I'd be amazed if UKIP don't heavily back Tim Aker in Thurrock. He's one of their very best chances.
Though even the most ardent kipper would have to concede that the turnover of personnel at the top of UKIP seems to be inspired by the politics of Game Of Thrones.
There are already two full time young activists that have moved to Thurrock to campaign and work for him, plus Ukip have a few councillors there already.
Utter nonsense and quite bad form to recommend a bet on such baseless supposition
Although as I take it we are all on Ukip at tasty double figure prices, some might like to hedge
It's not baseless supposition. I was told this late last night by a Kipper.
I know you can't process anything that might be bad for UKIP, but some things are.
No need to get angry and spiteful I am just trying to help
You are wrong to infer there may be a lack if activists etc campaigning for Tim aker as two of Ukips top activists have already relocated to Thurrock to work for him, plus there are Ukip councillors in Thurrock who are obviously going to campaign as well
Last month he won a council seat and Carswell and oFlynn were canvassing for him in the run up
So rather than try one upmanship you should pay attention and bet accordingly
Only one of us gets angry, and it is isn't me.
That was last month, this month, he's screwed up the delivery of the manifesto, which means activists don't have policies to sell on the door step, it means it might not be properly costed and verified, and not ready before UKIP's Spring Conference.
But yes, that's not going to have any impact on how UKIP view Tim Aker now.
There is no need to make everything so personal. Ego shouldn't come into it
I am merely informing you, as someone local to Thurrock, and who knows the activists there, that it is incorrect to think that there will not be big support for Tim aker from the party in the lead up to the GE.
It's not a dig at you, I am just trying to help the site
Antifrank is one of your favourites and he has called you out on this as well so maybe you'll listen to him
"I think you underestimate how much of a fright tories got in the referendum and its continuing effect on Scottish politics. I for one am seriously considering voting Labour for the first time in my life in a probably vain attempt to stop the SNP taking Dundee West. It was a hot topic of conversation at the Dundee Conservative party lunch."
The fact that even you are only at the point of "seriously considering voting Labour" is indicative of the real limited likelihood of many following your possible path.
If it were about to happen, I would expect to see a consistent increase of Tory voting intentions in the low twenties, not continuing in the mid to upper teens as for virtually a generation.
Eventually, as I wrote on "UkPollingReport" about 5 years ago, most General Elections seats in Scotland will be liable to become Unionist Candidate V Nationalist Candidate, but we are not there yet.
o/t - Tim Aker has been sacked as UKIP's Policy Chief, because he hasn't delivered the manifesto on time.
He's annoyed a lot of Kippers by being a lightweight and rubbish.
If they don't campaign for him, Tories 6/1 in the seat
"If they don't campaign for him"
What does that mean?
It’s surely not long ago that Tim Aker was the best thing since sliced bread in Kipper circles. Or something like that. Sliced bread, incidentally was, IIRC introduced in the v late 50’s. Before then one used a breadknife and cut slices to taste!
Labour seat losses to the SNP in Scotland are not going to be as dramatic as Tories are desperately wishing for.
Which is bad news for them.
I very much hope you are right. Being a true Conservative means having the ability to take the long view and even a Miliband government, disastrous though that would no doubt be, would be temporary and the UK would survive. I would be less confident of it surviving the SNP winning the majority of Scottish seats.
Of course Conservatives in England may not take the same view.
Harperson making friends and influencing people, hope Labour dont want any favors from Obama in their first year if they win!
Yes and while Obama is a crap president, he probably knows more about our economy than Hatty...
It's the simultaneous arrogance and naivety which astound me. The belief that Obama is somehow Labour's President and how dare he form any sort of relationship with any political party other than them coupled with a lack of realisation that countries have interests, will deal with whoever they need to and that their own actions (e.g. Milliband's decision on the Syria vote) will have consequences.
Not to mention the silly comments - reportedly made by some Labour MPs - that somehow they thought that by buying the services of Obama's erstwhile advisors they were somehow getting some sort of special access to the President. Surely not?
We are at war and if that means being in alliance with the Soviet Union so be it.
Ruthie = Ribbentrop, Murphy = Molotov?
I look forward to the Barbarossian falling out, though relations already seem a bit strained between the Unionist and the non-Unionist.
Poor Jim Murphy, we've compared him to Model, Dietrich and Molotov in the last 24 hours.
I've never thought too much of him but going by the attention heaped on him by nats posters he must be quite good. Grey and Lamont were more pitied than anything else.
This is a work in progress, but by reckoning, no opposition party has lost more than 5 seats (that they held at the previous election) at a general election, and won that general election in terms of share of the vote.
So if Labour lose more than 5 in Scotland, they are unlikely to win the popular vote.
The closest they can hope for is Feb 1974, when they lost 14 MPs, lost the popular vote but won the most seats.
@The Greens - to be consistent with their sustainability, greater national self-reliance and saving the planet policies, they should also really be advocates of an optimum population in the UK. A la David Attenborough. That'd be well under 60m, and more like 30-35m.
Perversely enough, if followed through, that'd make them even more hawkish on immigration than UKIP (albeit for slightly different motives) which is precisely why they don't do it.
Rather than control immigration I suspect they'd go for a one-child policy a la Chinese and/or punitive taxation of those with larger than the approved family size. Quite how that would fit with "an everyone can come here" policy it's hard to see nor who would enforce any policies given that they don't believe in the nation state.
A shame because there are a great many truly "green" policies we do need e.g. local authorities not mowing grass verges prematurely or excessively, encouraging green roofs, effective recycling, allotments, front gardens which are gardens etc which could improve day to day life for many.
Yes, there's a synergy between small 'c' conservatism (preserving the beauty and sanctity of what you've got) and non-socialist green policies. David Cameron did dabble with this at the start.
In reality, Green policy on migration would lead to huge numbers moving here from the 3rd world, as Socrates has previously pointed out. I could see net migration running at 500-700k per year with open doors, plenty of whom would sleep rough in the UK where they could. None of the child/family policies would be able to offset that so, in practice, our population would greatly increase.
Unless of course their economic policies so royally (or should that be republically) screwed the country such that no-one wanted to come here.
It's the simultaneous arrogance and naivety which astound me. The belief that Obama is somehow Labour's President and how dare he form any sort of relationship with any political party other than them coupled with a lack of realisation that countries have interests, will deal with whoever they need to and that their own actions (e.g. Milliband's decision on the Syria vote) will have consequences.
Not to mention the silly comments - reportedly made by some Labour MPs - that somehow they thought that by buying the services of Obama's erstwhile advisors they were somehow getting some sort of special access to the President. Surely not?
It's just not very grown up.
It's very generous of Hatty and other Labour MPs to draw attention to the fact that Osborne's management of the economy is so highly regarded around the world.
We are at war and if that means being in alliance with the Soviet Union so be it.
Ruthie = Ribbentrop, Murphy = Molotov?
I look forward to the Barbarossian falling out, though relations already seem a bit strained between the Unionist and the non-Unionist.
Poor Jim Murphy, we've compared him to Model, Dietrich and Molotov in the last 24 hours.
I've never thought too much of him but going by the attention heaped on him by nats posters he must be quite good. Grey and Lamont were more pitied than anything else.
