YouGov: One poll. MOE. Bit of a Green uptick maybe. Let's see if it lasts. Basically big two still tied or near as makes no odds at very low historical levels.
New floor found for Labour though. To go with Ashcroft's 28/29, and MORI's 29 in two of the last three polls.
True enough, but the Tories holding 32% while others fall behind hardly seems a ringing endorsement. Personally I'll be questioning anybody's moral legitimacy to govern alone if we get some weird 31/25/7/14/10 plus 5 nats sort of a result whoever is the 31.
The electoral system is on trial come May 7th as much as anything.
Totally agreed - I can't wait to see the stats for MP's elected with under 30% of the vote, 30-35% of the vote and those still getting over 50% in their individual consistency. How much the 2 former metrics are up on 2010, and the latter metric down against 2010 will be very telling as to the complete and utter unsustainability of the current system. Having said that the British electorate has proved very adept over past GE's to get the overall 'desired' result in spite of the wretched system for a now 7 party system plus Northern Ireland.
Speaking of Northern Ireland, what's happening there - any DUP or SInn Fein surging going on ?
That is a desperate poll for Labour. I did wonder whether Ed Miliband, of all people, could increase the historically poor vote achieved by Gordon Brown, even as Labour's vote has fallen by five million votes in 15 years, and shows no signs of recovering.
And yet, given the electoral bias in his favour, I still foresee Ed scraping a narrow plurality. With a new election soon afterwards.
The Scots, damn them, will determine this election.
If memory serves me correctly, RodCrosby predicted some months ago that in January 2015 we'd start to see a number of polls showing Conservative leads.
Jus' sayin'...
Out of all the polls in January how many have been labour leads and how many have been tory leads? Clue - it's about the same as lots of months last year.
From what I can see Con lead 3 polls in October, 6 in November and 3 in December;
Very true it's 650 elections and all that. However, if we are consistently getting a fractured political scene (and since about 1974 we seem to be increasingly so as a general trend) the overall result will tend to get more bizarre ( eg 2005 in England as you say) which cannot be good for legitimacy. Milliband ( for example) is going to struggle on ( say) 32% and 285 seats propped up by Sturgeon - it'll be a zoo!
I'm increasingly led towards some kind of German ( or a Welsh!) system of PR and constituency combination which could lead to single party govt if you did really well a la 1983/7 or 1997/2001 but most of the time had coalition with a dominant partner.
We can't keep having the likes of G Brown inflicted upon us with no checks on about a third of the vote and a minuscule lead. Can we????
Worth noting that OFCOM decision re Major Party status is out to consultation - if Greens keep performing well over next few weeks then that is going to be fed back in the consultation and it is entirely possible OFCOM could then give the Greens Major Party status.
Would be extraordinary if anyone on here supported that as when UKIP were trying to use consistent double figure polling as a reason for major party status everyone said no chance/would be ridiculous etc
More the merrier in the debates tho eh ?
If 10% ish of people are thinking of voting for them I don't see why not, although the reason for them being on 10% is a bit dubious
An hour of Natalie Bennett and I think I will confidently call "Peak Hippy"
Reasons why Natalie Bennett will do well in the debates.
1/ She's a woman and not part of the old boy system. She's not a Maggie Thatcher who could have been a man in woman's clothes, politically speaking.
2/ She's a woman and females will say "here's somebody to represent me."
3/ She's a woman without much in the way of charisma and struggles to give an answer, and people will say she seems like a genuine person and doesn't look or sound like a slick snake-oil salesman politician.
4/ She's a woman leading a party that is concerned with issues that matter to millions of people who feel they are not represented such as greater social equality and opportunity, living wages for all and the environment.
5/ She's a woman who will get less screen time than the men, and people will think that is unfair and male chauvinist.
The Greens have a huge advantage here, not in terms of Natalie Bennett being a woman but if you look at their leaders, both Patrick Harvie and Natalie Bennett pull off the trick of being very good, slick politicians without appearing to be so.
Even Salmond and Sturgeon can't pull that off and they both have 40%+ approval ratings.
FPTP will still give them a mountain to climb but Brighton Pavilion looks likely to become a LibDem in the South West style citadel and they may threaten a couple of seats elsewhere.
I recall hearing once that the KKK has been under hard times in recent decades even as other hate groups flourished, as they find themselves more stigmatised than those other groups., hilarious as that is. Amusing attempts to rebrand are inevitable I guess, and a quite welcome diversion too.
They are an odious bunch.
My initial - tongue in cheek - thought was that they wanted to get Al Sharpton to join, to raise their profile.
As someone who foretold the Green surge would happen I predict the following.
Ed will offer some rather left wing policies to attract the Green voters but it won't work, and will see some Lab to Con and LD movement.
The only left-wing policies that would work is movement on the spending cuts question.
