Bit of mid-morning betting. I've taken a position on Lab/LD/SNP coalition. Probably a bit bonkers but then this whole election is looking a bit bonkers.
"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
It appears that the voting intention question was not asked first, and followed a question about oil price. This may well have depressed the SNP voting intention figure:
I am sure the price of oil will be mentioned before the actual poll in May.
I'm sure it will. And this poll tells us something useful (it seems that if Labour bang on about the price of oil, they will get merely hammered in Scotland rather potentially annihilated).
But as a poll it cannot be directly compared with other polls on Scottish voting intention nor with the previous Panelbase poll.
while the SNP run a traditionally positive campaign
Like they did in the closing eons of the neverendum?
Save the NHS!
And there's a difference between 'positive' and 'mendacious'.......
The referendum was a campaign by Yes Scotland with a cross party board and policies. Having said that, the closing weeks of the First Referendum were spun as how the NHS is better in Scotland not how it is worse in England. Your mileage may vary, as clearly you have opinions unlikely to change.
In manifesto and election work the SNP have always run particularly positive campaigns.
However, the rub is this. It doesn't matter what you think, or I think. It is the perception of the public at large which matters. In this the SNP are more popular today than when they first came to power and their leadership has very positive approval ratings. This is in stark contrast to any recent UK government or leaders and the LibLab Pact in Holyrood.
"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.
He never changed his mind, he was always heading to where [he thought] the next votes were. Trouble is that more votes were surprisingly elusive after the kipper share topped out at 18% or so and started to slide. Thus Nigel's frantic scrambling and socialist flirtation, ironically alienating a lot of the old guard. The table legs got ever shorter as he ran from corner to corner, policy saw in hand...
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.
The stable they have is very right-wing on social issues and immigration, but according to the polls, the majority are left-wing on economic issues, including opposition to further spending cuts.
The SNP say they want to govern the uk with Labour, according to the Times. I do not see how any region should hold the rest hostage. Pushing for a policy for the whole UK by a UK wide party is one thing. Can we stomach Labour peddling pork to the SNP to stay in power? With Salmond as deputy PM?
The SNP say they want to govern the uk with Labour, according to the Times. I do not see how any region should hold the rest hostage. Pushing for a policy for the whole UK by a UK wide party is one thing. Can we stomach Labour peddling pork to the SNP to stay in power? With Salmond as deputy PM?
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.
According to the BES UKIP's proportion of 'non-voters' in their support is much the same as Con/Lab/LD.
The SNP say they want to govern the uk with Labour, according to the Times. I do not see how any region should hold the rest hostage. Pushing for a policy for the whole UK by a UK wide party is one thing. Can we stomach Labour peddling pork to the SNP to stay in power? With Salmond as deputy PM?
The public doesn't get a say, other than to vote in their individual constituency.
"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
Carswell left the Conservatives because he judged that the Conservatives were not keeping all their manifesto promises. In UKIP Carswell has joined a party that he is able to support because it has no manifesto promises to keep.
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.
It's all in Baz Lurhmann: Enjoy the power and beauty of your youth. Oh, never mind.. You won't appreciate the power and beauty of your youth until they'd faded. But, trust me, when you look back in 20 years you'll appreciate how much possibility lay before you and just how fabulous you really looked.
The SNP say they want to govern the uk with Labour, according to the Times. I do not see how any region should hold the rest hostage. Pushing for a policy for the whole UK by a UK wide party is one thing. Can we stomach Labour peddling pork to the SNP to stay in power? With Salmond as deputy PM?
Con most seats, Dave screwed.
I'm not sure an SNP/Lab coalition is viable.
The Sunday Times said that one of the SNP coalition demands will be to give Holyrood the power to call all future plebiscites.
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.
Famously, the Tories lost Glasgow Cathcart in 1979 (their only loss, apart from odd by election “sports”) which resulted in the Glaswegian Teddy Taylor coming to Southend.
"Methuselah is the man in the Hebrew Bible reported to have lived the longest."
An interesting quiz question.
But I'd answer 'Enoch' as he seemed to have been taken up to heaven without actually dying and there's no record of him plummeting from the sky since. So that could make him 2,500 plus.
"No. That used to happen but it will not post referendum. Scottish tories know what their priority is and that is remaining British."
Very true-but the result of their votes this time will not determine whether Scotland becomes independent, or even if their is another referendum.
For that reason alone, manyTtory leaning opponents of Labour will continue to vote SNP to stop Labour NOW, rather than vote for a unionist candidate to stop the not-happening-NOW independence.
Consider how effective the SNP strategy of-correctly-telling the electorate in 2011 Holyrood that an SNP vote and victory would not automatically trigger independence.
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 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.
You seem to be saying there is no guarantee or threshold that could ever be provided under which you would support Scotland's natural independence, whereas you would be more than willing to accept the poverty and oppression of an SSR if it meant maintaining the Union.
The Loyalist No Matter What attitude is truly bizarre.
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.
It's all in Baz Lurhmann: Enjoy the power and beauty of your youth. Oh, never mind.. You won't appreciate the power and beauty of your youth until they'd faded. But, trust me, when you look back in 20 years you'll appreciate how much possibility lay before you and just how fabulous you really looked.
Wondering what chance there is of "that Tory" Carswell leaving UKIP before the election? Would be a knee to the balls for Farage and the Kippers if he did....
Mr. CD13, are Enoch and Elijah the same chap? Didn't read much of the Old Testament, but have a vague notion Elijah was taken up to Heaven on a chariot of fire.
In Greek myth there's a chap (who became the first grasshopper or cricket) who was granted immortality after his divine lady friend begged Zeus to make it so. But he didn't give everlasting youth, so the chap just got older and older and was soon discarded by his lady friend.
Good knock by James Taylor this morning in England's ODI win, reminds me of why Kevin Pietersen is such a self centred idiot
Last week on the big bash commentary pietersen said young English batsmen were texting him for advice and how he wishes he was at the other end to guide them etc
When Taylor made his test debut he struggled through to tea against South Africa batting with pietersen... When they walked back to the pavilion pietersen left Taylor on his own while he chatted and joked with his Saffer mates..
Action speaks louder than words, and his actions speak for him time and again
"Methuselah is the man in the Hebrew Bible reported to have lived the longest."
An interesting quiz question.