The Nats on twitter are the best when it comes to Jim Murphy, must be unrequited love.
Harperson making friends and influencing people, hope Labour dont want any favors from Obama in their first year if they win!
Yes and while Obama is a crap president, he probably knows more about our economy than Hatty...
It's the simultaneous arrogance and naivety which astound me. The belief that Obama is somehow Labour's President and how dare he form any sort of relationship with any political party other than them coupled with a lack of realisation that countries have interests, will deal with whoever they need to and that their own actions (e.g. Milliband's decision on the Syria vote) will have consequences.
Not to mention the silly comments - reportedly made by some Labour MPs - that somehow they thought that by buying the services of Obama's erstwhile advisors they were somehow getting some sort of special access to the President. Surely not?
@The Greens - to be consistent with their sustainability, greater national self-reliance and saving the planet policies, they should also really be advocates of an optimum population in the UK. A la David Attenborough. That'd be well under 60m, and more like 30-35m.
Perversely enough, if followed through, that'd make them even more hawkish on immigration than UKIP (albeit for slightly different motives) which is precisely why they don't do it.
Rather than control immigration I suspect they'd go for a one-child policy a la Chinese and/or punitive taxation of those with larger than the approved family size. Quite how that would fit with "an everyone can come here" policy it's hard to see nor who would enforce any policies given that they don't believe in the nation state.
A shame because there are a great many truly "green" policies we do need e.g. local authorities not mowing grass verges prematurely or excessively, encouraging green roofs, effective recycling, allotments, front gardens which are gardens etc which could improve day to day life for many.
Yes, there's a synergy between small 'c' conservatism (preserving the beauty and sanctity of what you've got) and non-socialist green policies. David Cameron did dabble with this at the start.
In reality, Green policy on migration would lead to huge numbers moving here from the 3rd world, as Socrates has previously pointed out. I could see net migration running at 500-700k per year with open doors, plenty of whom would sleep rough in the UK where they could. None of the child/family policies would be able to offset that so, in practice, our population would greatly increase.
Unless of course their economic policies so royally (or should that be republically) screwed the country such that no-one wanted to come here.
Perhaps that's what they want.
Gross migration is currently about 550k a year, and that's with reasonably tough limits on non-EU migration and a ban on benefits for most non-EU migrants. A guaranteed £71 a week if you turn up here, when most of the world's population lives on less than $2 a day would mean far greater migration than 700k-900k. We'd have several million every year, I'd have thought.
The feeling in Scotland is that this is not over. I walked past 3 or 4 YES posters in Edinburgh this morning walking into work. We are at war and if that means being in alliance with the Soviet Union so be it.
I see one NO Thanks poster still up in a window opposite my bus stop.
My favourite of the Yes posters still up is the one which someone has stuck an additional poster above it saying "STILL"
They've really got it in for him at Ukip head office
Suzanne Evans (@SuzanneEvans1) 20/01/2015 10:20 Fab @Tim_Aker is extremely bright & done excellent job on @UKIP policy. Only MEP commitments mean he can't continue. A tough act to follow.
As I say this is no slight on you, I am just relaying what I know, and if anyone else had said Ukip would not be trying hard or supporting Tim aker in Thurrock I would have relied the same
Let's not argue all day about this, if you think you are on to something and fancy Ukip to get turned over in Thurrock go for it, the prices are nice
I'd be amazed if UKIP don't heavily back Tim Aker in Thurrock. s.
ge
It's not baseless supposition. I was told this late last night by a Kipper.
I know you can't process anything that might be bad for UKIP, but some things are.
ly
Only one of us gets angry, and it is isn't me.
That was last month, this month, he's screwed up the delivery of the manifesto, which means activists don't have policies to sell on the door step, it means it might not be properly costed and verified, and not ready before UKIP's Spring Conference.
But yes, that's not going to have any impact on how UKIP view Tim Aker now.
There is no need to make everything so personal. Ego shouldn't come into it
I am merely informing you, as someone local to Thurrock, and who knows the activists there, that it is incorrect to think that there will not be big support for Tim aker from the party in the lead up to the GE.
It's not a dig at you, I am just trying to help the site
Antifrank is one of your favourites and he has called you out on this as well so maybe you'll listen to him
Well Antifrank isn't privy to the information I had, but I'm sure this confirms that Kippers love Tim Aker and will be out campaigning for him
A senior Ukip insider fumed: “There was growing disquiet that none of us had seen hide nor hair on the policy front. It was especially annoying for candidates, who are banned from making any specific pledges before the manifesto is published. They don’t know what to tell voters on the doorstep.”
Others were also irritated at Aker's "selfish" focus on his successful bid to become an MEP for the eastern region of England last May, and his bid to become MP for Thurrock this May, instead of finishing the party's manifesto.
This is a work in progress, but by reckoning, no opposition party has lost more than 5 seats (that they held at the previous election) at a general election, and won that general election in terms of share of the vote.
So if Labour lose more than 5 in Scotland, they are unlikely to win the popular vote.
The closest they can hope for is Feb 1974, when they lost 14 MPs, lost the popular vote but won the most seats.
A tremendous amount of precedents are going to be broken whatever happens in 2015.
@The Greens - to be consistent with their sustainability, greater national self-reliance and saving the planet policies, they should also really be advocates of an optimum population in the UK. A la David Attenborough. That'd be well under 60m, and more like 30-35m.
Perversely enough, if followed through, that'd make them even more hawkish on immigration than UKIP (albeit for slightly different motives) which is precisely why they don't do it.
Rather than control immigration I suspect they'd go for a one-child policy a la Chinese and/or punitive taxation of those with larger than the approved family size. Quite how that would fit with "an everyone can come here" policy it's hard to see nor who would enforce any policies given that they don't believe in the nation state.
A shame because there are a great many truly "green" policies we do need e.g. local authorities not mowing grass verges prematurely or excessively, encouraging green roofs, effective recycling, allotments, front gardens which are gardens etc which could improve day to day life for many.
Yes, there's a synergy between small 'c' conservatism (preserving the beauty and sanctity of what you've got) and non-socialist green policies. David Cameron did dabble with this at the start.
In reality, Green policy on migration would lead to huge numbers moving here from the 3rd world, as Socrates has previously pointed out. I could see net migration running at 500-700k per year with open doors, plenty of whom would sleep rough in the UK where they could. None of the child/family policies would be able to offset that so, in practice, our population would greatly increase.
Unless of course their economic policies so royally (or should that be republically) screwed the country such that no-one wanted to come here.
Perhaps that's what they want.
Gross migration is currently about 550k a year, and that's with reasonably tough limits on non-EU migration and a ban on benefits for most non-EU migrants. A guaranteed £71 a week if you turn up here, when most of the world's population lives on less than $2 a day would mean far greater migration than 700k-900k. We'd have several million every year, I'd have thought.
Harperson making friends and influencing people, hope Labour dont want any favors from Obama in their first year if they win!
Yes and while Obama is a crap president, he probably knows more about our economy than Hatty...
It's the simultaneous arrogance and naivety which astound me. The belief that Obama is somehow Labour's President and how dare he form any sort of relationship with any political party other than them coupled with a lack of realisation that countries have interests, will deal with whoever they need to and that their own actions (e.g. Milliband's decision on the Syria vote) will have consequences.