One of the big frustrations I have with Ed is the limited amount of left-wing ideological grandstanding he does is all on peripheral issues (I'm not even sure how much cachet "nationalising the railways" has outside of the lefty Twittersphere, and the other lefty shibboleth "abolising Trident" certainly won't do anything) while endlessly moving to the right on the big things that Joe Public cares about.
The problem for the Greens is this: if they win 2% they'll probably win one seat. If they win 5%, ditto. 10%, ditto. 15%, ditto. Their number one target seat in Norwich South is almost certain to be won by Labour rather than them, and they're in fourth place at the moment. They don't have much chance in Cambridge, Bristol West, Brighton Kemptown either.
One of the big frustrations I have with Ed is the limited amount of left-wing ideological grandstanding he does is all on peripheral issues (I'm not even sure how much cachet "nationalising the railways" has outside of the lefty Twittersphere) while endlessly moving to the right on the big things that Joe Public cares about.
Yeah, arithmetic is so damned unreasonable and unyielding. How dare it not budge because Joe Public cares about things?
Worth noting that OFCOM decision re Major Party status is out to consultation - if Greens keep performing well over next few weeks then that is going to be fed back in the consultation and it is entirely possible OFCOM could then give the Greens Major Party status.
Would be extraordinary if anyone on here supported that as when UKIP were trying to use consistent double figure polling as a reason for major party status everyone said no chance/would be ridiculous etc
More the merrier in the debates tho eh ?
If 10% ish of people are thinking of voting for them I don't see why not, although the reason for them being on 10% is a bit dubious
An hour of Natalie Bennett and I think I will confidently call "Peak Hippy"
Reasons why Natalie Bennett will do well in the debates.
1/ She's a woman and not part of the old boy system. She's not a Maggie Thatcher who could have been a man in woman's clothes, politically speaking.
2/ She's a woman and females will say "here's somebody to represent me."
3/ She's a woman without much in the way of charisma and struggles to give an answer, and people will say she seems like a genuine person and doesn't look or sound like a slick snake-oil salesman politician.
4/ She's a woman leading a party that is concerned with issues that matter to millions of people who feel they are not represented such as greater social equality and opportunity, living wages for all and the environment.
5/ She's a woman who will get less screen time than the men, and people will think that is unfair and male chauvinist.
The Greens have a huge advantage here, not in terms of Natalie Bennett being a woman but if you look at their leaders, both Patrick Harvie and Natalie Bennett pull off the trick of being very good, slick politicians without appearing to be so.
Even Salmond and Sturgeon can't pull that off and they both have 40%+ approval ratings.
FPTP will still give them a mountain to climb but Brighton Pavilion looks likely to become a LibDem in the South West style citadel and they may threaten a couple of seats elsewhere.
The LD decline in 2014 still sticks out every time I see it. Three years of hovering around 10% and just when they need to start building up for the GE, of at least making people think it is not a wasted vote even in seats they currently hold, and they found a way to decline further. Shocking.
I'd say UKIP would be the only winners of this election, but I still think Labour will limp over the finishing line, although it's not far off, what with the Greens unlikely to make any actual gains even if they replicate the most optimistic polling snapshots.
This article was on page 2 of the Evening Standard last night:
Personally think Mr Hayward is talking his own book somewhat, but my general impression of following the local election results has been that the Tories are doing slightly better relative to the polls and Labour slightly worse.
Looking forward to seeing how the former SAS man turned UKIP PPC Nigel Ely goes on in Hereford.
People like to be liked and feel like good guys
It's true to say in a lot of places I have worked and lived saying you were a Tory (and now a kipper ) is the prelude to an argument or defending yourself
Many people can't be bothered
Whereas saying you're in favour of equality for this that and the other and saving the planet is the way to brownie points generally.. So seems likely to me that left wing parties are overstated in VI polls
On the rare occasions my mates spoke about politics they a said they'd vote Ukip, but all said they don't like to say it in front of strangers etc in case they looked racist / couldn't be bothered with the argument
Worth noting that OFCOM decision re Major Party status is out to consultation - if Greens keep performing well over next few weeks then that is going to be fed back in the consultation and it is entirely possible OFCOM could then give the Greens Major Party status.
Would be extraordinary if anyone on here supported that as when UKIP were trying to use consistent double figure polling as a reason for major party status everyone said no chance/would be ridiculous etc
More the merrier in the debates tho eh ?
If 10% ish of people are thinking of voting for them I don't see why not, although the reason for them being on 10% is a bit dubious
An hour of Natalie Bennett and I think I will confidently call "Peak Hippy"
Reasons why Natalie Bennett will do well in the debates.
1/ She's a woman and not part of the old boy system. She's not a Maggie Thatcher who could have been a man in woman's clothes, politically speaking.
2/ She's a woman and females will say "here's somebody to represent me."
