I have not been on a regular jury, but I have been on a Grand Jury, about 20 years ago.Grand Jury rules are county by county It's an interesting experience. You get to the courthouse with your jury duty card and then a list of 25 names is called out, and those on the list are taken to the grand jury room. It is then explained to you that jury selection is random, but grand jury selection is not random, and only the names of persons deemed by jury commissioners to be the ‘most intelligent, most experienced and most upright citizens’ of the county are placed in the grand jury pool. (I believe this has recently changed and grand jury selection is now random also).
You meet for a half day a week for a year. Quorum is 17. Decisions are a 2/3 majority. You get to know the other members of the grand jury and their thought processes, hot buttons and approach very well.
CONSERVATIVE PARTY 306 Conservative MPs elected in 2010 • Seven realistically regarded as Europhile (2.3%) • 64 categorised as ‘European Agnostic’ (20.9%) • 154 being Eurosceptic (50.3%) • 81 can be classified as ‘hard Eurosceptics’ (26.5%) [on the grounds that they have publicly advocated withdrawal from the EU and/or rebelled against the party whip in favour of a referendum on withdrawal]
Laura Sandys and Damian Green
Out of seven eurosceptic Tories, Cameron has promoted four of them to ministerial positions.
CONSERVATIVE PARTY 306 Conservative MPs elected in 2010 • Seven realistically regarded as Europhile (2.3%) • 64 categorised as ‘European Agnostic’ (20.9%) • 154 being Eurosceptic (50.3%) • 81 can be classified as ‘hard Eurosceptics’ (26.5%) [on the grounds that they have publicly advocated withdrawal from the EU and/or rebelled against the party whip in favour of a referendum on withdrawal]
Cameron must be a European Agnostic, I guess, given that he's not willing to do even a moderately tough line on negotiation. So he's more Europhile than three quarters of his parliamentary party, let alone his activist and voter base.
If Tory leaders want to have the party stop being so divided over Europe, they need to stop dividing themselves from the views of their party.
So why do Con supporters give Cameron such an astonishingly high approval rating?
CONSERVATIVE PARTY 306 Conservative MPs elected in 2010 • Seven realistically regarded as Europhile (2.3%) • 64 categorised as ‘European Agnostic’ (20.9%) • 154 being Eurosceptic (50.3%) • 81 can be classified as ‘hard Eurosceptics’ (26.5%) [on the grounds that they have publicly advocated withdrawal from the EU and/or rebelled against the party whip in favour of a referendum on withdrawal]
Laura Sandys and Damian Green
The members of 'European Mainstream' are self identified Europhiles.
Robert Buckland Damian Green Margot James Jeremy Lafroy James Paice Neil Carmichael Charles Hendry Peter Luff Richard Ottway Malcolm Rifkind Tony Baldry Richard Benyon Alistair Burt Stephen Dorrell Tobias Elwood Ben Gummer Laura Sandys Caroline Spelman
I am not labeling these as Europhiles. They have the courage of their convictions to do that themselves quite happily.
CONSERVATIVE PARTY 306 Conservative MPs elected in 2010 • Seven realistically regarded as Europhile (2.3%) • 64 categorised as ‘European Agnostic’ (20.9%) • 154 being Eurosceptic (50.3%) • 81 can be classified as ‘hard Eurosceptics’ (26.5%) [on the grounds that they have publicly advocated withdrawal from the EU and/or rebelled against the party whip in favour of a referendum on withdrawal]
Cameron must be a European Agnostic, I guess, given that he's not willing to do even a moderately tough line on negotiation. So he's more Europhile than three quarters of his parliamentary party, let alone his activist and voter base.
If Tory leaders want to have the party stop being so divided over Europe, they need to stop dividing themselves from the views of their party.
Beat me to it!
Yes, the patrician Tories probably are too and most of the ones in the Tory Reform Group (Sir George Young, Alistair Burt, Jonathan Evans, Stephen Dorell, Robert Buckland, Richard Fuller) and I expect some of the Cameron A-listers too (Nicky Morgan, Liz Truss, Angie Bray, Anna Soubry and Caroline Dineage)
Some of them (particularly in the TRG) are probably shy 'philes.