But I'd answer 'Enoch' as he seemed to have been taken up to heaven without actually dying and there's no record of him plummeting from the sky since. So that could make him 2,500 plus.
OGH & Moderator Suggestions for threads 1. What if EdM loses GE and has to resign - runners and riders based on current voting system. 2. What if DC loses GE and has to resign - runners and riders based on current voting system.
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.
Even in 1983, when the Tories gained dozens of seats, they lost quite a few (including a couple in Liverpool to Labour).
Wondering what chance there is of "that Tory" Carswell leaving UKIP before the election? Would be a knee to the balls for Farage and the Kippers if he did....
Good knock by James Taylor this morning in England's ODI win, reminds me of why Kevin Pietersen is such a self centred idiot
Last week on the big bash commentary pietersen said young English batsmen were texting him for advice and how he wishes he was at the other end to guide them etc
When Taylor made his test debut he struggled through to tea against South Africa batting with pietersen... When they walked back to the pavilion pietersen left Taylor on his own while he chatted and joked with his Saffer mates..
Action speaks louder than words, and his actions speak for him time and again
Andrew Pierce @toryboypierce Is Labour MP Chris Bryant MP, ex-£33,000-a-year Cheltenham College, best placed to criticise public school star James Blunt
Mr. CD13, are Enoch and Elijah the same chap? Didn't read much of the Old Testament, but have a vague notion Elijah was taken up to Heaven on a chariot of fire.
In Greek myth there's a chap (who became the first grasshopper or cricket) who was granted immortality after his divine lady friend begged Zeus to make it so. But he didn't give everlasting youth, so the chap just got older and older and was soon discarded by his lady friend.
Mr. CD13, are Enoch and Elijah the same chap? Didn't read much of the Old Testament, but have a vague notion Elijah was taken up to Heaven on a chariot of fire.
In Greek myth there's a chap (who became the first grasshopper or cricket) who was granted immortality after his divine lady friend begged Zeus to make it so. But he didn't give everlasting youth, so the chap just got older and older and was soon discarded by his lady friend.
The SNP say they want to govern the uk with Labour, according to the Times. I do not see how any region should hold the rest hostage. Pushing for a policy for the whole UK by a UK wide party is one thing. Can we stomach Labour peddling pork to the SNP to stay in power? With Salmond as deputy PM?
Under what passes for a constitution, it is only the MPs that count. And as a good Unionist you ought to be allowing all MPs equal status. No other option.
Wondering what chance there is of "that Tory" Carswell leaving UKIP before the election? Would be a knee to the balls for Farage and the Kippers if he did....
Might be mildly amusing if Carswell left, and his mate Reckless decided to walk as well, couple of libertarian independents and oops, no MPs for UKIP.
Good knock by James Taylor this morning in England's ODI win, reminds me of why Kevin Pietersen is such a self centred idiot
Last week on the big bash commentary pietersen said young English batsmen were texting him for advice and how he wishes he was at the other end to guide them etc
When Taylor made his test debut he struggled through to tea against South Africa batting with pietersen... When they walked back to the pavilion pietersen left Taylor on his own while he chatted and joked with his Saffer mates..
Action speaks louder than words, and his actions speak for him time and again
Good knock by James Taylor this morning in England's ODI win, reminds me of why Kevin Pietersen is such a self centred idiot
Last week on the big bash commentary pietersen said young English batsmen were texting him for advice and how he wishes he was at the other end to guide them etc
When Taylor made his test debut he struggled through to tea against South Africa batting with pietersen... When they walked back to the pavilion pietersen left Taylor on his own while he chatted and joked with his Saffer mates..
Action speaks louder than words, and his actions speak for him time and again
Hateful creature... The self awareness of a 13 year old girl
Id rather rather England lost every match by 10 wickets than win with Pietersen in the side.. If you watched the big bash he shows nothing but contempt for us, while the Aussie comms, who I enjoy otherwise, crawl round him and stroke his ego
The SNP say they want to govern the uk with Labour, according to the Times. I do not see how any region should hold the rest hostage. Pushing for a policy for the whole UK by a UK wide party is one thing. Can we stomach Labour peddling pork to the SNP to stay in power? With Salmond as deputy PM?
Under what passes for a constitution, it is only the MPs that count. And as a good Unionist you ought to be allowing all MPs equal status. No other option.
Besides the Tory party has areas of the country where it is strong and areas where it is weak and there have been accusations that they reward their strong areas (or even NI when they have been supported by NI Unionists)
Wondering what chance there is of "that Tory" Carswell leaving UKIP before the election? Would be a knee to the balls for Farage and the Kippers if he did....
He'd have to stand as an Independent. Would he keep the seat under that banner?
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.
Famously, the Tories lost Glasgow Cathcart in 1979 (their only loss, apart from odd by election “sports”) which resulted in the Glaswegian Teddy Taylor coming to Southend.
Amazing how Conservative/Unionist support in Glasgow Cathcart collapsed from c.72% in 1955 to c.13% in 2001, and its subsequent abolition. Then the legacy area solidly Labour, but may now well turn SNP.
Hard pressed to think of other UK consitutencies where the politics has changed so much (twice) in 60 years.
Wondering what chance there is of "that Tory" Carswell leaving UKIP before the election? Would be a knee to the balls for Farage and the Kippers if he did....
What odds were you thinking of?
Fairly long, admittedly - probably 15-1. But there is also a slight nagging notion that maybe he was a Trojan Horse, admitted so readily into the UKIP camp.... He has already taken public positions that don't exactly paint much of the party in the best light. A resignation speech in say late March in which he said something along the lines of "with regret, it is clear they are not a serious political force but blown around on the whims of Farage's numerous mood swings - UKIP as the plaything of his ego..." - would be catastrophic for UKIP.
I'm sure the Tories would be forgiving in welcoming him back, having done sterling work. Reckless - not so much.
The SNP say they want to govern the uk with Labour, according to the Times. I do not see how any region should hold the rest hostage. Pushing for a policy for the whole UK by a UK wide party is one thing. Can we stomach Labour peddling pork to the SNP to stay in power? With Salmond as deputy PM?
Under what passes for a constitution, it is only the MPs that count. And as a good Unionist you ought to be allowing all MPs equal status. No other option.