Not to mention the silly comments - reportedly made by some Labour MPs - that somehow they thought that by buying the services of Obama's erstwhile advisors they were somehow getting some sort of special access to the President. Surely not?
This is a work in progress, but by reckoning, no opposition party has lost more than 5 seats (that they held at the previous election) at a general election, and won that general election in terms of share of the vote.
So if Labour lose more than 5 in Scotland, they are unlikely to win the popular vote.
The closest they can hope for is Feb 1974, when they lost 14 MPs, lost the popular vote but won the most seats.
A tremendous amount of precedents are going to be broken whatever happens in 2015.
The feeling in Scotland is that this is not over. I walked past 3 or 4 YES posters in Edinburgh this morning walking into work. We are at war and if that means being in alliance with the Soviet Union so be it.
I see one NO Thanks poster still up in a window opposite my bus stop.
My favourite of the Yes posters still up is the one which someone has stuck an additional poster above it saying "STILL"
Lack of policies hasn't especially harmed UKIP so far. There's a possibility some leftwing economics could lose them votes (net).
According to the weather forecast there'll be a whole two hours today when the temperature's above zero. Road outside my house is in danger of turning into an ice rink.
@The Greens - to be consistent with their sustainability, greater national self-reliance and saving the planet policies, they should also really be advocates of an optimum population in the UK. A la David Attenborough. That'd be well under 60m, and more like 30-35m.
Perversely enough, if followed through, that'd make them even more hawkish on immigration than UKIP (albeit for slightly different motives) which is precisely why they don't do it.
Rather than control immigration I suspect they'd go for a one-child policy a la Chinese and/or punitive taxation of those with larger than the approved family size. Quite how that would fit with "an everyone can come here" policy it's hard to see nor who would enforce any policies given that they don't believe in the nation state.
A shame because there are a great many truly "green" policies we do need e.g. local authorities not mowing grass verges prematurely or excessively, encouraging green roofs, effective recycling, allotments, front gardens which are gardens etc which could improve day to day life for many.
Yes, there's a synergy between small 'c' conservatism (preserving the beauty and sanctity of what you've got) and non-socialist green policies. David Cameron did dabble with this at the start.
In reality, Green policy on migration would lead to huge numbers moving here from the 3rd world, as Socrates has previously pointed out. I could see net migration running at 500-700k per year with open doors, plenty of whom would sleep rough in the UK where they could. None of the child/family policies would be able to offset that so, in practice, our population would greatly increase.
Unless of course their economic policies so royally (or should that be republically) screwed the country such that no-one wanted to come here.
Perhaps that's what they want.
Gross migration is currently about 550k a year, and that's with reasonably tough limits on non-EU migration and a ban on benefits for most non-EU migrants. A guaranteed £71 a week if you turn up here, when most of the world's population lives on less than $2 a day would mean far greater migration than 700k-900k. We'd have several million every year, I'd have thought.
I agree gross migration would be well north of a million. I'm factoring in shed-loads of Brits and others leaving each year for sunnier climes.
The feeling in Scotland is that this is not over. I walked past 3 or 4 YES posters in Edinburgh this morning walking into work. We are at war and if that means being in alliance with the Soviet Union so be it.
I see one NO Thanks poster still up in a window opposite my bus stop.
My favourite of the Yes posters still up is the one which someone has stuck an additional poster above it saying "STILL"
I'd be amazed if UKIP don't heavily back Tim Aker in Thurrock. s.
ge
It's not baseless supposition. I was told this late last night by a Kipper.
I know you can't process anything that might be bad for UKIP, but some things are.
ly
Only one of us gets angry, and it is isn't me.
That was last month, this month, he's screwed up the delivery of the manifesto, which means activists don't have policies to sell on the door step, it means it might not be properly costed and verified, and not ready before UKIP's Spring Conference.
But yes, that's not going to have any impact on how UKIP view Tim Aker now.
There is no need to make everything so personal. Ego shouldn't come into it
I am merely informing you, as someone local to Thurrock, and who knows the activists there, that it is incorrect to think that there will not be big support for Tim aker from the party in the lead up to the GE.
It's not a dig at you, I am just trying to help the site
Antifrank is one of your favourites and he has called you out on this as well so maybe you'll listen to him
Well Antifrank isn't privy to the information I had, but I'm sure this confirms that Kippers love Tim Aker and will be out campaigning for him
A senior Ukip insider fumed: “There was growing disquiet that none of us had seen hide nor hair on the policy front. It was especially annoying for candidates, who are banned from making any specific pledges before the manifesto is published. They don’t know what to tell voters on the doorstep.”
Others were also irritated at Aker's "selfish" focus on his successful bid to become an MEP for the eastern region of England last May, and his bid to become MP for Thurrock this May, instead of finishing the party's manifesto.
They've really got it in for him at Ukip head office
Suzanne Evans (@SuzanneEvans1) 20/01/2015 10:20 Fab @Tim_Aker is extremely bright & done excellent job on @UKIP policy. Only MEP commitments mean he can't continue. A tough act to follow.
As I say this is no slight on you, I am just relaying what I know, and if anyone else had said Ukip would not be trying hard or supporting Tim aker in Thurrock I would have said the same
Let's not argue all day about this, if you think you are on to something and fancy Ukip to get turned over in Thurrock go for it, the prices are nice
I think its the bookies have been slow to react to events in Scotland, which is odd given the polling evidence and feedback from those of us on the ground in Scotland. I think those punters who are waiting for Lord Ashcroft's constituency polling before committing have potentially missed one of the best ever political betting opportunities.
I’ve avoided the constituency markets and focused my betting on William Hill’s SLAB seats market. I’ve built a decent position in the 0-20 seats area, I’ll make profits if SLAB wins 0-5, 6-10, 11-15 and will break even at 16-20 seats. I built most of my 0-5 position at 125/1 (now down to 8/1) and it would pay out £18,000. Realistically though 11-15 seats at 5/1, is probably the best value bet.
Harperson making friends and influencing people, hope Labour dont want any favors from Obama in their first year if they win!
Yes and while Obama is a crap president, he probably knows more about our economy than Hatty...
Such a crap president that the US has had better growth than us over his time in office?
He is crap but the worst thing for Harperson is that she thought that he was 'one of us' and would never praise a Tory. He has let her down - so she responds, as do all the left, with (ill-concealed) hatred.
The feeling in Scotland is that this is not over. I walked past 3 or 4 YES posters in Edinburgh this morning walking into work. We are at war and if that means being in alliance with the Soviet Union so be it.
I see one NO Thanks poster still up in a window opposite my bus stop.
My favourite of the Yes posters still up is the one which someone has stuck an additional poster above it saying "STILL"
But the Waffen YesYes will never surrender.
Ah, I love a bit of cheap Godwinism in the morning.
Having policies that nobody knew didn't harm the Lib Dems much until they became noticeable re Cleggasm. Then their kit bag of goodies became slightly better known... like amnesty for illegal immigrants for example...
The Greenies will no doubt encounter the same issues - a party can only be a blank slate when they're a protest vote - get too much traction and all of sudden what you say gets noticed by the press.
Kippers have the same issues - but their core vote is pretty hard, though doesn't have much of a I Voted Last Time base.