CONSERVATIVE PARTY 306 Conservative MPs elected in 2010 • Seven realistically regarded as Europhile (2.3%) • 64 categorised as ‘European Agnostic’ (20.9%) • 154 being Eurosceptic (50.3%) • 81 can be classified as ‘hard Eurosceptics’ (26.5%) [on the grounds that they have publicly advocated withdrawal from the EU and/or rebelled against the party whip in favour of a referendum on withdrawal]
Cameron must be a European Agnostic, I guess, given that he's not willing to do even a moderately tough line on negotiation. So he's more Europhile than three quarters of his parliamentary party, let alone his activist and voter base.
If Tory leaders want to have the party stop being so divided over Europe, they need to stop dividing themselves from the views of their party.
So why do Con supporters give Cameron such an astonishingly high approval rating?
Because he's pissed off the ones that disapprove so much that they are no longer party supporters?
CONSERVATIVE PARTY 306 Conservative MPs elected in 2010 • Seven realistically regarded as Europhile (2.3%) • 64 categorised as ‘European Agnostic’ (20.9%) • 154 being Eurosceptic (50.3%) • 81 can be classified as ‘hard Eurosceptics’ (26.5%) [on the grounds that they have publicly advocated withdrawal from the EU and/or rebelled against the party whip in favour of a referendum on withdrawal]
Laura Sandys and Damian Green
Out of seven eurosceptic Tories, Cameron has promoted four of them to ministerial positions.
I think you mean europhile, old bean. We'd all be screwed if there were only seven Tory patriots.
CONSERVATIVE PARTY 306 Conservative MPs elected in 2010 • Seven realistically regarded as Europhile (2.3%) • 64 categorised as ‘European Agnostic’ (20.9%) • 154 being Eurosceptic (50.3%) • 81 can be classified as ‘hard Eurosceptics’ (26.5%) [on the grounds that they have publicly advocated withdrawal from the EU and/or rebelled against the party whip in favour of a referendum on withdrawal]
Laura Sandys and Damian Green
The members of 'European Mainstream' are self identified Europhiles.
Robert Buckland Damian Green Margot James Jeremy Lafroy James Paice Neil Carmichael Charles Hendry Peter Luff Richard Ottway Malcolm Rifkind Tony Baldry Richard Benyon Alistair Burt Stephen Dorrell Tobias Elwood Ben Gummer Laura Sandys Caroline Spelman
I am not labeling these as Europhiles. They have the courage of their convictions to do that themselves quite happily.
The traditional definition would be a Tory who's an advocate of our membership of the euro.
The contemporary definition is probably one who consistently advocates for us to opt-in to EU measures, and suggests future enhanced EU cooperation, on the basis of effectiveness, or influence.
On that basis, you could probably up it to a core of 30-40 EU-phile Tory MPs, with another similar number more or less happy with being whipped on it.
The battle for the soul of the Tory party on the EU will be fought over the 150 mainstream eurosceptic MPs.
The members of 'European Mainstream' are self identified Europhiles.
SNIP
I am not labeling these as Europhiles. They have the courage of their convictions to do that themselves quite happily.
Just looked at the website.
"We are the mainstream of the Conservative Party.
Europhiles always have a complex relationship with reality...
We are fundamentally united by our belief that the UK national interest is best served working for changes within the EU, not being marginalised at the fringes.
I would characterise Cameron waiting to be told by Angela Merkel what changes are allowed to our immigration policy counts as pretty marginalised, don't you?
This group believes that the nation would be best served by the Conservative Party campaigning for a ‘yes’ vote in any future in/out referendum"
And that will happen, of course, because the Tory party leadership will side with these people rather than the views of their own parliamentary party and members.