Besides the Tory party has areas of the country where it is strong and areas where it is weak and there have been accusations that they reward their strong areas (or even NI when they have been supported by NI Unionists)
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"
So why does most of the narrative abour refighting indyref in fact come from the No side? Despite their trying to erect a myth about the SNP, it's actually the Unionist side which is disrupting normal political activity to bang on and on about indyref. A small example is the PB response to the oil industry crisis. It's too often "we wish you were independent so ...", which is not only irrelevant but makes one fear for the future of any union with such resentments in it. And vide people such as Mr L who is so fixated upon indyref that they'd end up voting for a Miliband victory - which is surely irrational: if the Tories have to fail to get a majority then the last thing a Tory wants is for Labour to win one.
(The posters don't mean much as there were many, many more Yes than No posters (about 5-10:1, so Mr L's observations are to be expected on statistical grounds if three people couldn't be bothered to take them down.)
And I regret to have to suggest that the use of jokes such as Yestapo doesn't adorn your normally rational and interesting postings. You might want to check back to the scenes in George Square on 19 September and see who were giving the raised arm salutes.
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?
Be fair he has done nothing. He let the US Treasury & Fed do their thing with minimal interference
Give me a break. The Recovery Act and the Affordable Care Act were "transforming the US economy" according to his critics at the time. Now that the results have been successful he goes down as only "minimal interference".
Lots to digest here, but perhaps the single most important line is buried deep in the article:
"At the time, Alex Salmond, the Scottish National Party leader, argued that the UK Government was bluffing when it said that it would not countenance a currency union with an independent Scotland. “Having spoken to the Chancellor, the Chief Secretay and the Shadow Chancellor (Ed Balls), I am absolutely certain that the UK would not have entered into a currency union,” Sir Nicholas said."
Wondering what chance there is of "that Tory" Carswell leaving UKIP before the election? Would be a knee to the balls for Farage and the Kippers if he did....
He'd have to stand as an Independent. Would he keep the seat under that banner?
He might have some fellow ex-Faragians for company...
Ukip health spox Louise Bours MEP slaps down her leader: 'Nigel is entitled to his opinion [but] I will always favour a state funded NHS'
Lots to digest here, but perhaps the single most important line is buried deep in the article:
"At the time, Alex Salmond, the Scottish National Party leader, argued that the UK Government was bluffing when it said that it would not countenance a currency union with an independent Scotland. “Having spoken to the Chancellor, the Chief Secretay and the Shadow Chancellor (Ed Balls), I am absolutely certain that the UK would not have entered into a currency union,” Sir Nicholas said."
That was obvious to everyone but hardcore nationalists, wasn't it? Why on Earth would the UK put itself on the hook for Scotland?
Wondering what chance there is of "that Tory" Carswell leaving UKIP before the election? Would be a knee to the balls for Farage and the Kippers if he did....
What odds were you thinking of?
Fairly long, admittedly - probably 15-1. But there is also a slight nagging notion that maybe he was a Trojan Horse, admitted so readily into the UKIP camp.... He has already taken public positions that don't exactly paint much of the party in the best light. A resignation speech in say late March in which he said something along the lines of "with regret, it is clear they are not a serious political force but blown around on the whims of Farage's numerous mood swings - UKIP as the plaything of his ego..." - would be catastrophic for UKIP.
I'm sure the Tories would be forgiving in welcoming him back, having done sterling work. Reckless - not so much.
Shortly after Mr Carswell defected, Mr Hannan tweeted a link to an article that suggested Mr Carswell was motivated by the concern that the rise of UKIP was harming the 'out' polling.
That ties with his acceptance speech after the by-election being emphatically not anti-immigrant, but anti-EU.
"No. That used to happen but it will not post referendum. Scottish tories know what their priority is and that is remaining British."
Very true-but the result of their votes this time will not determine whether Scotland becomes independent, or even if their is another referendum.
For that reason alone, manyTtory leaning opponents of Labour will continue to vote SNP to stop Labour NOW, rather than vote for a unionist candidate to stop the not-happening-NOW independence.
Consider how effective the SNP strategy of-correctly-telling the electorate in 2011 Holyrood that an SNP vote and victory would not automatically trigger independence.
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 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.
You seem to be saying there is no guarantee or threshold that could ever be provided under which you would support Scotland's natural independence, whereas you would be more than willing to accept the poverty and oppression of an SSR if it meant maintaining the Union.
The Loyalist No Matter What attitude is truly bizarre.
That's the nature of National feeling. David's war analogy is not made lightly - people regularly go to war to defend their nationhood.
Britons accepted considerable material deprivation to preserve their independence during WWII. What is voting Labour compared to that?
Lots to digest here, but perhaps the single most important line is buried deep in the article:
"At the time, Alex Salmond, the Scottish National Party leader, argued that the UK Government was bluffing when it said that it would not countenance a currency union with an independent Scotland. “Having spoken to the Chancellor, the Chief Secretay and the Shadow Chancellor (Ed Balls), I am absolutely certain that the UK would not have entered into a currency union,” Sir Nicholas said."
That was obvious to everyone but hardcore nationalists, wasn't it? Why on Earth would the UK put itself on the hook for Scotland?
I'm not sure that Joseph Stiglitz counts as a hardcore nationalist:
Good knock by James Taylor this morning in England's ODI win, reminds me of why Kevin Pietersen is such a self centred idiot
Last week on the big bash commentary pietersen said young English batsmen were texting him for advice and how he wishes he was at the other end to guide them etc
When Taylor made his test debut he struggled through to tea against South Africa batting with pietersen... When they walked back to the pavilion pietersen left Taylor on his own while he chatted and joked with his Saffer mates..
Action speaks louder than words, and his actions speak for him time and again
Good knock by James Taylor this morning in England's ODI win, reminds me of why Kevin Pietersen is such a self centred idiot
Last week on the big bash commentary pietersen said young English batsmen were texting him for advice and how he wishes he was at the other end to guide them etc
When Taylor made his test debut he struggled through to tea against South Africa batting with pietersen... When they walked back to the pavilion pietersen left Taylor on his own while he chatted and joked with his Saffer mates..
Action speaks louder than words, and his actions speak for him time and again
Lots to digest here, but perhaps the single most important line is buried deep in the article:
"At the time, Alex Salmond, the Scottish National Party leader, argued that the UK Government was bluffing when it said that it would not countenance a currency union with an independent Scotland. “Having spoken to the Chancellor, the Chief Secretay and the Shadow Chancellor (Ed Balls), I am absolutely certain that the UK would not have entered into a currency union,” Sir Nicholas said."