3/ She's a woman without much in the way of charisma and struggles to give an answer, and people will say she seems like a genuine person and doesn't look or sound like a slick snake-oil salesman politician.
4/ She's a woman leading a party that is concerned with issues that matter to millions of people who feel they are not represented such as greater social equality and opportunity, living wages for all and the environment.
5/ She's a woman who will get less screen time than the men, and people will think that is unfair and male chauvinist.
So she's a woman, right? (your point repeated five times)
But she's also fecking Australian, and as boring as a blowfly on the barbie...
But a previous female Australian politician with a grating voice and lugubrious manner went viral:
I'm expecting a Bennett-asm. (And Farage has the most to fear - his glassy-eyed golf-club sauntering could be most easily pricked.)
And she appointed as her chief SPAD one John McTernan, a move which directly led to her downfall. Said John McTernan is now the chief SPAD for Jim Murphy, leader of the Labour's Scottish branch office.
If memory serves me correctly, RodCrosby predicted some months ago that in January 2015 we'd start to see a number of polls showing Conservative leads.
Jus' sayin'...
Out of all the polls in January how many have been labour leads and how many have been tory leads? Clue - it's about the same as lots of months last year.
From what I can see Con lead 3 polls in October, 6 in November and 3 in December;
So far in January Con have lead 3 polls (but 2 have been this week and we're only at Tuesday )
With only one mad Ashcroft left until the end of Jan I'd be surprised if they even got as many leads as a couple of months ago. And this while labour are in the middle of a nat and green squall.
As someone who foretold the Green surge would happen I predict the following.
Ed will offer some rather left wing policies to attract the Green voters but it won't work, and will see some Lab to Con and LD movement.
The only left-wing policies that would work is movement on the spending cuts question.
One of the big frustrations I have with Ed is the limited amount of left-wing ideological grandstanding he does is all on peripheral issues (I'm not even sure how much cachet "nationalising the railways" has outside of the lefty Twittersphere, and the other lefty shibboleth "abolising Trident" certainly won't do anything) while endlessly moving to the right on the big things that Joe Public cares about.
You are complaining that a politician responds to what the county wants? Really?
What do you think about Obama, who completely ignores what the country and Congress want, and doubles down on his own agenda all the time, even though poll after poll says huge majorities disapprove of his policies and think the country is headed in the wrong direction? Is that what you want Ed to do?.
Such is the bizarre nature of British politics now, I can only imagine Farage is miffed about OFCOM not excluding Ukip from the debates. Appears to be the best thing that ever happened to the Greens.
As someone who foretold the Green surge would happen I predict the following.
Ed will offer some rather left wing policies to attract the Green voters but it won't work, and will see some Lab to Con and LD movement.
The only left-wing policies that would work is movement on the spending cuts question.
One of the big frustrations I have with Ed is the limited amount of left-wing ideological grandstanding he does is all on peripheral issues (I'm not even sure how much cachet "nationalising the railways" has outside of the lefty Twittersphere, and the other lefty shibboleth "abolising Trident" certainly won't do anything) while endlessly moving to the right on the big things that Joe Public cares about.
You are complaining that a politician responds to what the county wants? Really?
What do you think about Obama, who completely ignores what the country and Congress want, and doubles down on his own agenda all the time, even though poll after poll says huge majorities disapprove of his policies and think the country is headed in the wrong direction? Is that what you want Ed to do?.
He's not responding to what the country wants.
If you had to choose which of the following directions should the next government take?
Reduce government borrowing, at expense of public services: 24% Increase spending on public services, even if government borrowing increases: 32% Keep borrowing and spending about the same as now: 29% Don't know: 15%
61% disagree with the 3 main parties' united position of "more cuts". And the 32% who want spending INCREASES are to the left of me (I only want spending maintained at current levels in real terms).
while endlessly moving to the right on the big things that Joe Public cares about.
That's not responding to what people want?
The public want moves to the right on immigration and Europe (and crime? Although this doesn't seem a big issue to the public right now), but not on economics/public spending.
YouGov: One poll. MOE. Bit of a Green uptick maybe. Let's see if it lasts. Basically big two still tied or near as makes no odds at very low historical levels.
New floor found for Labour though. To go with Ashcroft's 28/29, and MORI's 29 in two of the last three polls.
True enough, but the Tories holding 32% while others fall behind hardly seems a ringing endorsement. Personally I'll be questioning anybody's moral legitimacy to govern alone if we get some weird 31/25/7/14/10 plus 5 nats sort of a result whoever is the 31.
The electoral system is on trial come May 7th as much as anything.
Totally agreed - I can't wait to see the stats for MP's elected with under 30% of the vote, 30-35% of the vote and those still getting over 50% in their individual consistency. How much the 2 former metrics are up on 2010, and the latter metric down against 2010 will be very telling as to the complete and utter unsustainability of the current system. Having said that the British electorate has proved very adept over past GE's to get the overall 'desired' result in spite of the wretched system for a now 7 party system plus Northern Ireland.
