politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The PB December Polling average: the Left rampant

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The PB December Polling average: the Left rampant

Christmas shopping, parties and other seasonal distractions may be nothing but credit card bills now but in and amongst all that fun – forced or genuine – a rather interesting swing was taking place in the polls.

Read the full story here

TGOHF

We've seen off peak Kipper.

Socrates

TGOHF said:

We've seen off peak Kipper.

With near equal treatment in the election campaign? Unlikely.

hunchman

No point taking any notice of the polls until they settle down in late January.

kle4

Con have been practically without a realistic chance for awhile now, it's just been harder to notice as Labour have contrived to give them the appearance of a snifter of an opportunity.

AndyJS

The Greens have selected 312 candidates so far compared to 275 for the LDs (and 380 for UKIP).

Scrapheap_as_was

Someone pls paste Jim Murphy tweet re abbott on tw.... red team buddies

isam

TGOHF said:

We've seen off peak Kipper.

What would be your mark on the highest UKIP will poll in a YouGov by May?

A level you would be happy to bet it wouldn't reach at Even Money for £250

foxinsoxuk

FPT

isam said:

saddo said:

Talking with a brand hat on, no way the brand leader should ever create opportunities for weaker brands to get equal status. Brand Cameron can only lose and has nothing to gain. Brand Ed would almost certainly lose but Brand Farage could only build his market share.

Cameron also saw the results of 2010's debate which massively helped the Lib Dem's and almost certainly screwed his majority.

Without Cameron the debates aren't worth showing.

Cameron should avoid them.

You missed out that Brand Cameron could be damaged by being seen as

(A) Cowardly
(B) A Spoilsport
(C) Lacking confidence in his arguments

As Fat Steve said, I think we are seeing posturing and horsetrading.

Also quite possible that Milliband will "grudgingly" agree to a head to head debate with Cameron, thereby pushing out all bar Lab and Con, like the good old days. Indeed putting my tinfoil hat on, I have suspicion that may have been the agreed stitch up all along...

Scrapheap_as_was

Ogh just tweeted how greens lost All 12 deposits, how many have lib dems for context?

Stark_Dawning

FPT

GIN1138 said:

Socrates said:

Iain Dale says that he won't vote for Cameron if he ducks the debates.

Is he still on the scene, LOL!

I do hope not! You know, the only time (to my knowledge) that I've ever had a post moderated on this site was when I made a disparaging but true remark about Dale being 'as p*ssed as a newt'. (He was like the Prophet Muhammad in those days.)

rcs1000

FPT:

GIN1138 said:

The way around this debate thing is to change it from party political debates to Prime Ministerial debates, so only the candidates who can actually end up PM are in the debate.

As we don't have a Presidential system that is a problem, but then this has always been the problem.

I think that just institutionalises a two party system. Frankly, I think a clear set of rules is the simplest way:

1. At least 2 MPs
2. Standing in at least 600 constituencies
3. And to have either gotten more than 15% in the previous election or to have averaged above 15% in the polls in the six months prior to the election

This would mean the LibDems would be included this time, but might very well not be next time (and UKIP might also fall back between now and 2020). But it does give very clear guidelines for who is a 'major party', and does not excessively penalise parties who's success is recent.

rcs1000

Scrapheap_as_was said:

Ogh just tweeted how greens lost All 12 deposits, how many have lib dems for context?

I think they've saved about 5.

TheScreamingEagles

Scrapheap_as_was said:

Someone pls paste Jim Murphy tweet re abbott on tw.... red team buddies

@jimmurphymp: Enjoyed Question Time tonight. Diane Abbott on 'This Week' with Andrew Neil now.
It's good night from me, John Murphy.

rcs1000

@Scrapheap - that is one of my all time favourite XKCD cartoons

isam

isam said:

TGOHF said:

We've seen off peak Kipper.

What would be your mark on the highest UKIP will poll in a YouGov by May?

A level you would be happy to bet it wouldn't reach at Even Money for £250

@TGOHF

I should say a level you think it wont better

Think about it and we can arrange a fun bet

AndyJS

The LDs may end up with more paper candidates at GE2015 than the Greens, ie. candidates who have to be chosen at the last minute because no-one has volunteered and who don't have much connection to the constituency in question.

FrankBooth

foxinsoxuk said:

FPT

isam said:

saddo said:

Talking with a brand hat on, no way the brand leader should ever create opportunities for weaker brands to get equal status. Brand Cameron can only lose and has nothing to gain. Brand Ed would almost certainly lose but Brand Farage could only build his market share.

Cameron also saw the results of 2010's debate which massively helped the Lib Dem's and almost certainly screwed his majority.

Without Cameron the debates aren't worth showing.

Cameron should avoid them.

You missed out that Brand Cameron could be damaged by being seen as

(A) Cowardly
(B) A Spoilsport
(C) Lacking confidence in his arguments

As Fat Steve said, I think we are seeing posturing and horsetrading.

Also quite possible that Milliband will "grudgingly" agree to a head to head debate with Cameron, thereby pushing out all bar Lab and Con, like the good old days. Indeed putting my tinfoil hat on, I have suspicion that may have been the agreed stitch up all along...

But the Lib Dems and Ukip won't take that lying down. Particularly not the LDs who've had major party status before. The decision with the Greens means that if they are invited by the TV companies then the SNP could sue the broadcasters for not inviting them.

Socrates

rcs1000 said:

FPT:

GIN1138 said:

The way around this debate thing is to change it from party political debates to Prime Ministerial debates, so only the candidates who can actually end up PM are in the debate.

As we don't have a Presidential system that is a problem, but then this has always been the problem.

I think that just institutionalises a two party system. Frankly, I think a clear set of rules is the simplest way:

1. At least 2 MPs
2. Standing in at least 600 constituencies
3. And to have either gotten more than 15% in the previous election or to have averaged above 15% in the polls in the six months prior to the election

This would mean the LibDems would be included this time, but might very well not be next time (and UKIP might also fall back between now and 2020). But it does give very clear guidelines for who is a 'major party', and does not excessively penalise parties who's success is recent.

15% seems a rather arbitrary number, though. The obvious one is 5%, given that it's the level to maintain one's deposit. 10% is at least a round number and an even fraction.