Lack of policies hasn't especially harmed UKIP so far. There's a possibility some leftwing economics could lose them votes (net).
According to the weather forecast there'll be a whole two hours today when the temperature's above zero. Road outside my house is in danger of turning into an ice rink.
Suzanne Evans (@SuzanneEvans1) Dep Chairman UKIP 20/01/2015 10:20 Fab @Tim_Aker is extremely bright & done excellent job on @UKIP policy. Only MEP commitments mean he can't continue. A tough act to follow.
Just like one of those endorsements from a football club Chairman.
The feeling in Scotland is that this is not over. I walked past 3 or 4 YES posters in Edinburgh this morning walking into work. We are at war and if that means being in alliance with the Soviet Union so be it.
I see one NO Thanks poster still up in a window opposite my bus stop.
My favourite of the Yes posters still up is the one which someone has stuck an additional poster above it saying "STILL"
Harperson making friends and influencing people, hope Labour dont want any favors from Obama in their first year if they win!
Yes and while Obama is a crap president, he probably knows more about our economy than Hatty...
Such a crap president that the US has had better growth than us over his time in office?
He is crap but the worst thing for Harperson is that she thought that he was 'one of us' and would never praise a Tory. He has let her down - so she responds, as do all the left, with (ill-concealed) hatred.
And he has his own agenda. Which may or may not coincide with the best interests of the US, although he unquestionably thinks it does. Britain are lower down his priority list, as are the interests of the opposition in Britain. In fact they are lower.
I'd be amazed if UKIP don't heavily back Tim Aker in Thurrock. s.
ge
It's not baseless supposition. I was told this late last night by a Kipper.
I know you can't process anything that might be bad for UKIP, but some things are.
ly
Only one of us gets angry, and it is isn't me.
That was last month, this month, he's screwed up the delivery of the manifesto, which means activists don't have policies to sell on the door step, it means it might not be properly costed and verified, and not ready before UKIP's Spring Conference.
But yes, that's not going to have any impact on how UKIP view Tim Aker now.
There is no need to make everything so personal. Ego shouldn't come into it
I am merely informing you, as someone local to Thurrock, and who knows the activists there, that it is incorrect to think that there will not be big support for Tim aker from the party in the lead up to the GE.
It's not a dig at you, I am just trying to help the site
Antifrank is one of your favourites and he has called you out on this as well so maybe you'll listen to him
Well Antifrank isn't privy to the information I had, but I'm sure this confirms that Kippers love Tim Aker and will be out campaigning for him
A senior Ukip insider fumed: “There was growing disquiet that none of us had seen hide nor hair on the policy front. It was especially annoying for candidates, who are banned from making any specific pledges before the manifesto is published. They don’t know what to tell voters on the doorstep.”
Others were also irritated at Aker's "selfish" focus on his successful bid to become an MEP for the eastern region of England last May, and his bid to become MP for Thurrock this May, instead of finishing the party's manifesto.
They've really got it in for him at Ukip head office
Suzanne Evans (@SuzanneEvans1) 20/01/2015 10:20 Fab @Tim_Aker is extremely bright & done excellent job on @UKIP policy. Only MEP commitments mean he can't continue. A tough act to follow.
As I say this is no slight on you, I am just relaying what I know, and if anyone else had said Ukip would not be trying hard or supporting Tim aker in Thurrock I would have said the same
Let's not argue all day about this, if you think you are on to something and fancy Ukip to get turned over in Thurrock go for it, the prices are nice
The feeling in Scotland is that this is not over. I walked past 3 or 4 YES posters in Edinburgh this morning walking into work. We are at war and if that means being in alliance with the Soviet Union so be it.
I see one NO Thanks poster still up in a window opposite my bus stop.
My favourite of the Yes posters still up is the one which someone has stuck an additional poster above it saying "STILL"
But the Waffen YesYes will never surrender.
Ah, I love a bit of cheap Godwinism in the morning.
This is a work in progress, but by reckoning, no opposition party has lost more than 5 seats (that they held at the previous election) at a general election, and won that general election in terms of share of the vote.
So if Labour lose more than 5 in Scotland, they are unlikely to win the popular vote.
The closest they can hope for is Feb 1974, when they lost 14 MPs, lost the popular vote but won the most seats.
The feeling in Scotland is that this is not over. I walked past 3 or 4 YES posters in Edinburgh this morning walking into work. We are at war and if that means being in alliance with the Soviet Union so be it.
I see one NO Thanks poster still up in a window opposite my bus stop.
My favourite of the Yes posters still up is the one which someone has stuck an additional poster above it saying "STILL"
But the Waffen YesYes will never surrender.
They don't need to, they won (the war not the battle). Scotland can never in my view return to the status quo ante. Deep devomax / federal UK or independence are inevitable.
No doubt TSE will regale us with multiple historical military examlpes - but sometimes you need to lose a battle in order to win a war (Russians 1941?). And winning a battle can lose you the war. Pyrrhus comes to mind. The Sindy 'win' was a Pyrrhic victory because it set in stone an unsurvivable structure. England won't forever accept Scottish whingeing and 20% greater public spending per capita. At some point EVFEL or the end of Barnett will get elected in England. The teddy will definitely end up in the corner. Devolution = Pandora's Box and it's been opened.
The feeling in Scotland is that this is not over. I walked past 3 or 4 YES posters in Edinburgh this morning walking into work. We are at war and if that means being in alliance with the Soviet Union so be it.
I see one NO Thanks poster still up in a window opposite my bus stop.
My favourite of the Yes posters still up is the one which someone has stuck an additional poster above it saying "STILL"
But the Waffen YesYes will never surrender.
Ah, I love a bit of cheap Godwinism in the morning.
This is a work in progress, but by reckoning, no opposition party has lost more than 5 seats (that they held at the previous election) at a general election, and won that general election in terms of share of the vote.
So if Labour lose more than 5 in Scotland, they are unlikely to win the popular vote.
The closest they can hope for is Feb 1974, when they lost 14 MPs, lost the popular vote but won the most seats.
It's the simultaneous arrogance and naivety which astound me. The belief that Obama is somehow Labour's President and how dare he form any sort of relationship with any political party other than them coupled with a lack of realisation that countries have interests, will deal with whoever they need to and that their own actions (e.g. Milliband's decision on the Syria vote) will have consequences.
Not to mention the silly comments - reportedly made by some Labour MPs - that somehow they thought that by buying the services of Obama's erstwhile advisors they were somehow getting some sort of special access to the President. Surely not?
It's just not very grown up.
It's very generous of Hatty and other Labour MPs to draw attention to the fact that Osborne's management of the economy is so highly regarded around the world.
Though I have to say that British party leaders tend to over-estimate the extent to which being seen with the US President and treated as his chum impresses voters over here.
It would be nice to have PMs with a hard-headed view of British interests rather than, as so often, behaving like a needy teenager desperate to be liked by the cool kid of the class. It's demeaning, unrealistic and tends to lead to bad policy-making.
And completely unrelated to that point - I suppose there's no chance of seeing the Chilcot Report in the foreseeable future? That's one report I would like to see leaked.
Harperson making friends and influencing people, hope Labour dont want any favors from Obama in their first year if they win!
Yes and while Obama is a crap president, he probably knows more about our economy than Hatty...