Speaking of Northern Ireland, what's happening there - any DUP or SInn Fein surging going on ?
The NI Boundary Commission is pretty much targetted with keeping the results as they are today and will gerrymander like fuck to maintain that.
Such is the bizarre nature of British politics now, I can only imagine Farage is miffed about OFCOM not excluding Ukip from the debates. Appears to be the best thing that ever happened to the Greens.
Yup. In terms of membership (not everything but very important to parties this size) there were four surges in the past year:
(1) At the time of the Euros (usually happens with increased coverage) (2) After the Scottish referendum (for the Scottish GP, obviously) (3) When the broadcasters first announced their plans without any Greens (4) After Ofcom's consultation was announced
As far as I can see the 4th one is still going strong and has been reinforced by these poll ratings. I think the parties are about 10 times bigger in terms of membership than when I joined.
That is a desperate poll for Labour. I did wonder whether Ed Miliband, of all people, could increase the historically poor vote achieved by Gordon Brown, even as Labour's vote has fallen by five million votes in 15 years, and shows no signs of recovering.
And yet, given the electoral bias in his favour, I still foresee Ed scraping a narrow plurality. With a new election soon afterwards.
The Scots, damn them, will determine this election.
If the SNP wipe the board with 40 MP's or so and have a massive disproportionate influence on the next parliament, then I as someone in the Nationalist camp will just say 'told you so'. As usual so many people were thinking in terms of the immediate situation instead of thinking about the dynamic situation up the road. To think that so many of the Unionist camp thought that any defeat on the Independence referendum would lead to a repeat of the 1978/9 situation with a big fall off in SNP support were incredibly misguided to say the least!
But I didn't.
As regular pb-ers will recall, BEFORE the Scots referendum I predicted:
1. NO would win, but more narrowly than many expected 2. Salmond would then resign (I thought he'd carry on until 2015, then do seppuku, but no one is perfect) 3. Crucially, I predicted that a NO vote would, paradoxically, lead to a surge in SNP support, as patriotic Scots voters "apologised" for being wee timorous beasties, and clinging to England
And thus it happened. Call me Ezekiel.
I am not sure you can claim credit for getting the motives wrong. My observation is that the SNP peddled left during the referendum and Scottish Labour's mad CND wing went with them - may well have been the driver. They saw the opportunity to stuff the UK stuff the USA stuff everyone by destroying the nuclear deterrent. Losing and losing to mainstream Labour sent them into hysterics. The SNP are still going on about Trident now (perhaps 'banging on' would be an apt analogy) Camerons EVEL speech probably did for the SLAB vote as well since Miliband denounced it instantly and in the Alice in Wonderland world of politics the ScotLabs probably thought he was delaying devomax.
Such is the bizarre nature of British politics now, I can only imagine Farage is miffed about OFCOM not excluding Ukip from the debates. Appears to be the best thing that ever happened to the Greens.
Yup. In terms of membership (not everything but very important to parties this size) there were four surges in the past year:
(1) At the time of the Euros (usually happens with increased coverage) (2) After the Scottish referendum (for the Scottish GP, obviously) (3) When the broadcasters first announced their plans without any Greens (4) After Ofcom's consultation was announced
As far as I can see the 4th one is still going strong and has been reinforced by these poll ratings. I think the parties are about 10 times bigger in terms of membership than when I joined.
Perhaps the news of the Greens' membership surge last week is ITSELF further fuelling the new poll surge? It does seem to have kicked up a gear just in the last few days.
Worth noting that OFCOM decision re Major Party status is out to consultation - if Greens keep performing well over next few weeks then that is going to be fed back in the consultation and it is entirely possible OFCOM could then give the Greens Major Party status.
Would be extraordinary if anyone on here supported that as when UKIP were trying to use consistent double figure polling as a reason for major party status everyone said no chance/would be ridiculous etc
More the merrier in the debates tho eh ?
If 10% ish of people are thinking of voting for them I don't see why not, although the reason for them being on 10% is a bit dubious
An hour of Natalie Bennett and I think I will confidently call "Peak Hippy"
Reasons why Natalie Bennett will do well in the debates.
1/ She's a woman and not part of the old boy system. She's not a Maggie Thatcher who could have been a man in woman's clothes, politically speaking.
2/ She's a woman and females will say "here's somebody to represent me."
3/ She's a woman without much in the way of charisma and struggles to give an answer, and people will say she seems like a genuine person and doesn't look or sound like a slick snake-oil salesman politician.
4/ She's a woman leading a party that is concerned with issues that matter to millions of people who feel they are not represented such as greater social equality and opportunity, living wages for all and the environment.
5/ She's a woman who will get less screen time than the men, and people will think that is unfair and male chauvinist.