I also don't buy your first condition. It just seems pretty arbitrary, and also would mean a new party gets unfairly kicked out. For example, if all the parliamentary parties got caught in a dirty hands style corruption scandal, and a new clean people's party emerged to fight the election, stormed into the polling lead, it would seem wrong to keep them out.

Something like averaging above 5% in the last three months, plus contesting a majority of the constituencies, could work.

CarlottaVance

Analysis of Charlie Hebdo from a director of "British Muslims for Seculaar Democracy"

http://leftfootforward.org/2015/01/charlie-hebdo-dismantling-nine-mistaken-assumptions-about-the-paris-atrocities/

kle4

Scrapheap_as_was said:

Ogh just tweeted how greens lost All 12 deposits, how many have lib dems for context?

8-9 I think. It's pretty close.

rcs1000 said:

FPT:

GIN1138 said:

The way around this debate thing is to change it from party political debates to Prime Ministerial debates, so only the candidates who can actually end up PM are in the debate.

As we don't have a Presidential system that is a problem, but then this has always been the problem.

I think that just institutionalises a two party system. Frankly, I think a clear set of rules is the simplest way:

1. At least 2 MPs
2. Standing in at least 600 constituencies
3. And to have either gotten more than 15% in the previous election or to have averaged above 15% in the polls in the six months prior to the election

This would mean the LibDems would be included this time, but might very well not be next time (and UKIP might also fall back between now and 2020). But it does give very clear guidelines for who is a 'major party', and does not excessively penalise parties who's success is recent.

I've advocated something similar in the past, though the exact proportions are certainly up for debate.

Fact is you can define major and minor in many ways, and the impact of regionally focused parties in the UK affects things even further in that score, so no definition will be without some twisty logic of free from any criticism.

But on the basis that a major party should be able to demonstrate electoral support so they are not just a flash in the pan sort of party with significant polling and results, have nationwide intent - even if realistically no-one but Con and Lab have any chance of winning hundred of seats and all over the country, and even then Con cannot claim that much and even Labour are struggling in some areas - and of course the final proof of entrance into the mainstream, representation in Parliament.

Under such an idea the Greens and UKIP would both not have been in last time, as the Green showed no national intent or widespread support despite having an MP. UKIP had the first two to some extent but no MP. Now they have all three. The SNP and PC have the first and last, but not the middle one.

It's not perfect, granted, and Northern Ireland gets in the way of the whole nationwide intent part, but rcs's suggestion I think makes it difficult to truly break out as a major national party, but not unfairly so. It should not be easy to get a seat at the big table (even if I fine the electoral system itself making it harder than it should be), and UKIP have proven with hard work and luck you can do it to the point hardly anyone could complain about it. The Greens have a different strategy, and that was their choice, they can always adopt a wider focused approach if they want.

kle4

rcs1000 said:

@Scrapheap - that is one of my all time favourite XKCD cartoons

A classic. I think I shall take up its message and go to bed now even though some people are still wrong here.

RobD

kle4 said:

rcs1000 said:

@Scrapheap - that is one of my all time favourite XKCD cartoons

A classic. I think I shall take up its message and go to bed now even though some people are still wrong here.

Be sure to tell your wife "hello"!

Scrapheap_as_was

kle4 said:

rcs1000 said:

@Scrapheap - that is one of my all time favourite XKCD cartoons

A classic. I think I shall take up its message and go to bed now even though some people are still wrong here.

Hear hear. I think I've safely returned a few stray Kippers to the tory fold however.... buster remains challenging.

rcs1000

Socrates said:

rcs1000 said:

FPT:

GIN1138 said:

The way around this debate thing is to change it from party political debates to Prime Ministerial debates, so only the candidates who can actually end up PM are in the debate.

As we don't have a Presidential system that is a problem, but then this has always been the problem.

I think that just institutionalises a two party system. Frankly, I think a clear set of rules is the simplest way:

1. At least 2 MPs
2. Standing in at least 600 constituencies
3. And to have either gotten more than 15% in the previous election or to have averaged above 15% in the polls in the six months prior to the election

This would mean the LibDems would be included this time, but might very well not be next time (and UKIP might also fall back between now and 2020). But it does give very clear guidelines for who is a 'major party', and does not excessively penalise parties who's success is recent.

15% seems a rather arbitrary number, though. The obvious one is 5%, given that it's the level to maintain one's deposit. 10% is at least a round number and an even fraction.

I also don't buy your first condition. It just seems pretty arbitrary, and also would mean a new party gets unfairly kicked out. For example, if all the parliamentary parties got caught in a dirty hands style corruption scandal, and a new clean people's party emerged to fight the election, stormed into the polling lead, it would seem wrong to keep them out.

15% is arbitrary. I think the balance I want to strike is:

1. Don't unfairly penalise new parties
2. Don't institutionalise two party politics
3. But also keep it manageable - if you're not polling more than (say) a third of the first placed candidate, you shouldn't be there, because you're not realistically in with a chance of forming the government. (That being said, given we may be in a world where there will be more coalitions, perhaps it's only fair that all parties that have a reasonable chance of securing 10 or more seats should be there.)

Or maybe we should simply privatise the Beeb, and allow the broadcasters - as private entities beholden to their customers and their owners - choose who to invite.

Scrapheap_as_was

TheScreamingEagles said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

Someone pls paste Jim Murphy tweet re abbott on tw.... red team buddies

@jimmurphymp: Enjoyed Question Time tonight. Diane Abbott on 'This Week' with Andrew Neil now.
It's good night from me, John Murphy.

Thanks. Hate seeing ridicule of colleagues

foxinsoxuk

FrankBooth said:

foxinsoxuk said:

FPT

isam said:

saddo said:

Talking with a brand hat on, no way the brand leader should ever create opportunities for weaker brands to get equal status. Brand Cameron can only lose and has nothing to gain. Brand Ed would almost certainly lose but Brand Farage could only build his market share.

Cameron also saw the results of 2010's debate which massively helped the Lib Dem's and almost certainly screwed his majority.

Without Cameron the debates aren't worth showing.

Cameron should avoid them.

You missed out that Brand Cameron could be damaged by being seen as

(A) Cowardly
(B) A Spoilsport
(C) Lacking confidence in his arguments

As Fat Steve said, I think we are seeing posturing and horsetrading.