CONSERVATIVE PARTY 306 Conservative MPs elected in 2010 • Seven realistically regarded as Europhile (2.3%) • 64 categorised as ‘European Agnostic’ (20.9%) • 154 being Eurosceptic (50.3%) • 81 can be classified as ‘hard Eurosceptics’ (26.5%) [on the grounds that they have publicly advocated withdrawal from the EU and/or rebelled against the party whip in favour of a referendum on withdrawal]
What I find even more interesting is speculating who are the 64: who on earth is still on the fence on this?
I'll start it off: Cameron.
I'd suggest George Osborne, Theresa May, Oliver Heald, Dominic Grieve, Alistair Burt, Nicky Morgan, Sir Edward Garnier, Sir George Young, Richard Ottaway, Hugo Swire, Mike Weatherly, Nick Hurd, David Gauke, Chloe Smith, Margot James, among others.
I still think it's wacky having 2/3 debates with 7 participants, one of whom 97% cannot vote for, another of whom 92% cannot vote for.
Edited extra bit: there's also a question of whether or not 'local' debates (Scotland and Wales) will be held.
But what I don't get is why the Unionists don't have the courage of their convictions. Surely all MPs are created equal and have equal rights - and so too should the parties and voters bidding to elect those MPs. So EITHER the election campaigns should be confined to each constituency OR we have full UK wide campaigns. (I'd sure be interested to see more of the DUP and SF, for sure ...).
The members of 'European Mainstream' are self identified Europhiles.
SNIP
I am not labeling these as Europhiles. They have the courage of their convictions to do that themselves quite happily.
Just looked at the website.
"We are the mainstream of the Conservative Party.
Europhiles always have a complex relationship with reality...
We are fundamentally united by our belief that the UK national interest is best served working for changes within the EU, not being marginalised at the fringes.
I would characterise Cameron waiting to be told by Angela Merkel what changes are allowed to our immigration policy counts as pretty marginalised, don't you?
This group believes that the nation would be best served by the Conservative Party campaigning for a ‘yes’ vote in any future in/out referendum"
And that will happen, of course, because the Tory party leadership will side with these people rather than the views of their own parliamentary party and members.
Yes. Although apart from a handful, they're all from previous generations of Tory MPs.
The party is becoming more eurosceptic with time. I expect the Tory party by the mid 2020s to be pretty solidly anti-EU.
I still think it's wacky having 2/3 debates with 7 participants, one of whom 97% cannot vote for, another of whom 92% cannot vote for.
Edited extra bit: there's also a question of whether or not 'local' debates (Scotland and Wales) will be held.
But what I don't get is why the Unionists don't have the courage of their convictions. Surely all MPs are created equal and have equal rights - and so too should the parties and voters bidding to elect those MPs. So EITHER the election campaigns should be confined to each constituency OR we have full UK wide campaigns. (I'd sure be interested to see more of the DUP and SF, for sure ...).
If most people in the UK can vote for the party, then they can be included. If the party is not relevant to more than 90% of the voting public, they shouldn't be taking debate time away from people who are. I would feel the same about an East Anglia regional party.
CONSERVATIVE PARTY 306 Conservative MPs elected in 2010 • Seven realistically regarded as Europhile (2.3%) • 64 categorised as ‘European Agnostic’ (20.9%) • 154 being Eurosceptic (50.3%) • 81 can be classified as ‘hard Eurosceptics’ (26.5%) [on the grounds that they have publicly advocated withdrawal from the EU and/or rebelled against the party whip in favour of a referendum on withdrawal]
What I find even more interesting is speculating who are the 64: who on earth is still on the fence on this?
I'll start it off: Cameron.
I'd suggest George Osborne, Theresa May, Oliver Heald, Dominic Grieve, Alistair Burt, Nicky Morgan, Sir Edward Garnier, Sir George Young, Richard Ottaway, Hugo Swire, Mike Weatherly, Nick Hurd, David Gauke, Chloe Smith, Margot James, among others.
I wish I knew the position of my new Tory PPC here: Ranil Jayawardena.
