Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » PB Nighthawks is now open
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » PB Nighthawks is now open
If you’ve always been a lurker, why not take the final few Steps, and become a poster on PB, it would be a Tragedy if we missed your contributions, hopefully this will set off a Chain Reaction amongst you lurkers and at least 5,6,7,8 of you lurkers will delurk,
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30680130
Is it that the internet can unearth such things very quickly. Before hand, it would have appeared in Private Eye a couple of weeks afterwards when everyone has forgotten about it.
Now, rebuttal is near instantaneous.
YouGov Poll -
"A methodology change in our 1st @YouGov poll of the year tonight - UKIP prompted in the initial list of main parties for the first time."
A bit more colour re prompting for UKIP. YouGov's Anthony Wells just wrote:
I’d forgotten I’d said [that it didn't make much difference in testing], but yes, that is now the case. I’ll post more later when the results come out, but that’s essentially my thinking.
Think of it this way. We know that for a small party (and I don’t want to define small here – I don’t necessarily mean low support, it could be about awareness, or media coverage, or simply public consciousness) prompting for a party risks overestimating their support. We’ve made that mistake before and learnt from it.
However, we also know from the 1980s that you can get it wrong in the opposite direction too. Above a certain level or support (or awareness, or coverage, or consciousness), if you don’t prompt for a party you end up underestimating their support. That used to happen to the SDP/Liberal Alliance in the 1980s.
Now, with these two known phenomenon, it struck me that there should come a point somewhere in the middle where they crossed over, and that whether a party is prompted or not shouldn’t make any difference… and that would probably be rather a good point to make the switch. If not, at least it wouldn’t do any harm and would be easier for respondents who don’t have to answer an extra question! It was only a hypothesis and might never have happened, but in our recent tests it’s been making hardly any difference, so it made a very difficult decision far easier.
We'll have something to talk about in a couple of hours...
This might be a vast over simplification of the matter, but I'd have far more respect for a pro immigration party if they said why immigration really was a good thing. As far as I'm concerned it's only good for filling resource gaps and keeping wages down. Both of these are very right wing in my opinion and that's why the main parties are reluctant to talk about it.
What I think Ukip have come to represent - without explicitly stating it - is that you can't have an open door to immigration and a welfare state. Ultimately I think immigration will actually fall in the coming years, but only because I think we're heading for a mega recession.
UKIP will surely be hoping for a rise, or to be at least static, with this change.
Edgar the Ætheling was never crowned.
Strange how our partners in 'the West' weren't quite so staunch when they decided to give Russia sensitive information about our 'independent' nuclear deterrent to get them to sign a treaty. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8304654/WikiLeaks-cables-US-agrees-to-tell-Russia-Britains-nuclear-secrets.html
What was that about sympathies again?
http://www.theweek.co.uk/politics/45658/nonsense-heart-britains-independent-nuclear-defence
We would have an even more superior conventional army by using the Trident replacement money on our conventional forces.
A national of collaborators could never Lord it over us on the military front.
A defence force capable and armed to repel any foreign power from the UK and its territories will do me. Leave the grandstanding to others.
Miliband suggests, one suspects in something of a sulk, that if he really has to have a nuclear deterrent ('doh') that there is a cheaper - different - way to provide this. This is a coded message, in very bad code, to his lefty peacenick friends in Scotland for saying, 'we will move the nuclear deterrent from Scotland... possibly. Vote for us pretty please.'
Objectively some other form of delivery of some other sort of nuclear weapon is worth looking at. The question is, just what? Without any sort of suggestion Miliband just looks even more fatuous.
In terms of replacing Trident there is an argument for say fewer tubes per (smaller - cheaper?) sub. Or fewer subs. And in view of the end of the cold war there is less urgency to fully fill in the transition period and we could extend the life of current subs. We can question the likely need for an immediate response from some rogue state. Replacing Trident need not be a time of crisis or a big deal. It is affordable over a long timeframe and provides relatively cheap strategic defence.
Same logic with North Korea - The US attack only countries it knows cannot do it damage.it cannot be sure N Korea cannot so it does not attack.