Also quite possible that Milliband will "grudgingly" agree to a head to head debate with Cameron, thereby pushing out all bar Lab and Con, like the good old days. Indeed putting my tinfoil hat on, I have suspicion that may have been the agreed stitch up all along...

But the Lib Dems and Ukip won't take that lying down. Particularly not the LDs who've had major party status before. The decision with the Greens means that if they are invited by the TV companies then the SNP could sue the broadcasters for not inviting them.

But what could Clegg do? Empty chair two people and debate with Farage? Haven't we been there before?

Scrapheap_as_was

rcs1000 said:

@Scrapheap - that is one of my all time favourite XKCD cartoons

Good taste sir. I don't lightly drop my brown and ed m profiles... next up a TPD for the election campaign perhaps.

TheScreamingEagles

Scrapheap_as_was said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

Someone pls paste Jim Murphy tweet re abbott on tw.... red team buddies

@jimmurphymp: Enjoyed Question Time tonight. Diane Abbott on 'This Week' with Andrew Neil now.
It's good night from me, John Murphy.

Thanks. Hate seeing ridicule of colleagues

Feel sorry for the Red team on here who were posting the other day it was only PB Tories complaining about the mansion tax.

PB Tories are always right.

Plus Roger saying it was a brilliant strategy by Ed confirmed it.

RobD

TheScreamingEagles said:

PB Tories are always right.

And we never forget....

wait, that's not right.

TheScreamingEagles

RobD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

PB Tories are always right.

And we never forget....

wait, that's not right.

When are you next on a plane?

RobD

TheScreamingEagles said:

RobD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

PB Tories are always right.

And we never forget....

wait, that's not right.

When are you next on a plane?

22 hours although its only a short hop for a mini-break.

FrankBooth

foxinsoxuk said:

FrankBooth said:

foxinsoxuk said:

FPT

isam said:

saddo said:

Talking with a brand hat on, no way the brand leader should ever create opportunities for weaker brands to get equal status. Brand Cameron can only lose and has nothing to gain. Brand Ed would almost certainly lose but Brand Farage could only build his market share.

Cameron also saw the results of 2010's debate which massively helped the Lib Dem's and almost certainly screwed his majority.

Without Cameron the debates aren't worth showing.

Cameron should avoid them.

You missed out that Brand Cameron could be damaged by being seen as

(A) Cowardly
(B) A Spoilsport
(C) Lacking confidence in his arguments

As Fat Steve said, I think we are seeing posturing and horsetrading.

Also quite possible that Milliband will "grudgingly" agree to a head to head debate with Cameron, thereby pushing out all bar Lab and Con, like the good old days. Indeed putting my tinfoil hat on, I have suspicion that may have been the agreed stitch up all along...

But the Lib Dems and Ukip won't take that lying down. Particularly not the LDs who've had major party status before. The decision with the Greens means that if they are invited by the TV companies then the SNP could sue the broadcasters for not inviting them.

But what could Clegg do? Empty chair two people and debate with Farage? Haven't we been there before?

No he could sue the broadcasters for not being invited to debate with Cameron and Miliband. That's what the SNP will do if the Greens are invited to take part.

Sunil_Prasannan

Scrapheap_as_was said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

Someone pls paste Jim Murphy tweet re abbott on tw.... red team buddies

@jimmurphymp: Enjoyed Question Time tonight. Diane Abbott on 'This Week' with Andrew Neil now.
It's good night from me, John Murphy.

Thanks. Hate seeing ridicule of colleagues

Ridicule is nothing to be scared of!

TheScreamingEagles

RobD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

RobD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

PB Tories are always right.

And we never forget....

wait, that's not right.

When are you next on a plane?

22 hours

Oooh.

RobD

TheScreamingEagles said:

RobD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

RobD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

PB Tories are always right.

And we never forget....

wait, that's not right.

When are you next on a plane?

22 hours

Oooh.

Then again on Monday and the Monday after that too. Crossovers left right and centre.

TheScreamingEagles

RobD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

RobD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

RobD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

PB Tories are always right.

And we never forget....

wait, that's not right.

When are you next on a plane?

22 hours

Oooh.

Then again on Monday and the Monday after that too. Crossovers left right and centre.

Three polls out on Monday and four on the following Monday.

rcs1000

It turns out that its not France and Italy that have the world's least flexible labour markets: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/11333885/Man-who-skipped-work-for-24-years-is-finally-fired.html

Pulpstar

Straight out of compton Surrey

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xAeSkdtaeI

Sunil_Prasannan

Permission to chip in with some ELBOW data for the four complete calendar months since its inception:

September = 38 polls with a total weighted sample of 51,029

Lab 35.7
Con 31.5
UKIP 15.2
LD 7.6

October = 45 polls with a total weighted sample of 59,394

Lab 33.8
Con 32.0
UKIP 16.1
LD 7.7

November = 44 polls with a total weighted sample of 56,434

Lab 33.3
Con 31.8
UKIP 16.1
LD 7.6

December = 32 polls with a total weighted sample of 40,490

Lab 33.7
Con 32.0
UKIP 15.5
LD 7.4

david_herdson

foxinsoxuk said:

FrankBooth said:

foxinsoxuk said:

FPT

isam said:

saddo said:

Talking with a brand hat on, no way the brand leader should ever create opportunities for weaker brands to get equal status. Brand Cameron can only lose and has nothing to gain. Brand Ed would almost certainly lose but Brand Farage could only build his market share.

Cameron also saw the results of 2010's debate which massively helped the Lib Dem's and almost certainly screwed his majority.

Without Cameron the debates aren't worth showing.

Cameron should avoid them.

You missed out that Brand Cameron could be damaged by being seen as

(A) Cowardly
(B) A Spoilsport
(C) Lacking confidence in his arguments

As Fat Steve said, I think we are seeing posturing and horsetrading.

Also quite possible that Milliband will "grudgingly" agree to a head to head debate with Cameron, thereby pushing out all bar Lab and Con, like the good old days. Indeed putting my tinfoil hat on, I have suspicion that may have been the agreed stitch up all along...

But the Lib Dems and Ukip won't take that lying down. Particularly not the LDs who've had major party status before. The decision with the Greens means that if they are invited by the TV companies then the SNP could sue the broadcasters for not inviting them.