Such a crap president that the US has had better growth than us over his time in office?
He is crap but the worst thing for Harperson is that she thought that he was 'one of us' and would never praise a Tory. He has let her down - so she responds, as do all the left, with (ill-concealed) hatred.
And he has his own agenda. Which may or may not coincide with the best interests of the US, although he unquestionably thinks it does. Britain are lower down his priority list, as are the interests of the opposition in Britain. In fact they are lower.
It's the simultaneous arrogance and naivety which astound me. The belief that Obama is somehow Labour's President and how dare he form any sort of relationship with any political party other than them coupled with a lack of realisation that countries have interests, will deal with whoever they need to and that their own actions (e.g. Milliband's decision on the Syria vote) will have consequences.
Not to mention the silly comments - reportedly made by some Labour MPs - that somehow they thought that by buying the services of Obama's erstwhile advisors they were somehow getting some sort of special access to the President. Surely not?
It's just not very grown up.
It's very generous of Hatty and other Labour MPs to draw attention to the fact that Osborne's management of the economy is so highly regarded around the world.
Agreed - I knew her brother quite well in the 1980s - the general consensus then was 'nice but dim'. She's still dim.
Having policies that nobody knew didn't harm the Lib Dems much until they became noticeable re Cleggasm. Then their kit bag of goodies became slightly better known... like amnesty for illegal immigrants for example... ................Kippers have the same issues - but their core vote is pretty hard, though doesn't have much of a I Voted Last Time base.
Good morning, everyone. Lack of policies hasn't especially harmed UKIP so far. There's a possibility some leftwing economics could lose them votes (net). ......
Contrast. 1. We often read on here statements from Kippers on why they left the Conservatives and joined UKIP. Usually they are all about a few clear principles or promises that they view as broken. Fair enough we can all understand principled people. They also seem to believe in UKIP even though the 2010 manifesto is trashed and the 2015 manifesto is..... 2. We are thus in a situation with UKIP where their policies are the most fluid of any major/medium sized party in areas such as NHS, Benefit cuts etc etc. So do the exConservative Kippers on here have a list of items that would trigger their resignation from UKIP? If Yes what are they?
The feeling in Scotland is that this is not over. I walked past 3 or 4 YES posters in Edinburgh this morning walking into work. We are at war and if that means being in alliance with the Soviet Union so be it.
I see one NO Thanks poster still up in a window opposite my bus stop.
My favourite of the Yes posters still up is the one which someone has stuck an additional poster above it saying "STILL"
But the Waffen YesYes will never surrender.
Surely even less clever and funny than "YesNP"?
You did a good job taking on the PBtory faeces hurlers the other night. Please don't align yourself with them.
So looking at the Panelbase poll and running the numbers through SMAPS on the basis of 75% of the Yes vote going SNP/Green and 8% of the no vote going SNP /Green that gives the SNP 23 seats. Increasing that to 79% and 11% (by assuming that the majority of Other is Green votes) that gives the SNP 52 seats.
That's a very important point. If you take the current Scottish polling as your base line (adjusting for a small amount of swingback to Labour), small differences in swing produce huge differences in seat numbers.
At the 2000 vote confidence level (SNP need to win a seat by 2000 votes to consider it a win) then the 75/8 weighting sees them win only 12 seats overall and lose a number of their current seats.
At 79/11 at 2000 votes they win 27.
However, plugging in the Survation numbers (87.6% of Yes voters and 16.8% of No voters voting SNP or Green) gives the SNP taking 57 seats at 2000 vote margin and 56 seats at 4000 vote margin.
What exactly lies behind your wish to find any scrap of doubt to deny the extent of the move to the SNP which is confirmed by so much of the overwhelming evidence.
Six local by elections mainly in rural seats is a poor guide to trends compared to the hard evidence of opinion polls and soaring SNP membership. There are two reasons for this apart from the abvious fact that six is too small a sample.
One is that the comparison is with 2012 when the SNP got c 30 per cent of the vote not the c 20 per cent of 2010. It also compares muti member wards of 2012 with single candidate by elections!
Two is the presence of independents. For example the only one of these local elections I have any knowledge of is Troup, a rural ward in Aberdeenshire where the SNP won the seat from the Tories in late November. I happen to know the popular local independent candidate who is well known as an SNP and YES activist and got some hundreds of votes. Under these circunstances of a split vote then the SNP performance was very strong indeed.
Nor are the odds on individual seats a great guide. I have been interested in politics for some time but have not as yet placed a wager on an individual seat. I still think that the SNP are on course for 30 plus seats as reflected in Sporting Index and the largest party betting.
It just seems that when the SNP membership soars it is dismissed (wrongly) on this site as being a pound a member, when a poll shows a 10 per cent lead you headline it as some sort of setback for the SNP, when the next poll shows a 20 per cent lead it is only grudgingly accepted.
I could understand this if this was the view of some of the more animated posters but of the site itself?
Perhaps it is just a case of "there are none so blind as those who will not see"
Regarding one chap I knew it was once said. "You do not get to look like XXX by staying in at night."
The sad reality is that corporate life at the top is very punishing and frequent international business trips to run far flung empires results in an early death.
I don't think that someone who is the candidate for one of UKIP's top target seats ought to be writing the manifesto. He simply wouldn't have the time.
I'd be amazed if this had any impact on Tim Aker's chances in Thurrock.
What exactly lies behind your wish to find any scrap of doubt to deny the extent of the move to the SNP which is confirmed by so much of the overwhelming evidence.
Can you parse that for me? I've no idea what you mean.
What exactly lies behind your wish to find any scrap of doubt to deny the extent of the move to the SNP which is confirmed by so much of the overwhelming evidence.
Can you parse that for me? I've no idea what you mean.
Regarding one chap I knew it was once said. "You do not get to look like XXX by staying in at night."
The sad reality is that corporate life at the top is very punishing and frequent international business trips to run far flung empires results in an early death.
Talking of age, since Alex Salmond resigned I think that at 50 I am now older than the leaders of the five biggest political parties in the UK - even Nigel Farage, who I always assumed was ten years my senior at least. That frightens and upsets me.
Workington has finally shortlisted...not it was such a difficult task given they had 5 applications (4 localish women and 1 outsider) and they shortlisted all of them.
Talking of age, since Alex Salmond resigned I think that at 50 I am now older than the leaders of the five biggest political parties in the UK - even Nigel Farage, who I always assumed was ten years my senior at least. That frightens and upsets me.
While Farage's pints and fags make him likable, they certainly aren't a good advert for ageing well!
"A new INSA poll for Bild has German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s CDU/CSU in the lead on 42% (-1%) followed by the SPD on 23%, the Greens on 10%, Die Linke on 9%, the anti-euro Alternative für Deutschland on 7% (-0.5%) and the liberal FDP on 3.5% (+1%)."
What exactly lies behind your wish to find any scrap of doubt to deny the extent of the move to the SNP which is confirmed by so much of the overwhelming evidence.
Can you parse that for me? I've no idea what you mean.
Regarding one chap I knew it was once said. "You do not get to look like XXX by staying in at night."
The sad reality is that corporate life at the top is very punishing and frequent international business trips to run far flung empires results in an early death.