That was obvious to everyone but hardcore nationalists, wasn't it? Why on Earth would the UK put itself on the hook for Scotland?
I'm not sure that Joseph Stiglitz counts as a hardcore nationalist:
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.
Even in 1983, when the Tories gained dozens of seats, they lost quite a few (including a couple in Liverpool to Labour).
The notional Labour gains from Tory in 1983 were
Glasgow Cathcart (again) Crewe & Nantwich Birmingham Erdington Liverpool Broadgreen
The Tories also notionally lost Liverpool Mossley Hill to the Libs (Alton).
Liverpool Garston, a Tory gain in 1979, was a notional Labour hold in 1983. (Its Tory MP, Malcolm Thornton, fled to Crosby and defeated Shirley Williams)
The other Tory MP, Steen (Wavertree), fled to South Hams...
Lots to digest here, but perhaps the single most important line is buried deep in the article:
"At the time, Alex Salmond, the Scottish National Party leader, argued that the UK Government was bluffing when it said that it would not countenance a currency union with an independent Scotland. “Having spoken to the Chancellor, the Chief Secretay and the Shadow Chancellor (Ed Balls), I am absolutely certain that the UK would not have entered into a currency union,” Sir Nicholas said."
Now I really wish the Scots had voted Yes.
Would have been hilarious seeing the Nats begging to be into a currency union whilst the price of oil dropping like a stone.
Wondering what chance there is of "that Tory" Carswell leaving UKIP before the election? Would be a knee to the balls for Farage and the Kippers if he did....
He'd have to stand as an Independent. Would he keep the seat under that banner?
He might have some fellow ex-Faragians for company... Ukip health spox Louise Bours MEP slaps down her leader: 'Nigel is entitled to his opinion [but] I will always favour a state funded NHS'
That will mark her card. People who have openly opposed Farage have not lasted long in UKIP. Farage is more responsible than any other person for the "senior" folk who left UKIP, mainly through power struggles in the past 15+ years. Scroll down for the list. http://ukip-vs-eukip.com/ukip-members-quit/
Wondering what chance there is of "that Tory" Carswell leaving UKIP before the election? Would be a knee to the balls for Farage and the Kippers if he did....
He'd have to stand as an Independent. Would he keep the seat under that banner?
Lots to digest here, but perhaps the single most important line is buried deep in the article:
"At the time, Alex Salmond, the Scottish National Party leader, argued that the UK Government was bluffing when it said that it would not countenance a currency union with an independent Scotland. “Having spoken to the Chancellor, the Chief Secretay and the Shadow Chancellor (Ed Balls), I am absolutely certain that the UK would not have entered into a currency union,” Sir Nicholas said."
Here's some food for thought.
On oil, he noted that the current oil price of around $50 a barrel would have meant that in the first year of independence, 2016-17, Scotland’s deficit would have been 6½ per cent of GDP, whereas the deficit run by the rest of the UK would have been 2 per cent of GDP.
Lots to digest here, but perhaps the single most important line is buried deep in the article:
"At the time, Alex Salmond, the Scottish National Party leader, argued that the UK Government was bluffing when it said that it would not countenance a currency union with an independent Scotland. “Having spoken to the Chancellor, the Chief Secretay and the Shadow Chancellor (Ed Balls), I am absolutely certain that the UK would not have entered into a currency union,” Sir Nicholas said."
Now I really wish the Scots had voted Yes.
Would have been hilarious seeing the Nats begging to be into a currency union whilst the price of oil dropping like a stone.
They'd still be in the Union, desperately negotiating exit terms. I wonder how long they'd try to spin the process out.
Good knock by James Taylor this morning in England's ODI win, reminds me of why Kevin Pietersen is such a self centred idiot
Last week on the big bash commentary pietersen said young English batsmen were texting him for advice and how he wishes he was at the other end to guide them etc
When Taylor made his test debut he struggled through to tea against South Africa batting with pietersen... When they walked back to the pavilion pietersen left Taylor on his own while he chatted and joked with his Saffer mates..
Action speaks louder than words, and his actions speak for him time and again
I always go with the polls. I am sure they are an accurate snapshot of Scottish political opinion. In any case there is a steady 0.85 correlation between support for independence and the SNP as a party. We know from the referendum that the first is 45%, so these prospective voting figures are in line.
There are two things that might affect the actual figures. The bigger one is differential turnout. Far more people say they will vote in the GE than ever normally do. If we apply normal rules, older and more middle class people are more likely to vote and they are more likely to vote for a unionist party. However these are not normal times and many Yes voters are angry, Will that anger show itself in a committed vote for the SNP or will they stay at home in disgust?
The other factor is tactical voting. The SNP will benefit from Green party voters, but all the other tactical voting will go onto Labour I believe. Tactical voters will include Lib Dems, Tories (judgement call on whether they hate Milliband or the SNP more), ex Labour independence supporters who do actually prefer the UK Labour to the Convervatives and , funnily enough, SNP supporters too. In the past SNP voters have often voted Labour in UK elections. Apart from independence their policies are the same. SNP claims it's different this time, but the effect is still there in the opinion polls - the SNP vote share for Holyrood is even higher.
The SNP in my view are overcommitted to devo-max. Labour could hammer home the fact that revenues in post-oil times won't pay the bills for devo-max. A vote for SNP and devo-max is a vote for hospital and school closures and reduced welfare. The SNP would find it difficult to disown devo-max at this stage. OTOH Labour seem to be soft-pedalling on those sorts of issues so as not to irritate Yes voters.
It's in the UK Conservatives immediate interest to have the SNP take seats off Labour in Scotland. They are not going to help Scottish Labour attract voters that are worried about constitutional issues.
Lots to digest here, but perhaps the single most important line is buried deep in the article:
"At the time, Alex Salmond, the Scottish National Party leader, argued that the UK Government was bluffing when it said that it would not countenance a currency union with an independent Scotland. “Having spoken to the Chancellor, the Chief Secretay and the Shadow Chancellor (Ed Balls), I am absolutely certain that the UK would not have entered into a currency union,” Sir Nicholas said."
That was obvious to everyone but hardcore nationalists, wasn't it? Why on Earth would the UK put itself on the hook for Scotland?
I'm not sure that Joseph Stiglitz counts as a hardcore nationalist:
But I always believed the unionists on this one. It would have been electoral suicide to concede the point for any of them.