But what could Clegg do? Empty chair two people and debate with Farage? Haven't we been there before?

Take legal action. Major party status is supposed to guarantee equal or close-to-equal coverage.

GIN1138

Things certainly moved slightly in Labour's favour in December.

So far (and it's early day's of course) it doesn't look as though that's been maintained into January.

Let's wait and see.

Sunil_Prasannan

rcs1000 said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

Ogh just tweeted how greens lost All 12 deposits, how many have lib dems for context?

I think they've saved about 5.

LibDems have lost 11 of 19 By-election deposits

https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/550716028293251073

GIN1138

david_herdson said:

foxinsoxuk said:

FrankBooth said:

foxinsoxuk said:

FPT

isam said:

saddo said:

Talking with a brand hat on, no way the brand leader should ever create opportunities for weaker brands to get equal status. Brand Cameron can only lose and has nothing to gain. Brand Ed would almost certainly lose but Brand Farage could only build his market share.

Cameron also saw the results of 2010's debate which massively helped the Lib Dem's and almost certainly screwed his majority.

Without Cameron the debates aren't worth showing.

Cameron should avoid them.

You missed out that Brand Cameron could be damaged by being seen as

(A) Cowardly
(B) A Spoilsport
(C) Lacking confidence in his arguments

As Fat Steve said, I think we are seeing posturing and horsetrading.

Also quite possible that Milliband will "grudgingly" agree to a head to head debate with Cameron, thereby pushing out all bar Lab and Con, like the good old days. Indeed putting my tinfoil hat on, I have suspicion that may have been the agreed stitch up all along...

But the Lib Dems and Ukip won't take that lying down. Particularly not the LDs who've had major party status before. The decision with the Greens means that if they are invited by the TV companies then the SNP could sue the broadcasters for not inviting them.

But what could Clegg do? Empty chair two people and debate with Farage? Haven't we been there before?

Take legal action. Major party status is supposed to guarantee equal or close-to-equal coverage.

Do the Lib-Dems have the money to take legal action? Haven't they got to keep all their money on standbye for the Taxi's to take home every defeated candidate?

Taxi for Clegg. Taxi for Vince. Taxi for Danny, etc... ?

Danny565

rcs1000 said:

Socrates said:

rcs1000 said:

FPT:

GIN1138 said:

The way around this debate thing is to change it from party political debates to Prime Ministerial debates, so only the candidates who can actually end up PM are in the debate.

As we don't have a Presidential system that is a problem, but then this has always been the problem.

I think that just institutionalises a two party system. Frankly, I think a clear set of rules is the simplest way:

1. At least 2 MPs
2. Standing in at least 600 constituencies
3. And to have either gotten more than 15% in the previous election or to have averaged above 15% in the polls in the six months prior to the election

This would mean the LibDems would be included this time, but might very well not be next time (and UKIP might also fall back between now and 2020). But it does give very clear guidelines for who is a 'major party', and does not excessively penalise parties who's success is recent.

15% seems a rather arbitrary number, though. The obvious one is 5%, given that it's the level to maintain one's deposit. 10% is at least a round number and an even fraction.

I also don't buy your first condition. It just seems pretty arbitrary, and also would mean a new party gets unfairly kicked out. For example, if all the parliamentary parties got caught in a dirty hands style corruption scandal, and a new clean people's party emerged to fight the election, stormed into the polling lead, it would seem wrong to keep them out.

15% is arbitrary. I think the balance I want to strike is:

1. Don't unfairly penalise new parties
2. Don't institutionalise two party politics
3. But also keep it manageable - if you're not polling more than (say) a third of the first placed candidate, you shouldn't be there, because you're not realistically in with a chance of forming the government. (That being said, given we may be in a world where there will be more coalitions, perhaps it's only fair that all parties that have a reasonable chance of securing 10 or more seats should be there.)

Or maybe we should simply privatise the Beeb, and allow the broadcasters - as private entities beholden to their customers and their owners - choose who to invite.

My suggestion would be you have to have say 30 MPs in the current Parliament, OR you must be polling at 10% or above on average in the year before the election. I think something like that would strike the right balance between making allowances for established parties who've had a recent downturn (so giving the Lib Dems a repreive this time, though not in the 2020 round of debates if they fell below the bar for current MPs and didn't improve their poll ratings), while also leaving room for parties which have had dramatic surges.

AndyJS

"Le Parisien says that France's Muslim community is "traumatised" by Wednesday's deadly attack. "Some fear increased stigmatisation," the newspaper reports."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-europe-30722098

Sunil_Prasannan

"Super-ELBOW" for December (32 polls with field-work end-dates between 1st Dec and Xmas, total weighted sample 40,490):
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/553358370548490240

fitalass

I do wonder if that is Cameron's end game here, especially after Ofcom's decision to literally exclude the Greens from a place at any podium in a televised Leadership debate. After all, it was the Cameron vs Davis Conservative Leadership debates which finally paved the way for the GE PM debates...

foxinsoxuk said:

FPT

isam said:

saddo said:

Talking with a brand hat on, no way the brand leader should ever create opportunities for weaker brands to get equal status. Brand Cameron can only lose and has nothing to gain. Brand Ed would almost certainly lose but Brand Farage could only build his market share.

Cameron also saw the results of 2010's debate which massively helped the Lib Dem's and almost certainly screwed his majority.

Without Cameron the debates aren't worth showing.

Cameron should avoid them.

You missed out that Brand Cameron could be damaged by being seen as

(A) Cowardly
(B) A Spoilsport
(C) Lacking confidence in his arguments

As Fat Steve said, I think we are seeing posturing and horsetrading.

Also quite possible that Milliband will "grudgingly" agree to a head to head debate with Cameron, thereby pushing out all bar Lab and Con, like the good old days. Indeed putting my tinfoil hat on, I have suspicion that may have been the agreed stitch up all along...

fitalass

That really would be the worst outcome to the shocking and tragic events in Paris this week, lets not forget that one of the French police officers shot down in cold blood was a Muslim serving his country.