"A new INSA poll for Bild has German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s CDU/CSU in the lead on 42% (-1%) followed by the SPD on 23%, the Greens on 10%, Die Linke on 9%, the anti-euro Alternative für Deutschland on 7% (-0.5%) and the liberal FDP on 3.5% (+1%)."
So after tentative steps to bring Die Linke into the fold we now have the potential emergence of another party that noone will want to enter a coalition with (AfD) potentially ensuring yet more grand coalitions as the only possible Government.
What exactly lies behind your wish to find any scrap of doubt to deny the extent of the move to the SNP which is confirmed by so much of the overwhelming evidence.
Can you parse that for me? I've no idea what you mean.
From looking into the Scottish polling methodologies it appears that Survation are weighting by Scottish region, whereas Panelbase and YouGov don't. I think given the uneven dispersion of SNP support, not weighting regionally is a flaw in Panelbase and YouGov's methodologies. YouGov weight by place of birth ie. Scotland, rUK and Overseas. Panelbase don't even try.
Workington is an armpit. I've been there a few times via my RPA work and frankly it couldn't be harder to get to. It took me 9 hours from Eastbourne. I can drive to Switzerland in 11hrs.
No wonder Jack Cunningham moved a load of HMG jobs there to prop the local economy up - no sensible business would choose that location unless they shipped everything electronically.
Workington has finally shortlisted...not it was such a difficult task given they had 5 applications (4 localish women and 1 outsider) and they shortlisted all of them.
What exactly lies behind your wish to find any scrap of doubt to deny the extent of the move to the SNP which is confirmed by so much of the overwhelming evidence.
Can you parse that for me? I've no idea what you mean.
I am fairly sure that the verb to parse existed long before computers. Indeed I remember it being used in Latin lessons at school when I was eleven.
What exactly lies behind your wish to find any scrap of doubt to deny the extent of the move to the SNP which is confirmed by so much of the overwhelming evidence.
Can you parse that for me? I've no idea what you mean.
I recall doing parsing in English lessons at school in the 1950s. It was, of course, a grammar school.
The feeling in Scotland is that this is not over. I walked past 3 or 4 YES posters in Edinburgh this morning walking into work. We are at war and if that means being in alliance with the Soviet Union so be it.
I see one NO Thanks poster still up in a window opposite my bus stop.
My favourite of the Yes posters still up is the one which someone has stuck an additional poster above it saying "STILL"
But the Waffen YesYes will never surrender.
Surely even less clever and funny than "YesNP"?
You did a good job taking on the PBtory faeces hurlers the other night. Please don't align yourself with them.
Just a bit of gentle rib tickling. Don't take it too seriously.
"Between being an MEP and duffing up Labour in Thurrock, it was only a matter of time before Aker stepped back from his party role, but only a fool would suggest he’s not still a serious player within the party."
What I mean is that I expected this site to present a neutral framework, in contrast to the far from neutral posters who are gloriously biased.
On virtually every other political subject - blue team, red team, yellow team, purple team, green team - I find it impossible to detect any sign of Mike's bias, although presumably he must have some.
When it comes to sensibly reporting on the SNP performance it is different and I was merely wondering why.
Mr. Observer, don't despair. You're probably younger than Caesar during the Civil War, and definitely younger than Lysimachus and Seleucus when they contested dominion of the world, or Antigonus Monopthalmus when he met his doom.
"Between being an MEP and duffing up Labour in Thurrock, it was only a matter of time before Aker stepped back from his party role, but only a fool would suggest he’s not still a serious player within the party."
If he wins Thurrock, no doubt he will be.
I am a little less convinced than I was that he will, in terms of UKIP being able to breakthrough in particular seats, but nevertheless it is a distinct possibility and I remember you getting some damn good odds before...
Charles Kennedy and Damien McBride also do (or should I more accurately say 'did') look much older than their years.
I'm lucky: I'm in my 30s and can still get occasionally ID'ed if I have a close shave, a short haircut and wear casual clothes.
On the other hand, it sometimes means people treat me a little bit differently in person because they assume I'm young, inexperienced and naive.
Not sure if it's fate or fortune, but FWIW I've never smoked, don't drink very much, and virtually never binge, am not really overweight, although I could lose a few pounds, aim to balance my work and life where I can, and I try to get at least 6+ hours sleep a night during the week.
Plenty of the most unhealthy politicos I used to see at Tory conferences failed on all of those.
Lack of policies hasn't especially harmed UKIP so far. There's a possibility some leftwing economics could lose them votes (net).
Why would it lose them votes when according to all the polls, leftwing economics are much more popular than rightwing economics?
If the stable they currently have is more right-wing than left-wing, then left-wign economics might cause people to leave whereas it won't convince left-wing people to join the party, by itself.
What I mean is that I expected this site to present a neutral framework, in contrast to the far from neutral posters who are gloriously biased.
On virtually every other political subject - blue team, red team, yellow team, purple team, green team - I find it impossible to detect any sign of Mike's bias, although presumably he must have some.
When it comes to sensibly reporting on the SNP performance it is different and I was merely wondering why.
Our host calls it as he sees it. He has to, or he risks losing money as a result. As with all of us, he will have unconscious biases.
Trying to work out what is happening in Scottish politics right now is really hard. As Sean Fear notes downthread:
"there's a strong bias towards the belief that what's occurred in the past will occur in the future. Labour have been dominant in Scotland for 50 years, and even people who dislike Labour can't quite believe that dominance is over."
You (and I) think that dominance is probably over. But we have to be ever-alert for signs that might not be the case. Our host is looking at every twitch with that in mind. It's not a stupid thing to do.
"Between being an MEP and duffing up Labour in Thurrock, it was only a matter of time before Aker stepped back from his party role, but only a fool would suggest he’s not still a serious player within the party."
Are we to believe that this Alker was writing up ukip policy on his own? And now it's going to be dashed off in a jiffy. Who ever heard of not being able to finish a manifesto? You do wonder at what goes on in Carswells head
This is a work in progress, but by reckoning, no opposition party has lost more than 5 seats (that they held at the previous election) at a general election, and won that general election in terms of share of the vote.
So if Labour lose more than 5 in Scotland, they are unlikely to win the popular vote.
The closest they can hope for is Feb 1974, when they lost 14 MPs, lost the popular vote but won the most seats.
Labour lost 4 (excl. by-election regains) in 1964.
The Tories lost 8 in 1924!
Almost every incoming government has lost seats, except Labour in 1997.
Oh, I think a few Tories would agree you, and Kippers - but not in the way you mean.
The site is Mike's. He can publish what he likes. There is no obligation on him to be neutral. Or to pretend to be. For example, Mr Manson's threads are very pro-Labour as we'd expect them to be. I'm chilled about it.
What I mean is that I expected this site to present a neutral framework, in contrast to the far from neutral posters who are gloriously biased.
On virtually every other political subject - blue team, red team, yellow team, purple team, green team - I find it impossible to detect any sign of Mike's bias, although presumably he must have some.
When it comes to sensibly reporting on the SNP performance it is different and I was merely wondering why.
Mr. Observer, don't despair. You're probably younger than Caesar during the Civil War, and definitely younger than Lysimachus and Seleucus when they contested dominion of the world, or Antigonus Monopthalmus when he met his doom.