I'm not sure how much money has prompted the Betfair moves - very often the exchanges move on next to nothing.
On topic, I'm not that bothered about the debates. Whatever format or formats are chosen, someone is going to be aggrieved or believe they should be included and someone else shouldn't be included.
Participation is being judged on ifs, buts and maybes. There are by any measure only two parties capable of forming a majority Government though one of them hasn't done so for a decade and the other for more than 20 years.
Yet it's that failure to win a majority that brings the smaller parties to the table. Arguably, the SNP can be kingmakers but so could the LDs - I'm less certain about UKIP and the Greens but it can't be ruled out. The British public have the right to know what the terms of support of the minor parties would be - who would they back or rather who would they NOT back and why ?
So, two debates with five and two debates with two looks about right to me. Though I'm an LD, I struggle to justify Nick Clegg's place at the top table without Nicola Sturgeon being there so perhaps a four but then Farage, Bennett, Galloway et al get agitated.
I still think it's wacky having 2/3 debates with 7 participants, one of whom 97% cannot vote for, another of whom 92% cannot vote for.
Edited extra bit: there's also a question of whether or not 'local' debates (Scotland and Wales) will be held.
But what I don't get is why the Unionists don't have the courage of their convictions. Surely all MPs are created equal and have equal rights - and so too should the parties and voters bidding to elect those MPs. So EITHER the election campaigns should be confined to each constituency OR we have full UK wide campaigns. (I'd sure be interested to see more of the DUP and SF, for sure ...).
If most people in the UK can vote for the party, then they can be included. If the party is not relevant to more than 90% of the voting public, they shouldn't be taking debate time away from people who are. I would feel the same about an East Anglia regional party.
On that basis, you would admit the Monster Raving Loonies but not the SNP?
I still think it's wacky having 2/3 debates with 7 participants, one of whom 97% cannot vote for, another of whom 92% cannot vote for.
Edited extra bit: there's also a question of whether or not 'local' debates (Scotland and Wales) will be held.
But what I don't get is why the Unionists don't have the courage of their convictions. Surely all MPs are created equal and have equal rights - and so too should the parties and voters bidding to elect those MPs. So EITHER the election campaigns should be confined to each constituency OR we have full UK wide campaigns. (I'd sure be interested to see more of the DUP and SF, for sure ...).
If most people in the UK can vote for the party, then they can be included. If the party is not relevant to more than 90% of the voting public, they shouldn't be taking debate time away from people who are. I would feel the same about an East Anglia regional party.
On that basis, you would admit the Monster Raving Loonies but not the SNP?
I still think it's wacky having 2/3 debates with 7 participants, one of whom 97% cannot vote for, another of whom 92% cannot vote for.
Edited extra bit: there's also a question of whether or not 'local' debates (Scotland and Wales) will be held.
But what I don't get is why the Unionists don't have the courage of their convictions. Surely all MPs are created equal and have equal rights - and so too should the parties and voters bidding to elect those MPs. So EITHER the election campaigns should be confined to each constituency OR we have full UK wide campaigns. (I'd sure be interested to see more of the DUP and SF, for sure ...).
If most people in the UK can vote for the party, then they can be included. If the party is not relevant to more than 90% of the voting public, they shouldn't be taking debate time away from people who are. I would feel the same about an East Anglia regional party.
On that basis, you would admit the Monster Raving Loonies but not the SNP?
It's a logical position, I suppose.
Necessity is not sufficiency
How do you mean, please? A glass of port too much perhaps - on my side - but I'm intrigued.
The perfect illustration of what you say is this: the Tories are losing votes to one party, UKIP. Labour are losing votes to three parties, UKIP, SNP and Greens.
Are we to have a thread on the betfair crossover with blues moving ahead of reds for most seats?
Just asking.... or did I miss it?
Gap getting bigger too 1.97/2.04
Looks like punters believe Eds crapness is too big a hurdle for Lab to gain most seats.