The Greens have a huge advantage here, not in terms of Natalie Bennett being a woman but if you look at their leaders, both Patrick Harvie and Natalie Bennett pull off the trick of being very good, slick politicians without appearing to be so.
Even Salmond and Sturgeon can't pull that off and they both have 40%+ approval ratings.
FPTP will still give them a mountain to climb but Brighton Pavilion looks likely to become a LibDem in the South West style citadel and they may threaten a couple of seats elsewhere.
Norwich South ? Maybe, some Lib Dem seat.
Was thinking Norwich South and St Ives but English seats are outside my comfort zone.
Such is the bizarre nature of British politics now, I can only imagine Farage is miffed about OFCOM not excluding Ukip from the debates. Appears to be the best thing that ever happened to the Greens.
Yup. In terms of membership (not everything but very important to parties this size) there were four surges in the past year:
(1) At the time of the Euros (usually happens with increased coverage) (2) After the Scottish referendum (for the Scottish GP, obviously) (3) When the broadcasters first announced their plans without any Greens (4) After Ofcom's consultation was announced
As far as I can see the 4th one is still going strong and has been reinforced by these poll ratings. I think the parties are about 10 times bigger in terms of membership than when I joined.
Perhaps the news of the Greens' membership surge last week is ITSELF further fuelling the new poll surge? It does seem to have kicked up a gear just in the last few days.
Oh yes, it's a virtuous cycle and the polls have managed to spin it out a while longer. I think the poll ratings will eventually fade a bit (and we wont get 10% in May) but a lot of the members and new activists will remain and to my mind that's more important because they will provide the resources and manpower to win seats at all levels hopefully including more in Westminster in 2020.
That is a desperate poll for Labour. I did wonder whether Ed Miliband, of all people, could increase the historically poor vote achieved by Gordon Brown, even as Labour's vote has fallen by five million votes in 15 years, and shows no signs of recovering.
And yet, given the electoral bias in his favour, I still foresee Ed scraping a narrow plurality. With a new election soon afterwards.
The Scots, damn them, will determine this election.
If the SNP wipe the board with 40 MP's or so and have a massive disproportionate influence on the next parliament, then I as someone in the Nationalist camp will just say 'told you so'. As usual so many people were thinking in terms of the immediate situation instead of thinking about the dynamic situation up the road. To think that so many of the Unionist camp thought that any defeat on the Independence referendum would lead to a repeat of the 1978/9 situation with a big fall off in SNP support were incredibly misguided to say the least!
As regular pb-ers will recall, BEFORE the Scots referendum I predicted:
1. NO would win, but more narrowly than many expected.....
.....Call me Ezekiel.
You mean apart from your big girl's blouse phase when you were demanding that Cameron dash to Edinburgh to save the Union as Yes were going to win?
The only left-wing policies that would work is movement on the spending cuts question.
...
You are complaining that a politician responds to what the county wants? Really?
What do you think about Obama, who completely ignores what the country and Congress want, and doubles down on his own agenda all the time, even though poll after poll says huge majorities disapprove of his policies and think the country is headed in the wrong direction? Is that what you want Ed to do?.
He's not responding to what the country wants.
If you had to choose which of the following directions should the next government take?
Reduce government borrowing, at expense of public services: 24% Increase spending on public services, even if government borrowing increases: 32% Keep borrowing and spending about the same as now: 29% Don't know: 15%
61% disagree with the 3 main parties' united position of "more cuts". And the 32% who want spending INCREASES are to the left of me (I only want spending maintained at current levels in real terms).
Voodoo polling when you do not spell out consequences of wanting free money. What would the poll results be if you said do you think it wise to double spending in real terms inside 10 years David Smith Sunday Times Economic Editor ''In inflation-adjusted terms, 2013-14 prices, there was a massive increase in total managed expenditure over the 2000-2010 period. Spending in real terms in 2009-10, £737.3bn, was 51% higher than it was in 1999-2000, £488.5bn. Think about that for a second. In a decade, the size of the state increased by just over a half. It was the biggest sustained increase in public spending in British history.'' http://www.economicsuk.com/blog/002073.html#more And then if you put it in to this context... ''Osborne’s overall aim over the 10 years 2010-2020 is to reduce total managed expenditure from £737.3bn in 2009-10, again in real terms, to £703.7bn in 2019-20. That is a reduction of 4.6% over 10 years, less than a single year’s increase during the splurge years.''
People may answer the pollsters but the pollsters themselves are ignorant of the questions that need asking and the public are clueless about the real situation- fed garbage by most of the media. The scale of the problem and the great difficulty in solving it (in part due to the ignorance that you have illustrated) shows why Brown was such a shockingly disastrous Chancellor and PM.
BTW in another article Smith clearly points out that Osborne has indeed halved the deficit.
Such is the bizarre nature of British politics now, I can only imagine Farage is miffed about OFCOM not excluding Ukip from the debates. Appears to be the best thing that ever happened to the Greens.