AndyJS said:

"Le Parisien says that France's Muslim community is "traumatised" by Wednesday's deadly attack. "Some fear increased stigmatisation," the newspaper reports."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-europe-30722098

Tim_B

Ever since someone posted here a few days ago about going to the top of the Shard, and I responded comparing it to the Empire State Building, the ad atop the comment box on the thread has been an invitation to have the Empire State Building Experience.

Geographical relevance I get, but thread content?

CarlottaVance

Tim_B said:

Ever since someone posted here a few days ago about going to the top of the Shard, and I responded comparing it to the Empire State Building, the ad atop the comment box on the thread has been an invitation to have the Empire State Building Experience.

Geographical relevance I get, but thread content?

The oddest cross-linked ad I ever got was after posting about The Magic Flute getting ads about the Free Masons........

Tim_B

CarlottaVance said:

Tim_B said:

Ever since someone posted here a few days ago about going to the top of the Shard, and I responded comparing it to the Empire State Building, the ad atop the comment box on the thread has been an invitation to have the Empire State Building Experience.

Geographical relevance I get, but thread content?

The oddest cross-linked ad I ever got was after posting about The Magic Flute getting ads about the Free Masons........

So presumably if I mention the pope, I'll get ads for the Knights of Columbus :-)

This is truly bizarre. The thread header ad has now changed to an ad for this -

http://www.instantcheckmate.com/

AndyJS

Usually TV debates don't happen because the PM is 100% against and the leader of the opposition 100% in favour. For example Kinnock wanted them in 1992 while Major didn't, and Blair wanted them in 1997. But then Blair didn't want them in 2001 and 2005 while Hague and Howard did.

2010 was probably an exception because things were so bad for Brown that he thought he hadn't got anything to lose.

AndyJS

rcs1000 said:

It turns out that its not France and Italy that have the world's least flexible labour markets: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/11333885/Man-who-skipped-work-for-24-years-is-finally-fired.html

Will he have to repay the money? Probably not, I guess.

RobD

Tim_B said:

CarlottaVance said:

Tim_B said:

Ever since someone posted here a few days ago about going to the top of the Shard, and I responded comparing it to the Empire State Building, the ad atop the comment box on the thread has been an invitation to have the Empire State Building Experience.

Geographical relevance I get, but thread content?

The oddest cross-linked ad I ever got was after posting about The Magic Flute getting ads about the Free Masons........

So presumably if I mention the pope, I'll get ads for the Knights of Columbus :-)

This is truly bizarre. The thread header ad has now changed to an ad for this -

http://www.instantcheckmate.com/

I keep getting ads about underwear and smart suits....

CarlottaVance

Tim_B said:

CarlottaVance said:

Tim_B said:

Ever since someone posted here a few days ago about going to the top of the Shard, and I responded comparing it to the Empire State Building, the ad atop the comment box on the thread has been an invitation to have the Empire State Building Experience.

Geographical relevance I get, but thread content?

The oddest cross-linked ad I ever got was after posting about The Magic Flute getting ads about the Free Masons........

So presumably if I mention the pope, I'll get ads for the Knights of Columbus :-)

This is truly bizarre. The thread header ad has now changed to an ad for this -

http://www.instantcheckmate.com/

Funniest incident was a few years back when a poster complained indignantly to OGH that he really shouldn't be hosting ads for Romanian mail order brides - after it was pointed out that ads were based on his own browsing history he went rather quiet.....

RobD

CarlottaVance said:

Tim_B said:

CarlottaVance said:

Tim_B said:

Ever since someone posted here a few days ago about going to the top of the Shard, and I responded comparing it to the Empire State Building, the ad atop the comment box on the thread has been an invitation to have the Empire State Building Experience.

Geographical relevance I get, but thread content?

The oddest cross-linked ad I ever got was after posting about The Magic Flute getting ads about the Free Masons........

So presumably if I mention the pope, I'll get ads for the Knights of Columbus :-)

This is truly bizarre. The thread header ad has now changed to an ad for this -

http://www.instantcheckmate.com/

Funniest incident was a few years back when a poster complained indignantly to OGH that he really shouldn't be hosting ads for Romanian mail order brides - after it was pointed out that ads were based on his own browsing history he went rather quiet.....

That's what incognito mode is for

Tim_B

RobD said:

Tim_B said:

CarlottaVance said:

Tim_B said:

Ever since someone posted here a few days ago about going to the top of the Shard, and I responded comparing it to the Empire State Building, the ad atop the comment box on the thread has been an invitation to have the Empire State Building Experience.

Geographical relevance I get, but thread content?

The oddest cross-linked ad I ever got was after posting about The Magic Flute getting ads about the Free Masons........

So presumably if I mention the pope, I'll get ads for the Knights of Columbus :-)

This is truly bizarre. The thread header ad has now changed to an ad for this -

http://www.instantcheckmate.com/

I keep getting ads about underwear and smart suits....

There are lots of rumors about you :-)

Tim_B

RobD said:

CarlottaVance said:

Tim_B said:

CarlottaVance said:

Tim_B said:

Ever since someone posted here a few days ago about going to the top of the Shard, and I responded comparing it to the Empire State Building, the ad atop the comment box on the thread has been an invitation to have the Empire State Building Experience.

Geographical relevance I get, but thread content?

The oddest cross-linked ad I ever got was after posting about The Magic Flute getting ads about the Free Masons........

So presumably if I mention the pope, I'll get ads for the Knights of Columbus :-)

This is truly bizarre. The thread header ad has now changed to an ad for this -

http://www.instantcheckmate.com/

Funniest incident was a few years back when a poster complained indignantly to OGH that he really shouldn't be hosting ads for Romanian mail order brides - after it was pointed out that ads were based on his own browsing history he went rather quiet.....

That's what incognito mode is for

Why am I not surprised you are an expert on this... :-)

fitalass

Mike, OGH, disnae agree... Mark Pack - Smart politics by Cameron in trying to force inclusion of Greens in TV election debates

SimonStClare

Morning all.

'mac' - The new editors at Charlie Hebdo: - http://tinyurl.com/ml2fjz5

AndyJS

Morning.

Have the 88,000 caught up with the 2 yet?

audreyanne

This thread looks a bit stale.