We will see i still think EICIPM is the most likely scenario so have taken some 2.02 and 2.04
The prospect of the SNP gaining up to 30 seats at Labour's expense has knocked an enormous hole in their (Labour's) chances of winning the most seats overall, bearing in mind that they start almost 50 seats behind the Tories. The betting markets have recently simply been catching up with this arithmetic. Six months ago Ladbrokes had the SNP winning just 7 seats with Labour winning around 40 seats in Scotland. These numbers look capable of being almost reversed.
I still think it's wacky having 2/3 debates with 7 participants, one of whom 97% cannot vote for, another of whom 92% cannot vote for.
Edited extra bit: there's also a question of whether or not 'local' debates (Scotland and Wales) will be held.
Of course they will be held. You want Labour, Tories and Liberals to have two bites at the cherry while the SNP get one?
That's not democratic. the Rolling News and Broadcast News will also focus on the debates, further elevating the status and electoral performance of those parties featured to the detriment to those who are excluded.
The eligibility to the debates is not about "who you can vote for" if you want a democratic and fair process, it is about "who will be disadvantaged" and that means Major Parties being excluded - which means the SNP and Plaid. I offered you a simple and fair way out, SNP and Plaid are in Electoral Pact, one ticket in the debates.
But you would rather gerrymander the outcome by excluding them from a debate where their opponents will receive massive exposure.
Since SNP contests only in Scotland, PC in Wales, the Green Party only in England, on what basis are DUP, SF, SDLP, Alliance excluded ? Is Northern Ireland in the second division of the UK ?
They only contest 18 constituencies. A lot less than the SNP or the Party of Wales.
Or more importantly, the DUP do not face competition from a Major Party in their Constituent Country which is included.
The DUP don't "even" fight all the seats in NI.
Indeed, every part of the NI Settlement means that elections are utterly meaningless. The constituencies are Gerrymandered to give the exact result they do (9 Unionist, 6 Sinn Fein, 2 SDLP and 1 Alliance) and will always be done in that way.
The idea that East Belfast was gerrymandered to ensure an Alliance victory is one of the most bizarre claims I've ever seen on pbc and that includes all of Tapestry's contributions.
Originally NI under the Good Friday agreement (off books) was supposed to be a 10-0-8 and the 11-0-7 result in 2001 was a very real problem but it was clear by 2010 that with demographic changes a 9-0-9 would be required. As a compromise a 9-1-8 was the obvious way to maintain a Unionist majority while not being a Unionist majority. It's typical of how undemocratic the NI system has been since 1998.
The Northern Ireland Assembly is required to be a DUP/Sinn Fein alliance. It is suspended when this does not happen
I still think it's wacky having 2/3 debates with 7 participants, one of whom 97% cannot vote for, another of whom 92% cannot vote for.
Edited extra bit: there's also a question of whether or not 'local' debates (Scotland and Wales) will be held.
But what I don't get is why the Unionists don't have the courage of their convictions. Surely all MPs are created equal and have equal rights - and so too should the parties and voters bidding to elect those MPs. So EITHER the election campaigns should be confined to each constituency OR we have full UK wide campaigns. (I'd sure be interested to see more of the DUP and SF, for sure ...).
If most people in the UK can vote for the party, then they can be included. If the party is not relevant to more than 90% of the voting public, they shouldn't be taking debate time away from people who are. I would feel the same about an East Anglia regional party.
On that basis, you would admit the Monster Raving Loonies but not the SNP?
It's a logical position, I suppose.
Necessity is not sufficiency
How do you mean, please? A glass of port too much perhaps - on my side - but I'm intrigued.
Socrates said can - so just because the MRLP stand everywhere doesn't mean they should be in the debates - they merely meet 1 of the necessary criteria, which the nationalists don't.
If most people in the UK can vote for the party, then they can be included. If the party is not relevant to more than 90% of the voting public, they shouldn't be taking debate time away from people who are. I would feel the same about an East Anglia regional party.
The SNP drives a coach and horses through this argument. IF they win 50 seats representing a large minority of Scots but a small minority of the whole UK population they would have a huge say in the future governance of the UK of which they are a part.