I can understand a worldly view to get rid of nuclear weapons but from a purely country perspective I think the argument that conventional forces make you safer is rubbish
You know what I meant.
It looks like Ed's got it together and won the first round by a distance.
1) Did Norman Smith stick one on ED to prove he was unbiased.. Answers on a postcard
2) Before everyone gets wrapped up in the GE, lets have a sense of proportion in what matters whilst getting stuck into point scoring (I am not immune to this), notwithstanding that I will turn out the light as the last man to leave the UK if Ed gets the keys to No 10.
I lost my wife two yrs + ago and today it was the turn of a neighbour to lose her partner in life. One minute he was there, the next not.. Its a sobering thought and one everyone would do well to ponder on irrespective of your age. Only when you have suffered a disaster such as this can you have a true perspective on life.
Rogerdamus calls it for Labour and Ed.
4. Funny line "As several journalists noted during the Q&A, the document falsely equates criticism of cuts with a commitment to reverse them.". I suppose that is kind of a trap, in that Labour are supposed to confirm they won't reverse cuts despite whinging about them, but for the Tories sake I don't see that helping. It should, but Labour are going to cut a lot and, given the options are limited, in many of the same areas and similar ways, and yet they still get the majority of the anti-austerity vote I would bet - despite leaking some to the Greens no doubt - as the alternative is letting the Tories back in, and more people would prefer Labour cuts to Tory cuts, even if realistically it will feel no different. The mere feeling that the Labour front bench are not unlike the Tories not ideologically enjoying the cutting will, for some reason, make it better to them.
10. I hope Clegg succeeds. It would be hilarious.
Tory dossier...
3. I'm sure he does want to win the big argument. Fortunately for him he can still just go very negative and rely on Labour's current advantages and win the election even if he doesn't win that big argument.
12. Unsurprising stuff. More worrying is the majority seem to like that sort of thing, so it won't end any time soon.
"Labour signals squeeze on pay"
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B6noLO5CcAAgCoq.jpg
Oh, it gets Labour to state that, and it will cost them a few Green votes. I just don't think it will undermine Labour enough - people genuinely seem to think ending Tory cuts has to be achieved even if to be replaced by Labour cuts which are essentially identical, so getting them to admit to that will not finish Labour off.
Gnight.
Overall Maj 16
@CCHQPress: Oh dear.@edballsmp rebuttal doc riddled with massive spending miscalculations on OWN proposals -who knew their Senate of Nations costs £85BN
@CCHQPress: Hi @TristramHuntMP , doc just put out by @edballsmp talks about spending on UnionLearn at £15.3 BILLION - can you confirm this is your plan?
@CCHQPress: @marycreagh_mp @edballsmp What was your landfill policy Mary? – an untruth or an error?
Disappointing poll for Con.
The Tories will be pulling away in the polls after the budget.....err in August....err after the Autumn Statement....err in November.....err in January.....err...
TIC TOC TIC TOC! - 121 days and counting.
http://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/to?day=7&month=5&msg=UK+General+Election&p0=0&year=2015
You're unfamiliar to me, and there's a rather peculiar slant to your posts in this thread -you'll forgive me if I don't engage further, ta.
@thetimes: Tomorrow's front page: Mansion tax to fund nursing in Scotland http://t.co/3HgvnrbY2g
Lucy Powell is incomparable in her field...
@politicshome: Tuesday's Telegraph front page - Labour tax on 'wealthy English' to fund Scots nurses http://t.co/RDMke2GhA5
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/05/smaller-state-trouble-deficit-labour-spending
Money better given back to me and spent by myself on things I want.
5.1.15 LAB 322 (320) CON 259(263) LD 32(31) UKIP 1(1) Others 36(35) (Ed is crap is PM)
Last BJESUS in brackets Last weeks BJESUS in brackets
BJESUS (Big John Election Service Uniform Swing) BJESUS (Big John Election Service Uniform Swing)
Using current polling adjusted for 121 days left to go factor and using UKPR standard swingometer