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/01/09/conservatives-and-labour-tied/

audreyanne

fitalass said:

Mike, OGH, disnae agree... Mark Pack - Smart politics by Cameron in trying to force inclusion of Greens in TV election debates

Indeed. Underestimate Cameron at your peril. That's why he's PM and we bloggers aren't.

audreyanne

CarlottaVance said:

Tim_B said:

CarlottaVance said:

Tim_B said:

Ever since someone posted here a few days ago about going to the top of the Shard, and I responded comparing it to the Empire State Building, the ad atop the comment box on the thread has been an invitation to have the Empire State Building Experience.

Geographical relevance I get, but thread content?

The oddest cross-linked ad I ever got was after posting about The Magic Flute getting ads about the Free Masons........

So presumably if I mention the pope, I'll get ads for the Knights of Columbus :-)

This is truly bizarre. The thread header ad has now changed to an ad for this -

http://www.instantcheckmate.com/

Funniest incident was a few years back when a poster complained indignantly to OGH that he really shouldn't be hosting ads for Romanian mail order brides - after it was pointed out that ads were based on his own browsing history he went rather quiet.....

Haha!! Love it

audreyanne

AndyJS said:

Usually TV debates don't happen because the PM is 100% against and the leader of the opposition 100% in favour. For example Kinnock wanted them in 1992 while Major didn't, and Blair wanted them in 1997. But then Blair didn't want them in 2001 and 2005 while Hague and Howard did.

2010 was probably an exception because things were so bad for Brown that he thought he hadn't got anything to lose.

Yes there was a time when it was thought it only benefited the opposition and that it was a sign of desperation if a PM acquiesced. In fact I seem to recall many moons back that Mike Smithson led a thread on that topic.

LogicalSong

Danny565 said:

rcs1000 said:

Socrates said:

rcs1000 said:

FPT:

GIN1138 said:

I think that just institutionalises a two party system. Frankly, I think a clear set of rules is the simplest way:

1. At least 2 MPs
2. Standing in at least 600 constituencies
3. And to have either gotten more than 15% in the previous election or to have averaged above 15% in the polls in the six months prior to the election

This would mean the LibDems would be included this time, but might very well not be next time (and UKIP might also fall back between now and 2020). But it does give very clear guidelines and does not excessively penalise parties who's success is recent.

15% seems a rather arbitrary number, though. The obvious one is 5%, given that it's the level to maintain one's deposit. 10% is at least a round number and an even fraction.

I also don't buy your first condition. It just seems pretty arbitrary, and also would mean a new party gets unfairly kicked out. For example, if all the parliamentary parties got caught in a dirty hands style corruption scandal, and a new clean people's party emerged to fight the election, stormed into the polling lead, it would seem wrong to keep them out.

15% is arbitrary. I think the balance I want to strike is:

1. Don't unfairly penalise new parties
2. Don't institutionalise two party politics
3. But also keep it manageable - if you're not polling more than (say) a third of the first placed candidate, you shouldn't be there, because you're not realistically in with a chance of forming the government. (That being said, given we may be in a world where there will be more coalitions, perhaps it's only fair that all parties that have a reasonable chance of securing 10 or more seats should be there.)

Or maybe we should simply privatise the Beeb, and allow the broadcasters - as private entities beholden to their customers and their owners - choose who to invite.

My suggestion would be you have to have say 30 MPs in the current Parliament, OR you must be polling at 10% or above on average in the year before the election. I think something like that would strike the right balance between making allowances for established parties who've had a recent downturn (so giving the Lib Dems a repreive this time, though not in the 2020 round of debates if they fell below the bar for current MPs and didn't improve their poll ratings), while also leaving room for parties which have had dramatic surges.

Tricky to implement anything based on polls, they haven't always been accurate and whose polls do you take into account. The Greens are all over the place in the polls at the moment. I guess you could use local election results they are at least real votes, although the turnout is usually very low.

RodCrosby

Overnight, details have emerged of the two killers had reportedly spared the lives of two women during the Charlie Hebdo massacre.
Sigolene Vinson told Radio France International how one of the killers pointed a gun at her, but then had a change of heart.
She told the station that he said "I'm not killing you because you are a woman and we don't kill women, but you have to convert to Islam, read the Koran and wear a veil."

Indigo

Even the number of seat a party stands in is dicey. The deposit for a seat is only £500. Its entirely possibly that some plutocrat with an ego would want to splash £325K on 650 no hope seats for the opportunity of appearing in the debates and possibly getting a plutocratgasm, it would be like the Referendum Party all over again.

Indigo

RodCrosby said:

and wear a veil."

"Loi interdisant la dissimulation du visage dans l'espace public" as ruled legal by EHCR last July.

RodCrosby

Indigo said:

Even the number of seat a party stands in is dicey. The deposit for a seat is only £500. Its entirely possibly that some plutocrat with an ego would want to splash £325K on 650 no hope seats for the opportunity of appearing in the debates and possibly getting a plutocratgasm, it would be like the Referendum Party all over again.

The correct tests are obvious.

i) ministrable (rules out the Greens, SNP, DUP, UKIP, Respect, Loonies, etc), and;

ii) a national party (rules out the SNP, DUP, etc)

TGOHF

Tories - nationalising the NHS ...


@bbckamal: Circle, 1st private company to takeover an NHS hospital, has announced it is pulling out of Hinchingbrooke as "it is no longer sustainable"

Casino_Royale

CarlottaVance said:

Analysis of Charlie Hebdo from a director of "British Muslims for Seculaar Democracy"

http://leftfootforward.org/2015/01/charlie-hebdo-dismantling-nine-mistaken-assumptions-about-the-paris-atrocities/

That's a very good article.

Indigo

RodCrosby said:

The correct tests are obvious.

i) ministrable (rules out the Greens, SNP, DUP, UKIP, Respect, Loonies, etc), and;

ii) a national party (rules out the SNP, DUP, etc)

The first seems a bit dubious, any of the small parties might demand some sort of ministerial seat as a part of the coalition deal, if Cameron ended up 6-8 votes short he has a range of options to get support for his party and he might feel that the demand made by some of them are worth it to get an effective majority, no matter how thin. If UKIP get 10 seats Carswell might fancy David Lidington's job

[Deleted User]

Maybe becasue it took place in the middle of nowhere in the arse end of Nigeria - but this latest Muslim fanatic attack which seems to have killed at least several hundred and possibly as many as 2,000 hasn't really made the news:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-30728158

Islam is badly, badly in need of a Reformation. It's own Martin Luther .

