
But I will accept that you are a sensitive soul of impeccable breeding and being called a Jock will cause you sleepless nights. I shall henceforth call you "The Marvellous Malcolm" if that's alright?.
While many Scots [and, well, anyone with a bit of sense and decency] will doubtless be riled by whatever Hopkins has said to garner more notoriety, none of them will be motivated to travel to Devon to take it up with Hopkins in person. Thus no breach of the peace.
The Metro seems to float a bit all over the place so not anti.
I think I have!
It has pointed out a mistake that might have led her to call people sweaty when what she meant was to use slang for jock
I'm not sure if I pity her or the people who react to her obvious media trolling more.
That's what I want to know.
Who can forget this story/headline from last year
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BjftSTGCMAEk2nF.jpg
The Guardian is another example of emotive hate for Conservatives overwhelming any rational thought about the merits of the Lib Dems.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/technology-science/technology/lizard-squad-hacker-group-says-4908201
I was just wondering how the work side is going for you ?
There was a technical local issue that we argued over how to handle: most people in the ward affected were be just vaguely interested, though some very interested. Option A was to send a letter from me to the affected people explaining the position in great detail, with illustrations showing more about it and explaining what we're doing and why we're doing it. Option B was to send a short and simple Labour-branded leaflet which essentially would have said don't worry, we're dealing with it effectively, with glossy headers and some pictures, basically to reinforce the party brand. Proponents of B said almost nobody would read A.
I insisted on A. My theory is that you get some credit for a detailed explanation EVEN if people don't read it, as they are pleased that you're bothering even if they don't want to.
One paper that reports the news factually without political bias is the Financial Times. Of course they also have comment sections as well and opinions set out in editorials but keep these separate from news stories
Perhaps counter intuitively they have sometimes endorsed Labout in past elections.
I think the Guardian will support the Green Party but urge tactical voting for Labour.
The Evening Standard will claim to be neutral but will slant their output towards the Conservatives.
Unfortunately I got the black spot in November. As an added bonus, the insurance company to whom I've been paying income protection insurance for the last 4 years has weaselled out of payment, so not a good year all in all
I'll have to get my ass into job-hunting gear now Christmas is over.
The Economist and the FT will lean more Tory than Labour in terms of endorsement. But there will be strong caveats. I agree with you on the Standard.
I do wonder whether the tellers get permission to distribute their voter information. It seems to me that if they fail to do so then they are breaching the Data Protection Act. Could any PB lawyers comment on this?
"Community Politics" (to give it its title) works only when it is consistent and persistent. It means very targeted leaflets (sometimes just a street) on a planning issue or a small survey but it's only when that activity is repeated and residents see some benefit deriving that the possibility of gaining votes begins.
IF you can get an unpopular development stopped or save a community facility from closure (even if you are part of a wider campaign) that's fine. Representative democracy means representing everyone - when I was politically active, I got a couple of known local Tories to deliver some leaflets opposing a horrendous backfilling development - they were never going to vote for me but that wasn't the point.
I was able to knock out an A4 leaflet and get it round 250 houses while the Residents' Association were still talking about it. Completely non-ideological and non-political the leaflets were more about information - people didn't know what was happening and wanted to know. The local Conservative Councillors came to the party late but in all fairness spoke up against the plan and it was dropped.
Doing that consistently raises profile and enhances credibility - turning up with a carload of activists on January 2nd and hoping a pliant supporter will re-tweet will spread the word as some kind of campaigning coup achieves little and impresses no-one.
Do you consider the likelihood of a particular voter turning out on their own initiative before you decide whether or not to nudge them into voting? I assume if it's a person that you know will always turn out, because they always have done before, then it's a waste of your time and theirs to GOTV them?
My own personal view (which I'm sure will not find much favour on this site) is that the candidates and their teams should back off entirely on election day. No GOTV calls, no "telling", nothing. They've had over a month in which to get their messages across. Election day should belong to the voters and not to the candidates.
Of course, it's an excellent newspaper and it's not going to be crudely partisan - it will certainly cover the risks of Milibandism. But I don't think it will support the Tories.
Kick their bloody arses.
Hope you weren't sacked for being on PB at work
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jan/02/nigel-farage-ukip-target-hedge-fund-city-finances-report