There was likely far more complexity to what happened than this. At the time that the pledge was made on Currency, the Loyalists had a 20pt lead with slight slippage and could easily have seen it as a stone dead killer move to stop any more slippage and put the issue to bed at that point.
A risk for sure, if it had backfired, but as it was universal, the Risk/Reward ratio would be heavily on the Loyalists side.
And of course the outcome was that the slippage continued and there doesn't appear to be much evidence that it worked. Indeed the polling that we did see suggested it was discredited by the electorate. So the arguemnt over would they or wouldn't they is moot - the public didn't believe so it was not a factor in the vote.
Wondering what chance there is of "that Tory" Carswell leaving UKIP before the election? Would be a knee to the balls for Farage and the Kippers if he did....
What odds were you thinking of?
Fairly long, admittedly - probably 15-1. But there is also a slight nagging notion that maybe he was a Trojan Horse, admitted so readily into the UKIP camp.... He has already taken public positions that don't exactly paint much of the party in the best light. A resignation speech in say late March in which he said something along the lines of "with regret, it is clear they are not a serious political force but blown around on the whims of Farage's numerous mood swings - UKIP as the plaything of his ego..." - would be catastrophic for UKIP.
I'm sure the Tories would be forgiving in welcoming him back, having done sterling work. Reckless - not so much.
Shortly after Mr Carswell defected, Mr Hannan tweeted a link to an article that suggested Mr Carswell was motivated by the concern that the rise of UKIP was harming the 'out' polling.
That ties with his acceptance speech after the by-election being emphatically not anti-immigrant, but anti-EU.
Why should there be a contradiction?
If you are in favour of high immigration, but wish that to be for a sovereign matter for the UK people to decide, you can still join UKIP.
For instance, once we leave the EU, we will have full sovereignty over immigration policy and controls. We will also be able to assert much more independently, and clearly, the British concept of human rights. There will be nowhere for our politicians to hide on migration policy. Particularly if combined with a reform of the voting system.
A points-system and cap is likely to be implemented. However, sometimes a party/coalition of parties may be elected on the back of increasing that cap, and increasing the flexibility of the points system, arguing it will help the economy and plug skills gaps. At other times, an opposing coalition favouring a tighter cap and reduced flexibility in the points system may be elected to reduce net migration numbers. And, indeed, whatever system we had could be abolished, reinstated, reformed, strengthened or weakened according to the wishes of the electorate.
It doesn't matter which of those options you prefer. But if you think that its UK and its electorate that matters, and should be making those decisions, without having its hands tied by the EU, then you can still support UKIP without hypocrisy and a clear conscience.
But I always believed the unionists on this one. It would have been electoral suicide to concede the point for any of them.
There was likely far more complexity to what happened than this. At the time that the pledge was made on Currency, the Loyalists had a 20pt lead with slight slippage and could easily have seen it as a stone dead killer move to stop any more slippage and put the issue to bed at that point.
A risk for sure, if it had backfired, but as it was universal, the Risk/Reward ratio would be heavily on the Loyalists side.
And of course the outcome was that the slippage continued and there doesn't appear to be much evidence that it worked. Indeed the polling that we did see suggested it was discredited by the electorate. So the arguemnt over would they or wouldn't they is moot - the public didn't believe so it was not a factor in the vote.
Some say it did work, and here's the polling
My questions on the issues that mattered most in people’s voting decisions suggest the No campaign was right to focus on the currency and the other uncertainties of independence. More than half (57%) of No voters said the pound was one of the most important factors in their decision, and the biggest overarching reason for their decision was that “the risks of becoming independent looked too great when it came to things like the currency, EU membership, the economy, jobs and prices” (a more powerful reason for most No voters’ decision than “a strong attachment to the UK” or the promise of the best of both worlds with guaranteed extra powers for the Scottish Parliament). Pensions, the NHS and uncertainties about tax and public spending were also mentioned by at least one third of No voters.
Lots to digest here, but perhaps the single most important line is buried deep in the article:
"At the time, Alex Salmond, the Scottish National Party leader, argued that the UK Government was bluffing when it said that it would not countenance a currency union with an independent Scotland. “Having spoken to the Chancellor, the Chief Secretay and the Shadow Chancellor (Ed Balls), I am absolutely certain that the UK would not have entered into a currency union,” Sir Nicholas said."
That was obvious to everyone but hardcore nationalists, wasn't it? Why on Earth would the UK put itself on the hook for Scotland?
I'm not sure that Joseph Stiglitz counts as a hardcore nationalist:
But I always believed the unionists on this one. It would have been electoral suicide to concede the point for any of them.
There was likely far more complexity to what happened than this. At the time that the pledge was made on Currency, the Loyalists had a 20pt lead with slight slippage and could easily have seen it as a stone dead killer move to stop any more slippage and put the issue to bed at that point.
A risk for sure, if it had backfired, but as it was universal, the Risk/Reward ratio would be heavily on the Loyalists side.
And of course the outcome was that the slippage continued and there doesn't appear to be much evidence that it worked. Indeed the polling that we did see suggested it was discredited by the electorate. So the arguemnt over would they or wouldn't they is moot - the public didn't believe so it was not a factor in the vote.
Electoral suicide in England. The English public would never have countenanced a currency union with an independent Scotland. The troubles of the Euro made the idea a non-starter.
I always go with the polls. I am sure they are an accurate snapshot of Scottish political opinion. In any case there is a steady 0.85 correlation between support for independence and the SNP as a party. We know from the referendum that the first is 45%, so these prospective voting figures are in line. [snip for length]
That's a really good post. I love the rare PB posts where you can't instantly work out what the writer's personal preference is.
The SNP say they want to govern the uk with Labour, according to the Times. I do not see how any region should hold the rest hostage. Pushing for a policy for the whole UK by a UK wide party is one thing. Can we stomach Labour peddling pork to the SNP to stay in power? With Salmond as deputy PM?
Can we count on you to denounce any Tory-DUP deal that might arise involving pork given to Northern Ireland in return for support?
But I always believed the unionists on this one. It would have been electoral suicide to concede the point for any of them.
There was likely far more complexity to what happened than this. At the time that the pledge was made on Currency, the Loyalists had a 20pt lead with slight slippage and could easily have seen it as a stone dead killer move to stop any more slippage and put the issue to bed at that point.