Yup. In terms of membership (not everything but very important to parties this size) there were four surges in the past year:
(1) At the time of the Euros (usually happens with increased coverage) (2) After the Scottish referendum (for the Scottish GP, obviously) (3) When the broadcasters first announced their plans without any Greens (4) After Ofcom's consultation was announced
As far as I can see the 4th one is still going strong and has been reinforced by these poll ratings. I think the parties are about 10 times bigger in terms of membership than when I joined.
Perhaps the news of the Greens' membership surge last week is ITSELF further fuelling the new poll surge? It does seem to have kicked up a gear just in the last few days.
The converse is also true - hence furious SNP spinning that their mighty juggernaut advances as before (and the Labour counter that it isn't).......
while endlessly moving to the right on the big things that Joe Public cares about.
That's not responding to what people want?
The public want moves to the right on immigration and Europe (and crime? Although this doesn't seem a big issue to the public right now), but not on economics/public spending.
Many people don't understand that all this public spending has to be paid for by the private sector or - worse - borrowing. I looked at some numbers several years ago that suggest that when the public sector spending exceeds somewhere between 35-38% of gdp it has a drag effect on the economy.
Economic growth is generated by the private sector, goods and services. At the end of the day people don't need handouts or subsidies - they need jobs. Folks don't want to be dependent on government - they want to stand on their own two feet.
To grow the economy business needs to invest and grow to provide jobs and create wealth for the economy. The catch 22 is that you can't do that with a huge public sector stifling the private sector.
The debate thing is clearly the cleverest Cameron/Osborne/Crosby ruse to date. Not only is the Green publicity starting to suck Labour dry, it also means that Ed can't now risk the debate himself, with his left flank horribly exposed. So Dave can wash his hands of the Nigel threat into the bargain.
Hardly. Natalie Bennett comes across terribly. Miliband might need her in the debate to deflate the Greengasm.
And the one thing missing from Marf's cartoon - the establishment trying to quash an inconvenient report. Blair might hope we've all forgotten about Chilcot when he loses his battle to prevent publication, but we won't have.
And the one thing missing from Marf's cartoon - the establishment trying to quash an inconvenient report. Blair might hope we've all forgotten about Chilcot when he loses his battle to prevent publication, but we won't have.
"And I would have gotten away with it, if it wasn't for that pesky Chilcot Report!"
The Green Party is basically the hard left on a Vegan diet.
Vegan (or a least reduced meat) diet has a lot to recommend it in conserving the worlds resources/sharing them nicely.
The irony being that (especially children) need supplements to be healthy on a vegan diet because it is deficient in vitamin D, calcium, iron and possibly vitamin B12. Supplements are the product of a technologically advanced industrial society, oh dear.
And the one thing missing from Marf's cartoon - the establishment trying to quash an inconvenient report. Blair might hope we've all forgotten about Chilcot when he loses his battle to prevent publication, but we won't have.
Am I correct in thinking that ultimately Blair faces no sanctions because every act he took in controlling the armed forces was done using delegated royal prerogative ?
The Green Party is basically the hard left on a Vegan diet.
Vegan (or a least reduced meat) diet has a lot to recommend it in conserving the worlds resources/sharing them nicely.
If only they were in favour of nuclear power and whaling, I'd be supporting them myself!
(Whaling is a far greener way of getting red meat than all this cattle business. As long as we only take the common species )
Minke whale was on the menu in Iceland last month - although I understand only around 2% of Icelanders still eat it. Sad to say, the demand mostly comes from tourists.
Not so sure it is that eco-friendly either, when you take account of the bunker fuel that spews into the atmosphere from a whaler.
The Green Party is basically the hard left on a Vegan diet.
Vegan (or a least reduced meat) diet has a lot to recommend it in conserving the worlds resources/sharing them nicely.
The irony being that (especially children) need supplements to be healthy on a vegan diet because it is deficient in vitamin D, calcium, iron and possibly vitamin B12. Supplements are the product of a technologically advanced industrial society, oh dear.
yes, I should have said vegetarian. supplemented by whalemeat as you see in my other post
The Green Party is basically the hard left on a Vegan diet.
Vegan (or a least reduced meat) diet has a lot to recommend it in conserving the worlds resources/sharing them nicely.
The irony being that (especially children) need supplements to be healthy on a vegan diet because it is deficient in vitamin D, calcium, iron and possibly vitamin B12. Supplements are the product of a technologically advanced industrial society, oh dear.
yes, I should have said vegetarian. supplemented by whalemeat as you see in my other post
Yes I understand your position. I was highlighting that the Green position doesn't make any sense, being both pro-vegan and anti-industrialization, presumably they are pro-malnourished children.
Yes I understand your position. I was highlighting that the Green position doesn't make any sense, being both pro-vegan and anti-industrialization, presumably they are pro-malnourished children.