IF a wealthy person stumped £650k to fight every seat, would such person be entitled to a lectern at the debates ?
It's one of those issues with a whole host of unfair options and very few fair ones so OGH's view that the debates won't happen at all is probably on the money (well, his money and very nice money it is too I would imagine).
I still think it's wacky having 2/3 debates with 7 participants, one of whom 97% cannot vote for, another of whom 92% cannot vote for.
Edited extra bit: there's also a question of whether or not 'local' debates (Scotland and Wales) will be held.
But what I don't get is why the Unionists don't have the courage of their convictions. Surely all MPs are created equal and have equal rights - and so too should the parties and voters bidding to elect those MPs. So EITHER the election campaigns should be confined to each constituency OR we have full UK wide campaigns. (I'd sure be interested to see more of the DUP and SF, for sure ...).
If most people in the UK can vote for the party, then they can be included. If the party is not relevant to more than 90% of the voting public, they shouldn't be taking debate time away from people who are. I would feel the same about an East Anglia regional party.
On that basis, you would admit the Monster Raving Loonies but not the SNP?
It's a logical position, I suppose.
Necessity is not sufficiency
How do you mean, please? A glass of port too much perhaps - on my side - but I'm intrigued.
Socrates said can - so just because the MRLP stand everywhere doesn't mean they should be in the debates - they merely meet 1 of the necessary criteria, which the nationalists don't.
If most people in the UK can vote for the party, then they can be included. If the party is not relevant to more than 90% of the voting public, they shouldn't be taking debate time away from people who are. I would feel the same about an East Anglia regional party.
The SNP drives a coach and horses through this argument. IF they win 50 seats representing a large minority of Scots but a small minority of the whole UK population they would have a huge say in the future governance of the UK of which they are a part.
IF a wealthy person stumped £650k to fight every seat, would such person be entitled to a lectern at the debates ?
It's one of those issues with a whole host of unfair options and very few fair ones so OGH's view that the debates won't happen at all is probably on the money (well, his money and very nice money it is too I would imagine).
The perfect illustration of what you say is this: the Tories are losing votes to one party, UKIP. Labour are losing votes to three parties, UKIP, SNP and Greens.
If most people in the UK can vote for the party, then they can be included. If the party is not relevant to more than 90% of the voting public, they shouldn't be taking debate time away from people who are. I would feel the same about an East Anglia regional party.
The SNP drives a coach and horses through this argument. IF they win 50 seats representing a large minority of Scots but a small minority of the whole UK population they would have a huge say in the future governance of the UK of which they are a part.
IF a wealthy person stumped £650k to fight every seat, would such person be entitled to a lectern at the debates ?
It's one of those issues with a whole host of unfair options and very few fair ones so OGH's view that the debates won't happen at all is probably on the money (well, his money and very nice money it is too I would imagine).
Same error.
Can doesn't mean should.
And the Scots are supposed to feel part of the UK?
So we can now say that Cameron's stance on the debates has worked out really rather well from him?
Well, as the person who once predicted a 10% Tory lead by Christmas 2014 I think we can find some better analysis.
I suspect whatever we political obsessives might think most people would be mildly curious to see the debates - there still seems to be a lot of people who are not committed to any Party- and Cameron's posturing about this does him very little credit.
I suspect he would find defending his Government's record on issues like immigration much harder than the verbal knockabout of PMQs or the stage-managed rally and there have been instances where he has become a tad rattled when put under pressure.
The perfect illustration of what you say is this: the Tories are losing votes to one party, UKIP. Labour are losing votes to three parties, UKIP, SNP and Greens.
Are we to have a thread on the betfair crossover with blues moving ahead of reds for most seats?
Just asking.... or did I miss it?
Gap getting bigger too 1.97/2.04
Looks like punters believe Eds crapness is too big a hurdle for Lab to gain most seats.