A risk for sure, if it had backfired, but as it was universal, the Risk/Reward ratio would be heavily on the Loyalists side.
And of course the outcome was that the slippage continued and there doesn't appear to be much evidence that it worked. Indeed the polling that we did see suggested it was discredited by the electorate. So the arguemnt over would they or wouldn't they is moot - the public didn't believe so it was not a factor in the vote.
Some say it did work, and here's the polling
My questions on the issues that mattered most in people’s voting decisions suggest the No campaign was right to focus on the currency and the other uncertainties of independence. More than half (57%) of No voters said the pound was one of the most important factors in their decision, and the biggest overarching reason for their decision was that “the risks of becoming independent looked too great when it came to things like the currency, EU membership, the economy, jobs and prices” (a more powerful reason for most No voters’ decision than “a strong attachment to the UK” or the promise of the best of both worlds with guaranteed extra powers for the Scottish Parliament). Pensions, the NHS and uncertainties about tax and public spending were also mentioned by at least one third of No voters.
My questions on the issues that mattered most in people’s voting decisions suggest the No campaign was right to focus on the currency and the other uncertainties of independence. More than half (57%) of No voters said the pound was one of the most important factors in their decision, and the biggest overarching reason for their decision was that “the risks of becoming independent looked too great when it came to things like the currency, EU membership, the economy, jobs and prices” (a more powerful reason for most No voters’ decision than “a strong attachment to the UK” or the promise of the best of both worlds with guaranteed extra powers for the Scottish Parliament). Pensions, the NHS and uncertainties about tax and public spending were also mentioned by at least one third of No voters.
I don't doubt the veracity of the poll you quote but its not asking the same question. The question is whether people believe the Loyalist assertion or not. Clearly it is important, but that's a different question.
I still have hopes that the Greens might campaign hard there, given the large student vote, and that George Galloway will seek to extend Respect's geographical reach to the Hampshire shoreline so that we might see a seven way marginal.
My questions on the issues that mattered most in people’s voting decisions suggest the No campaign was right to focus on the currency and the other uncertainties of independence. More than half (57%) of No voters said the pound was one of the most important factors in their decision, and the biggest overarching reason for their decision was that “the risks of becoming independent looked too great when it came to things like the currency, EU membership, the economy, jobs and prices” (a more powerful reason for most No voters’ decision than “a strong attachment to the UK” or the promise of the best of both worlds with guaranteed extra powers for the Scottish Parliament). Pensions, the NHS and uncertainties about tax and public spending were also mentioned by at least one third of No voters.
I don't doubt the veracity of the poll you quote but its not asking the same question. The question is whether people believe the Loyalist assertion or not. Clearly it is important, but that's a different question.
I still have hopes that the Greens might campaign hard there, given the large student vote, and that George Galloway will seek to extend Respect's geographical reach to the Hampshire shoreline so that we might see a seven way marginal.
It would be fab. Hopefully Martin Bell could don the white suit again
You could see the winning party winning getting only 15% of the vote.
It SHOULD be a Conservative gain, but the Lib Dems are stickier than shit down there.
That's what was thought about Winchester and Montgomeryshire last time.
Where the Liberal Democrat incumbent has been controversial - and, with all due respect to both of them, both of those two constituencies incumbent's weren't exactly out of the headlines - there is evidence that they suffer.
There's also seemingly solid Lib Dem constituencies that just eventually revert to type. Such as Guildford, Newbury, and Oxford West & Abingdon. Perilously close at St. Ives, too.
The sorts of places that are impenetrable are citadels like Eastleigh, and Yeovil, where the Lib Dems have it sewn up top to bottom, and consistently pwn at all levels.
The "anti-immigrant" term is just a smear used to avoid proper debate on this. UKIP support immigration, just at reasonable and controlled levels. A lot of people that oppose UKIP either aren't intelligent enough to read what their actual position is, or know full well their position but realise it's not one they can argue against so try to pretend it's something different.
It's the same when people argue things about Huguenot and Jewish immigration here. The entirety of big waves of Jewish and Huguenot immigration, which each took a couple of decades, are less than one year of current immigration.
I always go with the polls. I am sure they are an accurate snapshot of Scottish political opinion. In any case there is a steady 0.85 correlation between support for independence and the SNP as a party. We know from the referendum that the first is 45%, so these prospective voting figures are in line. [snip for length]
That's a really good post. I love the rare PB posts where you can't instantly work out what the writer's personal preference is.
The SNP say they want to govern the uk with Labour, according to the Times. I do not see how any region should hold the rest hostage. Pushing for a policy for the whole UK by a UK wide party is one thing. Can we stomach Labour peddling pork to the SNP to stay in power? With Salmond as deputy PM?
Can we count on you to denounce any Tory-DUP deal that might arise involving pork given to Northern Ireland in return for support?
It'd take a lot less pork to get the DUP than you'll need to get the SNP don't you think?
It SHOULD be a Conservative gain, but the Lib Dems are stickier than shit down there.
That's what was thought about Winchester and Montgomeryshire last time.
Where the Liberal Democrat incumbent has been controversial - and, with all due respect to both of them, both of those two constituencies incumbent's weren't exactly out of the headlines - there is evidence that they suffer.
There's also seemingly solid Lib Dem constituencies that just eventually revert to type. Such as Guildford, Newbury, and Oxford West & Abingdon. Perilously close at St. Ives, too.
The sorts of places that are impenetrable are citadels like Eastleigh, and Yeovil, where the Lib Dems have it sewn up top to bottom, and consistently pwn at all levels.
Boundary changes at Winchester made a difference, too. Montgomeryshire could be "interesting" this time.
It SHOULD be a Conservative gain, but the Lib Dems are stickier than shit down there.
That's what was thought about Winchester and Montgomeryshire last time.
Where the Liberal Democrat incumbent has been controversial - and, with all due respect to both of them, both of those two constituencies incumbent's weren't exactly out of the headlines - there is evidence that they suffer.
There's also seemingly solid Lib Dem constituencies that just eventually revert to type. Such as Guildford, Newbury, and Oxford West & Abingdon. Perilously close at St. Ives, too.
The sorts of places that are impenetrable are citadels like Eastleigh, and Yeovil, where the Lib Dems have it sewn up top to bottom, and consistently pwn at all levels.