Are their policies actually pro-vegan? I don't see that skimming the website.
Yes I understand your position. I was highlighting that the Green position doesn't make any sense, being both pro-vegan and anti-industrialization, presumably they are pro-malnourished children.
Are their policies actually pro-vegan? I don't see that skimming the website.
Only to the extent that they will force all schools, hospitals and public sector establishments to provide vegetarian and vegan options for all meals. It wasn't necessarily a serious point, its poking fun at a party with apparently as a set of policies which simultaneously wants to spend a lot of money whilst wanting to destroy or severely limit most of the ways a country makes money, wants to provide more choice by removing choice and most fancifully reform the way the UK works by getting the rest of the world to reform to help us.
They are very quiet about it by they must be hugely anti-EU under the covers since almost everything they want to do would break at least one of the three pillars of EU membership. Its dressed up as persuading the rest of the EU to do things our way, but really...
Must ask the guy who is teaching us about Islam about that. He seems ...... we’ve only just started ....... to regard ISIL as traitors to the Prophets memory.
I'm reading Martin Bell's book "A Very British Revolution" and Carswell came over as one of the better Tories during the expenses scandal, no duck houses or moats there.
The Green Party is basically the hard left on a Vegan diet.
Vegan (or a least reduced meat) diet has a lot to recommend it in conserving the worlds resources/sharing them nicely.
If only they were in favour of nuclear power and whaling, I'd be supporting them myself!
(Whaling is a far greener way of getting red meat than all this cattle business. As long as we only take the common species )
Minke whale was on the menu in Iceland last month - although I understand only around 2% of Icelanders still eat it. Sad to say, the demand mostly comes from tourists.
Not so sure it is that eco-friendly either, when you take account of the bunker fuel that spews into the atmosphere from a whaler.
I have been to Iceland a few times and have yet to meet an Icelander who is not fiercely pro-whaling.
The Green Party is basically the hard left on a Vegan diet.
Vegan (or a least reduced meat) diet has a lot to recommend it in conserving the worlds resources/sharing them nicely.
The irony being that (especially children) need supplements to be healthy on a vegan diet because it is deficient in vitamin D, calcium, iron and possibly vitamin B12. Supplements are the product of a technologically advanced industrial society, oh dear.
yes, I should have said vegetarian. supplemented by whalemeat as you see in my other post
Yes I understand your position. I was highlighting that the Green position doesn't make any sense, being both pro-vegan and anti-industrialization, presumably they are pro-malnourished children.
Presumably, they are against over use of precious resources. What about sex and procreation ? What position do they take on that ?
Comments
Ed will offer some rather left wing policies to attract the Green voters but it won't work, and will see some Lab to Con and LD movement.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-2
So far in January Con have lead 3 polls (but 2 have been this week and we're only at Tuesday
Very true it's 650 elections and all that. However, if we are consistently getting a fractured political scene (and since about 1974 we seem to be increasingly so as a general trend) the overall result will tend to get more bizarre ( eg 2005 in England as you say) which cannot be good for legitimacy. Milliband ( for example) is going to struggle on ( say) 32% and 285 seats propped up by Sturgeon - it'll be a zoo!
I'm increasingly led towards some kind of German ( or a Welsh!) system of PR and constituency combination which could lead to single party govt if you did really well a la 1983/7 or 1997/2001 but most of the time had coalition with a dominant partner.
We can't keep having the likes of G Brown inflicted upon us with no checks on about a third of the vote and a minuscule lead. Can we????
Even Salmond and Sturgeon can't pull that off and they both have 40%+ approval ratings.
FPTP will still give them a mountain to climb but Brighton Pavilion looks likely to become a LibDem in the South West style citadel and they may threaten a couple of seats elsewhere.
My initial - tongue in cheek - thought was that they wanted to get Al Sharpton to join, to raise their profile.
He is after all equally odious.
One of the big frustrations I have with Ed is the limited amount of left-wing ideological grandstanding he does is all on peripheral issues (I'm not even sure how much cachet "nationalising the railways" has outside of the lefty Twittersphere, and the other lefty shibboleth "abolising Trident" certainly won't do anything) while endlessly moving to the right on the big things that Joe Public cares about.
In London, it will hurt Labour. Elsewhere, I am not sure. Will it give them a second seat, doubtful. ?
The 7/1 on two elections this year is tempting too. I really struggle to see a viable government emerging.
It's true to say in a lot of places I have worked and lived saying you were a Tory (and now a kipper ) is the prelude to an argument or defending yourself
Many people can't be bothered
Whereas saying you're in favour of equality for this that and the other and saving the planet is the way to brownie points generally.. So seems likely to me that left wing parties are overstated in VI polls
On the rare occasions my mates spoke about politics they a said they'd vote Ukip, but all said they don't like to say it in front of strangers etc in case they looked racist / couldn't be bothered with the argument
What do you think about Obama, who completely ignores what the country and Congress want, and doubles down on his own agenda all the time, even though poll after poll says huge majorities disapprove of his policies and think the country is headed in the wrong direction? Is that what you want Ed to do?.