Methuselah is the man in the Hebrew Bible reported to have lived the longest. Extra-biblical tradition maintains that he died on the 11th of Cheshvan of the year 1656, at the age of 969, seven days before the beginning of the Great Flood
"Between being an MEP and duffing up Labour in Thurrock, it was only a matter of time before Aker stepped back from his party role, but only a fool would suggest he’s not still a serious player within the party."
Are we to believe that this Alker was writing up ukip policy on his own? And now it's going to be dashed off in a jiffy. Who ever heard of not being able to finish a manifesto? You do wonder at what goes on in Carswells head
Aker likely got fed up with Farage changing his mind on a daily basis about where they were heading, hence an inevitable falling out.
Charles Kennedy and Damien McBride also do (or should I more accurately say 'did') look much older than their years.
I'm lucky: I'm in my 30s and can still get occasionally ID'ed if I have a close shave, a short haircut and wear casual clothes.
On the other hand, it sometimes means people treat me a little bit differently in person because they assume I'm young, inexperienced and naive.
Not sure if it's fate or fortune, but FWIW I've never smoked, don't drink very much, and virtually never binge, am not really overweight, although I could lose a few pounds, aim to balance my work and life where I can, and I try to get at least 6+ hours sleep a night during the week.
Plenty of the most unhealthy politicos I used to see at Tory conferences failed on all of those.
Talking of age, since Alex Salmond resigned I think that at 50 I am now older than the leaders of the five biggest political parties in the UK - even Nigel Farage, who I always assumed was ten years my senior at least. That frightens and upsets me.
While Farage's pints and fags make him likable, they certainly aren't a good advert for ageing well!
Pints and fags!? It's wine and cigars in private...
Comments
I look forward to the Barbarossian falling out, though relations already seem a bit strained between the Unionist and the non-Unionist.
I am merely informing you, as someone local to Thurrock, and who knows the activists there, that it is incorrect to think that there will not be big support for Tim aker from the party in the lead up to the GE.
It's not a dig at you, I am just trying to help the site
Antifrank is one of your favourites and he has called you out on this as well so maybe you'll listen to him
"I think you underestimate how much of a fright tories got in the referendum and its continuing effect on Scottish politics. I for one am seriously considering voting Labour for the first time in my life in a probably vain attempt to stop the SNP taking Dundee West. It was a hot topic of conversation at the Dundee Conservative party lunch."
The fact that even you are only at the point of "seriously considering voting Labour" is indicative of the real limited likelihood of many following your possible path.
If it were about to happen, I would expect to see a consistent increase of Tory voting intentions in the low twenties, not continuing in the mid to upper teens as for virtually a generation.
Eventually, as I wrote on "UkPollingReport" about 5 years ago, most General Elections seats in Scotland will be liable to become Unionist Candidate V Nationalist Candidate, but we are not there yet.
Of course Conservatives in England may not take the same view.
Not to mention the silly comments - reportedly made by some Labour MPs - that somehow they thought that by buying the services of Obama's erstwhile advisors they were somehow getting some sort of special access to the President. Surely not?
It's just not very grown up.
So if Labour lose more than 5 in Scotland, they are unlikely to win the popular vote.
The closest they can hope for is Feb 1974, when they lost 14 MPs, lost the popular vote but won the most seats.
In reality, Green policy on migration would lead to huge numbers moving here from the 3rd world, as Socrates has previously pointed out. I could see net migration running at 500-700k per year with open doors, plenty of whom would sleep rough in the UK where they could. None of the child/family policies would be able to offset that so, in practice, our population would greatly increase.
Unless of course their economic policies so royally (or should that be republically) screwed the country such that no-one wanted to come here.
Perhaps that's what they want.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jamieross/this-canadian-is-patiently-dealing-with-twitter-abuse-from-p
My favourite of the Yes posters still up is the one which someone has stuck an additional poster above it saying "STILL"
Suzanne Evans (@SuzanneEvans1)
20/01/2015 10:20
Fab @Tim_Aker is extremely bright & done excellent job on @UKIP policy. Only MEP commitments mean he can't continue. A tough act to follow.
As I say this is no slight on you, I am just relaying what I know, and if anyone else had said Ukip would not be trying hard or supporting Tim aker in Thurrock I would have relied the same
Let's not argue all day about this, if you think you are on to something and fancy Ukip to get turned over in Thurrock go for it, the prices are nice
A senior Ukip insider fumed: “There was growing disquiet that none of us had seen hide nor hair on the policy front. It was especially annoying for candidates, who are banned from making any specific pledges before the manifesto is published. They don’t know what to tell voters on the doorstep.”
Others were also irritated at Aker's "selfish" focus on his successful bid to become an MEP for the eastern region of England last May, and his bid to become MP for Thurrock this May, instead of finishing the party's manifesto.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/01/20/ukip-policy-chief-sacked-manifesto_n_6505052.html?utm_hp_ref=uk
It's almost all insane even for student union politics.
http://xkcd.com/1122/
Lack of policies hasn't especially harmed UKIP so far. There's a possibility some leftwing economics could lose them votes (net).
According to the weather forecast there'll be a whole two hours today when the temperature's above zero. Road outside my house is in danger of turning into an ice rink.
Suzanne Evans (@SuzanneEvans1)
20/01/2015 10:20
Fab @Tim_Aker is extremely bright & done excellent job on @UKIP policy. Only MEP commitments mean he can't continue. A tough act to follow.
As I say this is no slight on you, I am just relaying what I know, and if anyone else had said Ukip would not be trying hard or supporting Tim aker in Thurrock I would have said the same
Let's not argue all day about this, if you think you are on to something and fancy Ukip to get turned over in Thurrock go for it, the prices are nice
I’ve avoided the constituency markets and focused my betting on William Hill’s SLAB seats market. I’ve built a decent position in the 0-20 seats area, I’ll make profits if SLAB wins 0-5, 6-10, 11-15 and will break even at 16-20 seats. I built most of my 0-5 position at 125/1 (now down to 8/1) and it would pay out £18,000. Realistically though 11-15 seats at 5/1, is probably the best value bet.
Only one side were doing Nazi salutes..
The Greenies will no doubt encounter the same issues - a party can only be a blank slate when they're a protest vote - get too much traction and all of sudden what you say gets noticed by the press.
Kippers have the same issues - but their core vote is pretty hard, though doesn't have much of a I Voted Last Time base.
20/01/2015 10:20
Fab @Tim_Aker is extremely bright & done excellent job on @UKIP policy. Only MEP commitments mean he can't continue. A tough act to follow.
Just like one of those endorsements from a football club Chairman.
A thread just about the in-jokes here would be very amusing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1964
No doubt TSE will regale us with multiple historical military examlpes - but sometimes you need to lose a battle in order to win a war (Russians 1941?). And winning a battle can lose you the war. Pyrrhus comes to mind. The Sindy 'win' was a Pyrrhic victory because it set in stone an unsurvivable structure. England won't forever accept Scottish whingeing and 20% greater public spending per capita. At some point EVFEL or the end of Barnett will get elected in England. The teddy will definitely end up in the corner. Devolution = Pandora's Box and it's been opened.
I eat babies, send children up chimneys and plot evil plans to deliberately hurt the poor for entertainment.