We will see i still think EICIPM is the most likely scenario so have taken some 2.02 and 2.04
The prospect of the SNP gaining up to 30 seats at Labour's expense has knocked an enormous hole in their (Labour's) chances of winning the most seats overall, bearing in mind that they start almost 50 seats behind the Tories. The betting markets have recently simply been catching up with this arithmetic. Six months ago Ladbrokes had the SNP winning just 7 seats with Labour winning around 40 seats in Scotland. These numbers look capable of being almost reversed.
True Peter
I think SNP surge will subside if it does not Lab need to do very well elsewhere to get most seats.
If most people in the UK can vote for the party, then they can be included. If the party is not relevant to more than 90% of the voting public, they shouldn't be taking debate time away from people who are. I would feel the same about an East Anglia regional party.
The SNP drives a coach and horses through this argument. IF they win 50 seats representing a large minority of Scots but a small minority of the whole UK population they would have a huge say in the future governance of the UK of which they are a part.
IF a wealthy person stumped £650k to fight every seat, would such person be entitled to a lectern at the debates ?
It's one of those issues with a whole host of unfair options and very few fair ones so OGH's view that the debates won't happen at all is probably on the money (well, his money and very nice money it is too I would imagine).
Same error.
Can doesn't mean should.
And the Scots are supposed to feel part of the UK?
I'm just following the logic, but now we're here, I really don't give a fig what those self indulgent wingbags feel part of.
The perfect illustration of what you say is this: the Tories are losing votes to one party, UKIP. Labour are losing votes to three parties, UKIP, SNP and Greens.
CONSERVATIVE PARTY 306 Conservative MPs elected in 2010 • Seven realistically regarded as Europhile (2.3%) • 64 categorised as ‘European Agnostic’ (20.9%) • 154 being Eurosceptic (50.3%) • 81 can be classified as ‘hard Eurosceptics’ (26.5%) [on the grounds that they have publicly advocated withdrawal from the EU and/or rebelled against the party whip in favour of a referendum on withdrawal]
What I find even more interesting is speculating who are the 64: who on earth is still on the fence on this?
I'll start it off: Cameron.
I'd suggest George Osborne, Theresa May, Oliver Heald, Dominic Grieve, Alistair Burt, Nicky Morgan, Sir Edward Garnier, Sir George Young, Richard Ottaway, Hugo Swire, Mike Weatherly, Nick Hurd, David Gauke, Chloe Smith, Margot James, among others.
I wish I knew the position of my new Tory PPC here: Ranil Jayawardena.
I'll ask my Mum if you like - she chaired the primary in which he was elected
So we can now say that Cameron's stance on the debates has worked out really rather well from him?
No. Either they don't take place so he can't score an easy win over Ed Miliband, or they do and he has increased the number of opposition parties who will be attacking the government.
Mr. Dair, whoa there, crazy horse. It's entirely legitimate to have different opinions without the alternative being gerrymandering.
'Local' debates should not be held if the two nationalist parties are getting seats on the UK-wide debates.
Besides, my preference is for no debates at all - the ultimate form of equality for the parties.
Mr. Gin, we'll only know that when we know what the result ends up being.
My preference is for no debates at all. Should they occur then democracy demands that no major party is left to complete against another major party where only one of them is in the UK wide debates.
off-topic: looks like we are at the highest probability of a true Tory polling lead in a long time, although not quite there yet.
I wonder if my prediction of a "hard" crossover by Jan 2015 will come to pass, like my "soft" crossover by May 2014 did.
Stand by your calculators tonight...
Excuse my ignorance but what is the difference between "hard" and "soft" in terms of polling crossovers?
Just my own nomenclature, with probably Freudian overtones.
Soft crossover is when the first Tory lead appears in a poll, but it isn't really representative or sustained. Occurred on May 11th 2014. I predicted, in 2013, "by May 2014."
Hard crossover is when we can say with reasonable certainty that the Tories really are in the lead. I predicted, in 2013, "by January 2015."