RodCrosby

Indigo said:

RodCrosby said:

The correct tests are obvious.

i) ministrable (rules out the Greens, SNP, DUP, UKIP, Respect, Loonies, etc), and;

ii) a national party (rules out the SNP, DUP, etc)

The first seems a bit dubious, any of the small parties might demand some sort of ministerial seat as a part of the coalition deal, if Cameron ended up 6-8 votes short he has a range of options to get support for his party and he might feel that the demand made by some of them are worth it to get an effective majority, no matter how thin. If UKIP get 10 seats Carswell might fancy David Lidington's job

They might demand (some have already ruled themselves out - viz Greens), but if the major players should rule them out as partners that should also be conclusive (viz Cameron - UKIP)

foxinsoxuk

TGOHF said:

Tories - nationalising the NHS ...


@bbckamal: Circle, 1st private company to takeover an NHS hospital, has announced it is pulling out of Hinchingbrooke as "it is no longer sustainable"

It is possible to make profits doing NHS elective work but not for emergency work under current Tariffs. The Marginal Emergency Tariff pays only 30% of the costs over 2009 rates of activity.

If the NHS wants to continue to use these private companies then there needs to be a reform of the Tariff so that the work is viable.

So the NHS has to pick up the loss making hospital in Hinchingbrooke again.

Jeremy_Brown

Tim_B said:

Ever since someone posted here a few days ago about going to the top of the Shard, and I responded comparing it to the Empire State Building, the ad atop the comment box on the thread has been an invitation to have the Empire State Building Experience.

Geographical relevance I get, but thread content?

I imagine its best not to mention taking anyone up the Oxo Tower then eh?

Paul_Mid_Beds

Delingpole hits the nail on the head this morning.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/01/08/how-dare-david-cameron-attack-nigel-farage-for-telling-the-truth-about-multiculturalism/

OldKingCole

Indigo said:

RodCrosby said:

The correct tests are obvious.

i) ministrable (rules out the Greens, SNP, DUP, UKIP, Respect, Loonies, etc), and;

ii) a national party (rules out the SNP, DUP, etc)

The first seems a bit dubious, any of the small parties might demand some sort of ministerial seat as a part of the coalition deal, if Cameron ended up 6-8 votes short he has a range of options to get support for his party and he might feel that the demand made by some of them are worth it to get an effective majority, no matter how thin. If UKIP get 10 seats Carswell might fancy David Lidington's job

Surely an SNP/PC MP could be “ministrable” in Defence or Foreign Affairs. UU MP’s have, I’m ssure, been Ministers in the past, admittedly when they were, effectively, part of the Conservatives.

Indigo

RodCrosby said:

Indigo said:

RodCrosby said:

The correct tests are obvious.

i) ministrable (rules out the Greens, SNP, DUP, UKIP, Respect, Loonies, etc), and;

ii) a national party (rules out the SNP, DUP, etc)

The first seems a bit dubious, any of the small parties might demand some sort of ministerial seat as a part of the coalition deal, if Cameron ended up 6-8 votes short he has a range of options to get support for his party and he might feel that the demand made by some of them are worth it to get an effective majority, no matter how thin. If UKIP get 10 seats Carswell might fancy David Lidington's job

They might demand (some have already ruled themselves out - viz Greens), but if the major players should rule them out as partners that should also be conclusive (viz Cameron - UKIP)

I think that is what is known as an electoral position, politicians are noticeably flexible about these things after an election when they come up a few votes short. No one is going to admit to being in favor of a coalition before an election.

Millsy

Labour's good performance in December will only exaggerate a reversal in January. Already we have YouGovs back to level pegging. The first phone polls will be interesting

RodCrosby

OldKingCole said:

Indigo said:

RodCrosby said:

The correct tests are obvious.

i) ministrable (rules out the Greens, SNP, DUP, UKIP, Respect, Loonies, etc), and;

ii) a national party (rules out the SNP, DUP, etc)

The first seems a bit dubious, any of the small parties might demand some sort of ministerial seat as a part of the coalition deal, if Cameron ended up 6-8 votes short he has a range of options to get support for his party and he might feel that the demand made by some of them are worth it to get an effective majority, no matter how thin. If UKIP get 10 seats Carswell might fancy David Lidington's job

Surely an SNP/PC MP could be “ministrable” in Defence or Foreign Affairs. UU MP’s have, I’m ssure, been Ministers in the past, admittedly when they were, effectively, part of the Conservatives.

A unilateralist, separatist in HMG, let alone in a defence portfolio? What are you smoking?

True, a Unionist (blanket name for a Tory) was in government when Ulster "was as English as Kent." But now, when it's in a semi-detached limbo, United Ireland a neutral option, 30 years of bloodshed to get to this point of fragile peace, the Shinners won't countenance being in coalition with the Brits (i.e. the DUP if the are co-opted into a UK government) - never, never, never....

Indigo

Who said:

Many British Asians see a society that hardly inspires them to integrate. Indeed, they see aspects of modern Britain which are a threat to the values they hold dear - values which we should all hold dear. Asian families and communities are incredibly strong and cohesive, and have a sense of civic responsibility which puts the rest of us to shame. Not for the first time, I found myself thinking that it is mainstream Britain which needs to integrate more with the British Asian way of life, not the other way around.

I think the last sentence might be a hard sell at the moment.

[Deleted User]

Indigo

I may be wrong, but I imagine there's a difference between British Asians of Pakistani and of Indian origin in their average attitude to civic responsibility.

No_Offence_Alan

RodCrosby said:

Indigo said:

Even the number of seat a party stands in is dicey. The deposit for a seat is only £500. Its entirely possibly that some plutocrat with an ego would want to splash £325K on 650 no hope seats for the opportunity of appearing in the debates and possibly getting a plutocratgasm, it would be like the Referendum Party all over again.

The correct tests are obvious.

i) ministrable (rules out the Greens, SNP, DUP, UKIP, Respect, Loonies, etc), and;

ii) a national party (rules out the SNP, DUP, etc)

My personal choice would be 326 saved deposits at the previous election.

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, my fellow Charlies.