All Tories are Nazis, didn't you get the memo?
It would be nice to have PMs with a hard-headed view of British interests rather than, as so often, behaving like a needy teenager desperate to be liked by the cool kid of the class. It's demeaning, unrealistic and tends to lead to bad policy-making.
And completely unrelated to that point - I suppose there's no chance of seeing the Chilcot Report in the foreseeable future? That's one report I would like to see leaked.
I honked with laughter at it. https://youtube.com/watch?v=erYpXzE9Pxs
1. We often read on here statements from Kippers on why they left the Conservatives and joined UKIP. Usually they are all about a few clear principles or promises that they view as broken. Fair enough we can all understand principled people. They also seem to believe in UKIP even though the 2010 manifesto is trashed and the 2015 manifesto is.....
2. We are thus in a situation with UKIP where their policies are the most fluid of any major/medium sized party in areas such as NHS, Benefit cuts etc etc. So do the exConservative Kippers on here have a list of items that would trigger their resignation from UKIP? If Yes what are they?
she applied for Labour selection in York Central. Outcome on mid February
She's in a good company of serial unsuccessful appliers (Rachel Maskell and Jo Coles). There's at least 1 local councillor in the running.
You did a good job taking on the PBtory faeces hurlers the other night. Please don't align yourself with them.
At 79/11 at 2000 votes they win 27.
However, plugging in the Survation numbers (87.6% of Yes voters and 16.8% of No voters voting SNP or Green) gives the SNP taking 57 seats at 2000 vote margin and 56 seats at 4000 vote margin.
Which just goes to show how stupid SMAPS is.
What exactly lies behind your wish to find any scrap of doubt to deny the extent of the move to the SNP which is confirmed by so much of the overwhelming evidence.
Six local by elections mainly in rural seats is a poor guide to trends compared to the hard evidence of opinion polls and soaring SNP membership. There are two reasons for this apart from the abvious fact that six is too small a sample.
One is that the comparison is with 2012 when the SNP got c 30 per cent of the vote not the
c 20 per cent of 2010. It also compares muti member wards of 2012 with single candidate by elections!
Two is the presence of independents. For example the only one of these local elections I have any knowledge of is Troup, a rural ward in Aberdeenshire where the SNP won the seat from the Tories in late November. I happen to know the popular local independent candidate who is well known as an SNP and YES activist and got some hundreds of votes. Under these circunstances of a split vote then the SNP performance was very strong indeed.
Nor are the odds on individual seats a great guide. I have been interested in politics for some time but have not as yet placed a wager on an individual seat. I still think that the SNP are on course for 30 plus seats as reflected in Sporting Index and the largest party betting.
It just seems that when the SNP membership soars it is dismissed (wrongly) on this site as being a pound a member, when a poll shows a 10 per cent lead you headline it as some sort of setback for the SNP, when the next poll shows a 20 per cent lead it is only grudgingly accepted.
I could understand this if this was the view of some of the more animated posters but of the site itself?
Perhaps it is just a case of "there are none so blind as those who will not see"
The sad reality is that corporate life at the top is very punishing and frequent international business trips to run far flung empires results in an early death.
I don't think that someone who is the candidate for one of UKIP's top target seats ought to be writing the manifesto. He simply wouldn't have the time.
I'd be amazed if this had any impact on Tim Aker's chances in Thurrock.
Quite sobering stuff.
Switch SNP for Labour and Labour for the Conservatives in Scotland and I think that is a good indication of what will happen.
"A new INSA poll for Bild has German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s CDU/CSU in the lead on 42% (-1%) followed by the SPD on 23%, the Greens on 10%, Die Linke on 9%, the anti-euro Alternative für Deutschland on 7% (-0.5%) and the liberal FDP on 3.5% (+1%)."
Been talking with him a lot lately and think it's rubbing off on me again!
When you catch me using hysteresis - I've gone native.
Re Aker - "you'll win nothing with kids".
More importantly, the Betfair most seats has finally broken the blue way... for how long?
Lab now 2.02/2.04 and Tory 1.99/2.00. Most recent matched is 2.04 for former and 2.00 for latter.
"Long-serving, more traditional, golf clubbing UKIP veterans are said to be “upset” by Carswell’s maverick modernising moves, and things are so bad that they sneeringly call him “that Tory” behind his back."
http://order-order.com/2015/01/20/ukip-hit-puberty-slam-doors-shouts-at-parentsfaragecarswell-fall-out-semi-denied-by-party/
https://www.warcraftlogs.com/reports/YctDM6aLbvAwZNW8#fight=7&type=damage-done&source=5
That's a "parse", I have no idea what Plato means by it ^_~
No wonder Jack Cunningham moved a load of HMG jobs there to prop the local economy up - no sensible business would choose that location unless they shipped everything electronically.
I am fairly sure that the verb to parse existed long before computers. Indeed I remember it being used in Latin lessons at school when I was eleven.
I recall doing parsing in English lessons at school in the 1950s. It was, of course, a grammar school.
Thanks for your kind words.
"Between being an MEP and duffing up Labour in Thurrock, it was only a matter of time before Aker stepped back from his party role, but only a fool would suggest he’s not still a serious player within the party."
What I mean is that I expected this site to present a neutral framework, in contrast to the far from neutral posters who are gloriously biased.
On virtually every other political subject - blue team, red team, yellow team, purple team, green team - I find it impossible to detect any sign of Mike's bias, although presumably he must have some.
When it comes to sensibly reporting on the SNP performance it is different and I was merely wondering why.
I am a little less convinced than I was that he will, in terms of UKIP being able to breakthrough in particular seats, but nevertheless it is a distinct possibility and I remember you getting some damn good odds before...
I'm lucky: I'm in my 30s and can still get occasionally ID'ed if I have a close shave, a short haircut and wear casual clothes.
On the other hand, it sometimes means people treat me a little bit differently in person because they assume I'm young, inexperienced and naive.
Not sure if it's fate or fortune, but FWIW I've never smoked, don't drink very much, and virtually never binge, am not really overweight, although I could lose a few pounds, aim to balance my work and life where I can, and I try to get at least 6+ hours sleep a night during the week.
Plenty of the most unhealthy politicos I used to see at Tory conferences failed on all of those.
Trying to work out what is happening in Scottish politics right now is really hard. As Sean Fear notes downthread:
"there's a strong bias towards the belief that what's occurred in the past will occur in the future. Labour have been dominant in Scotland for 50 years, and even people who dislike Labour can't quite believe that dominance is over."
You (and I) think that dominance is probably over. But we have to be ever-alert for signs that might not be the case. Our host is looking at every twitch with that in mind. It's not a stupid thing to do.
You do wonder at what goes on in Carswells head
The Tories lost 8 in 1924!
Almost every incoming government has lost seats, except Labour in 1997.
The site is Mike's. He can publish what he likes. There is no obligation on him to be neutral. Or to pretend to be. For example, Mr Manson's threads are very pro-Labour as we'd expect them to be. I'm chilled about it.
Mr. Grandiose, indeed, that was just my thinking.
Having a blank sheet of paper allows people to project their own wishes.
Funny how when you're young you want to look older, then when you're older - you're desperate to look young!
If only I knew Dorian Gray's artist.
It's wine and cigars in private...