Guildford's an interesting seat. There's a lot of local opposition to plans by the Tory council to build 1000s of houses etc on Green Belt, whilst designating land reclaimed from a rubbish tip as a nature reserve. Stockbroker belt villages such as Worplesdon are festooned with protest posters.
If Anne Milton sides with the local authority and the Lib Dem candidate is canny enough to come out against extra building, she could be facing a huge problem.
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.
"No. That used to happen but it will not post referendum. Scottish tories know what their priority is and that is remaining British."
Very true-but the result of their votes this time will not determine whether Scotland becomes independent, or even if their is another referendum.
For that reason alone, manyTtory leaning opponents of Labour will continue to vote SNP to stop Labour NOW, rather than vote for a unionist candidate to stop the not-happening-NOW independence.
Consider how effective the SNP strategy of-correctly-telling the electorate in 2011 Holyrood that an SNP vote and victory would not automatically trigger independence.
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 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 always go with the polls. I am sure they are an accurate snapshot of Scottish political opinion. In any case there is a steady 0.85 correlation between support for independence and the SNP as a party. We know from the referendum that the first is 45%, so these prospective voting figures are in line. [snip for length]
That's a really good post. I love the rare PB posts where you can't instantly work out what the writer's personal preference is.
The SNP say they want to govern the uk with Labour, according to the Times. I do not see how any region should hold the rest hostage. Pushing for a policy for the whole UK by a UK wide party is one thing. Can we stomach Labour peddling pork to the SNP to stay in power? With Salmond as deputy PM?
Can we count on you to denounce any Tory-DUP deal that might arise involving pork given to Northern Ireland in return for support?
It'd take a lot less pork to get the DUP than you'll need to get the SNP don't you think?
Comments
It's a while ago - but a bell rang for me.
In manifesto and election work the SNP have always run particularly positive campaigns.
However, the rub is this. It doesn't matter what you think, or I think. It is the perception of the public at large which matters. In this the SNP are more popular today than when they first came to power and their leadership has very positive approval ratings. This is in stark contrast to any recent UK government or leaders and the LibLab Pact in Holyrood.
That said, if I acquire great riches I intend to never complain about it
I do not see how any region should hold the rest hostage. Pushing for a policy for the whole UK by a UK wide party is one thing. Can we stomach Labour peddling pork to the SNP to stay in power? With Salmond as deputy PM?
http://www.britishelectionstudy.com/bes-resources/is-nigel-farage-the-heineken-politician-is-ukip-reaching-the-parts-of-the-electorate-other-parties-cannot-reach/
The Sunday Times said that one of the SNP coalition demands will be to give Holyrood the power to call all future plebiscites.
I can't see Labour agreeing to that.
"Methuselah is the man in the Hebrew Bible reported to have lived the longest."
An interesting quiz question.
But I'd answer 'Enoch' as he seemed to have been taken up to heaven without actually dying and there's no record of him plummeting from the sky since. So that could make him 2,500 plus.
The Loyalist No Matter What attitude is truly bizarre.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30890924
In Greek myth there's a chap (who became the first grasshopper or cricket) who was granted immortality after his divine lady friend begged Zeus to make it so. But he didn't give everlasting youth, so the chap just got older and older and was soon discarded by his lady friend.
Last week on the big bash commentary pietersen said young English batsmen were texting him for advice and how he wishes he was at the other end to guide them etc
When Taylor made his test debut he struggled through to tea against South Africa batting with pietersen... When they walked back to the pavilion pietersen left Taylor on his own while he chatted and joked with his Saffer mates..
Action speaks louder than words, and his actions speak for him time and again
1. What if EdM loses GE and has to resign - runners and riders based on current voting system.
2. What if DC loses GE and has to resign - runners and riders based on current voting system.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricket/article-2193892/Kevin-Pietersen-accused-making-derogatory-comments-James-Taylor.html
Is Labour MP Chris Bryant MP, ex-£33,000-a-year Cheltenham College, best placed to criticise public school star James Blunt
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZaAkuXTIz4
Might solve Dave's debate conundrum
My point is not that Mike hasn't the right to be biased against the SNP. He has.
It is just that I am disapointed by how it affects the presentation of the site. It would be better if he wasn't or it didn't.
Id rather rather England lost every match by 10 wickets than win with Pietersen in the side.. If you watched the big bash he shows nothing but contempt for us, while the Aussie comms, who I enjoy otherwise, crawl round him and stroke his ego
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2916146/I-living-lie-says-British-Army-s-transgender-officer-Soldier-says-tour-Afghanistan-nudge-needed-change-way-life.html
You could be right - you never see them together.
Hard pressed to think of other UK consitutencies where the politics has changed so much (twice) in 60 years.
I'm sure the Tories would be forgiving in welcoming him back, having done sterling work. Reckless - not so much.
(The posters don't mean much as there were many, many more Yes than No posters (about 5-10:1, so Mr L's observations are to be expected on statistical grounds if three people couldn't be bothered to take them down.)
And I regret to have to suggest that the use of jokes such as Yestapo doesn't adorn your normally rational and interesting postings. You might want to check back to the scenes in George Square on 19 September and see who were giving the raised arm salutes.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2916687/Scots-want-Salmond-running-Britain-Miliband-voters-demand-Labour-SNP-coalition-Westminster.html
Food for thought.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/11354547/Indias-defeats-in-Australia-and-England-spell-danger-for-Test-cricket.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/why-the-treasury-backed-the-no-vote-in-the-scottish-referendum-its-top-mandarin-speaks-9989263.html
Lots to digest here, but perhaps the single most important line is buried deep in the article:
"At the time, Alex Salmond, the Scottish National Party leader, argued that the UK Government was bluffing when it said that it would not countenance a currency union with an independent Scotland. “Having spoken to the Chancellor, the Chief Secretay and the Shadow Chancellor (Ed Balls), I am absolutely certain that the UK would not have entered into a currency union,” Sir Nicholas said."
Ukip health spox Louise Bours MEP slaps down her leader: 'Nigel is entitled to his opinion [but] I will always favour a state funded NHS'
That ties with his acceptance speech after the by-election being emphatically not anti-immigrant, but anti-EU.
Britons accepted considerable material deprivation to preserve their independence during WWII. What is voting Labour compared to that?
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/aug/25/opposition-currency-union-socltand-bluff-joseph-stiglitz
But I always believed the unionists on this one. It would have been electoral suicide to concede the point for any of them.