Mr. Patrick, we should (collectively, not blaming you) change to saying Asian British, not British Asians. British Asians makes the Asian aspect the name and the British bit an adjective. The core of identity should be Britain (as in African American).

Mr. Indigo, was it the former Archdruid of Canterbury when he called for Sharia Law on the radio and then tried to use Jedi mind tricks to persuade us he hadn't?

Indigo

Patrick said:

Indigo

I may be wrong, but I imagine there's a difference between British Asians of Pakistani and of Indian origin in their average attitude to civic responsibility.

Mr Patrick‌, I am sure you are right, I happen to be married to an asian, I am just not sure many of our countrymen see it that way at the moment. That sort of sentiment is going to convince a lot of the public that Dave is never going to take immigration seriously as well.

Mr Dancer: No is was our current First Lord of the Treasury.

RodCrosby

No_Offence_Alan said:

RodCrosby said:

Indigo said:

Even the number of seat a party stands in is dicey. The deposit for a seat is only £500. Its entirely possibly that some plutocrat with an ego would want to splash £325K on 650 no hope seats for the opportunity of appearing in the debates and possibly getting a plutocratgasm, it would be like the Referendum Party all over again.

The correct tests are obvious.

i) ministrable (rules out the Greens, SNP, DUP, UKIP, Respect, Loonies, etc), and;

ii) a national party (rules out the SNP, DUP, etc)

My personal choice would be 326 saved deposits at the previous election.

326 barely-saved deposits from the Natural Law or Referendum Party and no (or minimal) seats does not make a viable contender for ministerial office...

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Indigo, ......

What an arse.

RodCrosby

AFP: "Shots fired in a car chase north-east of Paris..."

5 miles NE of CDG Airport.

chestnut

Labour

ICM

Dec 2012 40% May 2013 34% (-6)
Dec 2013 37% May 2014 31% (-6)
Dec 2014 33% May 2015 ....

Ipsos

Dec 2012 44% May 2013 34% (-10)
Dec 2013 37% May 2014 34% (-3)
Dec 2014 32% May 2015 ....


December=peak dark nights, let's talk NHS
May = spring, election campaigns and post budget

Morris_Dancer

F1: as mentioned yesterday, Honda appear to be getting screwed over by a crazy rule allowing all other engine manufacturers to develop in-season:
http://www1.skysports.com/f1/news/12479/9634294/mclaren-honda-engine-fears-for-jenson-button-and-fernando-alonso-in-2015

On the plus side, from a betting perspective, this assists two of my bets (on Mercedes) and doesn't affect, much, the tiny sum I put on Alonso to win in Australia, the first race.

However, from a fairness/sporting perspective, the rule is completely indefensible and shoddy. I hope it gets overturned. McLaren/Honda seem to be hoping for a compromise.

Financier

DH: Thank you for the figures. May I suggest a Median instead of Average next time as they tend to diminish the effects of outliers.

RE: Debates: I think we should give any significant up and coming parties at least one chance at a debate, as long as they are polling >5% for at least the last 2-3 months. Thus the 5, 3, 2 scenario for the 3 debates would allow for that. As both PC and SNP do not have GB candidates then they have to be excluded, as do NI parties..

Indigo

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Indigo, ......

What an arse.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/may/13/comment.communities

It seems to be around the same time he was hugging hoodies and huskies.

JPJ2

Let's just suppose (as is entirely possible, perhaps even likely) that the SNP do win a majority of Scotland's seats (30) in the GE2015 and that they are then critical to the formation of a UK Government, whether in formal coalition or otherwise.

What excuses will Ofcom and the massed ranks of self serving unionists find to exclude the SNP from the next series of debates in a second GE2015 or in say, GE2020?

Come on, I am sure many of you can come up with some "democratic" reason :-)

RodCrosby

Police pursuing Peugeot on the A2, hostages have been taken....

foxinsoxuk

JPJ2 said:

Let's just suppose (as is entirely possible, perhaps even likely) that the SNP do win a majority of Scotland's seats (30) in the GE2015 and that they are then critical to the formation of a UK Government, whether in formal coalition or otherwise.

What excuses will Ofcom and the massed ranks of self serving unionists find to exclude the SNP from the next series of debates in a second GE2015 or in say, GE2020?

Come on, I am sure many of you can come up with some "democratic" reason :-)

As SNP are as likely as the LDs, and more likely than UKIP to hold the balance of power, they should be at the debates, so we rUK voters can see which rUK policies they will support.

NickPalmer

Millsy said:

Labour's good performance in December will only exaggerate a reversal in January. Already we have YouGovs back to level pegging. The first phone polls will be interesting

I think that's right too - the underlying position is a near-tie. But...

audreyanne said:

AndyJS said:

Usually TV debates don't happen because the PM is 100% against and the leader of the opposition 100% in favour. For example Kinnock wanted them in 1992 while Major didn't, and Blair wanted them in 1997. But then Blair didn't want them in 2001 and 2005 while Hague and Howard did.

2010 was probably an exception because things were so bad for Brown that he thought he hadn't got anything to lose.

Yes there was a time when it was thought it only benefited the opposition and that it was a sign of desperation if a PM acquiesced. In fact I seem to recall many moons back that Mike Smithson led a thread on that topic.

...I think Cameron has thrown away one of the last opportunities to produce a different result from a near-tie. Debates would be a risk, but they would have been a possible game-changer either way, since people actually watch them with some interest. As it is, I think we're heading for 4 months of trench warfare with not a great deal changing.

RodCrosby

foxinsoxuk said:

JPJ2 said:

Let's just suppose (as is entirely possible, perhaps even likely) that the SNP do win a majority of Scotland's seats (30) in the GE2015 and that they are then critical to the formation of a UK Government, whether in formal coalition or otherwise.

What excuses will Ofcom and the massed ranks of self serving unionists find to exclude the SNP from the next series of debates in a second GE2015 or in say, GE2020?

Come on, I am sure many of you can come up with some "democratic" reason :-)

As SNP are as likely as the LDs, and more likely than UKIP to hold the balance of power, they should be at the debates, so we rUK voters can see which rUK policies they will support.

Since 92% of the voters can neither vote for or against the SNP, what is the point, pray tell?

JPJ2

foxinsoxuk

Thanks for your comment-good to see that rationality is not dead :-)