If you had to choose which of the following directions should the next government take?
Reduce government borrowing, at expense of public services: 24%
Increase spending on public services, even if government borrowing increases: 32%
Keep borrowing and spending about the same as now: 29%
Don't know: 15%
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/01/14/voters-prefer-spending-services-cutting-borrowing/
**
61% disagree with the 3 main parties' united position of "more cuts". And the 32% who want spending INCREASES are to the left of me (I only want spending maintained at current levels in real terms).
No need to post here anymore...maybe!
GN
while endlessly moving to the right on the big things that Joe Public cares about.
That's not responding to what people want?
(1) At the time of the Euros (usually happens with increased coverage)
(2) After the Scottish referendum (for the Scottish GP, obviously)
(3) When the broadcasters first announced their plans without any Greens
(4) After Ofcom's consultation was announced
As far as I can see the 4th one is still going strong and has been reinforced by these poll ratings. I think the parties are about 10 times bigger in terms of membership than when I joined.
My observation is that the SNP peddled left during the referendum and Scottish Labour's mad CND wing went with them - may well have been the driver. They saw the opportunity to stuff the UK stuff the USA stuff everyone by destroying the nuclear deterrent. Losing and losing to mainstream Labour sent them into hysterics. The SNP are still going on about Trident now (perhaps 'banging on' would be an apt analogy)
Camerons EVEL speech probably did for the SLAB vote as well since Miliband denounced it instantly and in the Alice in Wonderland world of politics the ScotLabs probably thought he was delaying devomax.
How has that turned out.....
What would the poll results be if you said do you think it wise to double spending in real terms inside 10 years
David Smith Sunday Times Economic Editor
''In inflation-adjusted terms, 2013-14 prices, there was a massive increase in total managed expenditure over the 2000-2010 period. Spending in real terms in 2009-10, £737.3bn, was 51% higher than it was in 1999-2000, £488.5bn.
Think about that for a second. In a decade, the size of the state increased by just over a half. It was the biggest sustained increase in public spending in British history.''
http://www.economicsuk.com/blog/002073.html#more
And then if you put it in to this context...
''Osborne’s overall aim over the 10 years 2010-2020 is to reduce total managed expenditure from £737.3bn in 2009-10, again in real terms, to £703.7bn in 2019-20. That is a reduction of 4.6% over 10 years, less than a single year’s increase during the splurge years.''
People may answer the pollsters but the pollsters themselves are ignorant of the questions that need asking and the public are clueless about the real situation- fed garbage by most of the media.
The scale of the problem and the great difficulty in solving it (in part due to the ignorance that you have illustrated) shows why Brown was such a shockingly disastrous Chancellor and PM.
BTW in another article Smith clearly points out that Osborne has indeed halved the deficit.
Economic growth is generated by the private sector, goods and services. At the end of the day people don't need handouts or subsidies - they need jobs. Folks don't want to be dependent on government - they want to stand on their own two feet.
To grow the economy business needs to invest and grow to provide jobs and create wealth for the economy. The catch 22 is that you can't do that with a huge public sector stifling the private sector.
http://www.ilfordrecorder.co.uk/news/general_election_2015_chigwell_granny_vying_for_lee_scott_mp_s_seat_1_3915654
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11358947/Labour-mayor-defects-to-Ukip.html
opinion polls - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA
Who reads the papers? - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGscoaUWW2M
Nuclear deterrent - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX_d_vMKswE
'She comes across terribly to you. Fair enough. However, she comes across well to enough of the electorate (myself included) to have some impact.'
Her party's manifesto makes Labour's 1983 manifesto look moderate.
The Green Party is basically the hard left on a Vegan diet.
If only they were in favour of nuclear power and whaling, I'd be supporting them myself!
(Whaling is a far greener way of getting red meat than all this cattle business. As long as we only take the common species
Not so sure it is that eco-friendly either, when you take account of the bunker fuel that spews into the atmosphere from a whaler.
https://twitter.com/bob_dennett
even so, it would have to be bad to compete with the resources consumed by the beef industry
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2917866/Islamic-State-rounds-15-pigeon-breeders-Iraq-deciding-Islamic-birds.html
They are very quiet about it by they must be hugely anti-EU under the covers since almost everything they want to do would break at least one of the three pillars of EU membership. Its dressed up as persuading the rest of the EU to do things our way, but really...
The poll numbers do look a bit off for the North and the Midlands/Wales elements.
It can't be long before they find a sample that has fewer 2015 Labour voters than 2010 ones. Three of the last six have been right on the line.