I'd rather see Jade Dernbach play for England than Kevin Pietersen.
Glasgow Cathcart (again)
Crewe & Nantwich
Birmingham Erdington
Liverpool Broadgreen
The Tories also notionally lost Liverpool Mossley Hill to the Libs (Alton).
Liverpool Garston, a Tory gain in 1979, was a notional Labour hold in 1983. (Its Tory MP, Malcolm Thornton, fled to Crosby and defeated Shirley Williams)
The other Tory MP, Steen (Wavertree), fled to South Hams...
Would have been hilarious seeing the Nats begging to be into a currency union whilst the price of oil dropping like a stone.
Miss Plato, not that I'm aware of. There are some in Philip Matyszak's The Greek and Roman Myths.
http://ukip-vs-eukip.com/ukip-members-quit/
Amazing how many Labour types come out against taxes when it might affect them.
Again
There are two things that might affect the actual figures. The bigger one is differential turnout. Far more people say they will vote in the GE than ever normally do. If we apply normal rules, older and more middle class people are more likely to vote and they are more likely to vote for a unionist party. However these are not normal times and many Yes voters are angry, Will that anger show itself in a committed vote for the SNP or will they stay at home in disgust?
The other factor is tactical voting. The SNP will benefit from Green party voters, but all the other tactical voting will go onto Labour I believe. Tactical voters will include Lib Dems, Tories (judgement call on whether they hate Milliband or the SNP more), ex Labour independence supporters who do actually prefer the UK Labour to the Convervatives and , funnily enough, SNP supporters too. In the past SNP voters have often voted Labour in UK elections. Apart from independence their policies are the same. SNP claims it's different this time, but the effect is still there in the opinion polls - the SNP vote share for Holyrood is even higher.
The SNP in my view are overcommitted to devo-max. Labour could hammer home the fact that revenues in post-oil times won't pay the bills for devo-max. A vote for SNP and devo-max is a vote for hospital and school closures and reduced welfare. The SNP would find it difficult to disown devo-max at this stage. OTOH Labour seem to be soft-pedalling on those sorts of issues so as not to irritate Yes voters.
It's in the UK Conservatives immediate interest to have the SNP take seats off Labour in Scotland. They are not going to help Scottish Labour attract voters that are worried about constitutional issues.
A risk for sure, if it had backfired, but as it was universal, the Risk/Reward ratio would be heavily on the Loyalists side.
And of course the outcome was that the slippage continued and there doesn't appear to be much evidence that it worked. Indeed the polling that we did see suggested it was discredited by the electorate. So the arguemnt over would they or wouldn't they is moot - the public didn't believe so it was not a factor in the vote.
If you are in favour of high immigration, but wish that to be for a sovereign matter for the UK people to decide, you can still join UKIP.
For instance, once we leave the EU, we will have full sovereignty over immigration policy and controls. We will also be able to assert much more independently, and clearly, the British concept of human rights. There will be nowhere for our politicians to hide on migration policy. Particularly if combined with a reform of the voting system.
A points-system and cap is likely to be implemented. However, sometimes a party/coalition of parties may be elected on the back of increasing that cap, and increasing the flexibility of the points system, arguing it will help the economy and plug skills gaps. At other times, an opposing coalition favouring a tighter cap and reduced flexibility in the points system may be elected to reduce net migration numbers. And, indeed, whatever system we had could be abolished, reinstated, reformed, strengthened or weakened according to the wishes of the electorate.
It doesn't matter which of those options you prefer. But if you think that its UK and its electorate that matters, and should be making those decisions, without having its hands tied by the EU, then you can still support UKIP without hypocrisy and a clear conscience.
My questions on the issues that mattered most in people’s voting decisions suggest the No campaign was right to focus on the currency and the other uncertainties of independence. More than half (57%) of No voters said the pound was one of the most important factors in their decision, and the biggest overarching reason for their decision was that “the risks of becoming independent looked too great when it came to things like the currency, EU membership, the economy, jobs and prices” (a more powerful reason for most No voters’ decision than “a strong attachment to the UK” or the promise of the best of both worlds with guaranteed extra powers for the Scottish Parliament). Pensions, the NHS and uncertainties about tax and public spending were also mentioned by at least one third of No voters.
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2014/09/scotland-voted/
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jan/19/has-the-sun-axed-page-3-topless-pictures
Disgraced MP Mike Hancock has said he is undecided about whether to stand in the general election.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-30895747
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-poll-pound-claim-a-bluff-1-3355521
IIRC this was pretty consitent.
I still have hopes that the Greens might campaign hard there, given the large student vote, and that George Galloway will seek to extend Respect's geographical reach to the Hampshire shoreline so that we might see a seven way marginal.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-poll-pound-claim-a-bluff-1-3355521
IIRC this was pretty consitent.
The polling South of the Border was also pretty consistent, no currency Union with an independent Scotland.
You could see the winning party winning getting only 15% of the vote.
Best comment about "page three" was on the radio this morning.
"Thanks for the mamaries"
I only subscribe to the online Sun edition for the opinion polls.
Where the Liberal Democrat incumbent has been controversial - and, with all due respect to both of them, both of those two constituencies incumbent's weren't exactly out of the headlines - there is evidence that they suffer.
There's also seemingly solid Lib Dem constituencies that just eventually revert to type. Such as Guildford, Newbury, and Oxford West & Abingdon. Perilously close at St. Ives, too.
The sorts of places that are impenetrable are citadels like Eastleigh, and Yeovil, where the Lib Dems have it sewn up top to bottom, and consistently pwn at all levels.
The "anti-immigrant" term is just a smear used to avoid proper debate on this. UKIP support immigration, just at reasonable and controlled levels. A lot of people that oppose UKIP either aren't intelligent enough to read what their actual position is, or know full well their position but realise it's not one they can argue against so try to pretend it's something different.
It's the same when people argue things about Huguenot and Jewish immigration here. The entirety of big waves of Jewish and Huguenot immigration, which each took a couple of decades, are less than one year of current immigration.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/green-party/11356354/Drugs-brothels-al-Qaeda-and-the-Beyonce-tax-the-Green-Party-plan-for-Britain.html
http://news.sky.com/story/1411409/ex-mi6-boss-warns-west-not-to-insult-islam
If Anne Milton sides with the local authority and the Lib Dem candidate is canny enough to come out against extra building, she could be facing a huge problem.