If most people in the UK can vote for the party, then they can be included. If the party is not relevant to more than 90% of the voting public, they shouldn't be taking debate time away from people who are. I would feel the same about an East Anglia regional party.
The SNP drives a coach and horses through this argument. IF they win 50 seats representing a large minority of Scots but a small minority of the whole UK population they would have a huge say in the future governance of the UK of which they are a part.
IF a wealthy person stumped £650k to fight every seat, would such person be entitled to a lectern at the debates ?
It's one of those issues with a whole host of unfair options and very few fair ones so OGH's view that the debates won't happen at all is probably on the money (well, his money and very nice money it is too I would imagine).
So we can now say that Cameron's stance on the debates has worked out really rather well from him?
No. Either they don't take place so he can't score an easy win over Ed Miliband, or they do and he has increased the number of opposition parties who will be attacking the government.
Plaid available @ 12/5 at William Hill for Ynys Mon.
I've just had a little bite. Candidate looks credible (ex-BBC producer), it's pretty marginal, and Plaid stormed the Welsh assembly by-election here in 2013 with almost 60% of the vote. They also won a plurality of the vote at the Anglesey County Council election in 2013.
In the Euros last year, Plaid also won in Anglesey, UKIP were a strong second, with Labour way behind in third. Only just ahead of the Conservatives.
Given Plaid may well be in the debates, now, and Ed's continued faltering, this looks like value.
"Mothers banned from breastfeeding at breastfeeding conference
Scottish government backed event aimed at 'removing the barriers' to breastfeeding told mothers that breastfeeding would not be 'appropriate'
Mothers invited to a Scottish Government-backed breastfeeding conference were left angry and bemused after being told that they would not be allowed to breastfeed their babies.
Organisers for the event, titled “Shifting the Curve - Sharing the Challenge Breastfeeding Summit”, said it was "open to everyone who works with children and families" and aimed to “remove some of the barriers” about breastfeeding.
Yet when mothers asked if they could breastfeed their babies at next month’s conference at Edinburgh’s Murrayfield Stadium, they were told by officials that this would not be "appropriate”. "
The bet I would like to see is Labour forming a government with sub-270 seats. SNP Bloc (inc Greens and Plaid) would possibly provide a majority over 323. Obviously it's fairly derivative in nature but it would seem to be a very interesting option with a lot of profit available.
Plaid available @ 12/5 at William Hill for Ynys Mon.
I've just had a little bite. Candidate looks credible (ex-BBC producer), it's pretty marginal, and Plaid stormed the Welsh assembly by-election here in 2013 with almost 60% of the vote. They also won a plurality of the vote at the Anglesey County Council election in 2013.
In the Euros last year, Plaid also won in Anglesey, UKIP were a strong second, with Labour way behind in third. Only just ahead of the Conservatives.
Given Plaid may well be in the debates, now, and Ed's continued faltering, this looks like value.
The bet I would like to see is Labour forming a government with sub-270 seats. SNP Bloc (inc Greens and Plaid) would possibly provide a majority over 323. Obviously it's fairly derivative in nature but it would seem to be a very interesting option with a lot of profit available.
Back Ed Miliband PM rather than Lab most seats now, as I keep telling Big John Owls.
One thing to remember about these far flung corners like Ynys Mon is that the candidate matters a lot.
Although Ynys Mon has elected Labour, Tory and Plaid Cymru MPs in recent years, it has never failed to re-elect a sitting candidate.
The changes happened when 1) the Tory MP was hauled off to prison and could not stand in 1987, 2) the Plaid Cymru MP decided to stand for the assembly and so did not stand in 2001.
My reading is that, if Albert Owen is standing for Labour, he'll almost certainly win. The seat will change hands when Albert Owen decides to retire (he is now 66).
The bet I would like to see is Labour forming a government with sub-270 seats. SNP Bloc (inc Greens and Plaid) would possibly provide a majority over 323. Obviously it's fairly derivative in nature but it would seem to be a very interesting option with a lot of profit available.
Back Ed Miliband PM rather than Lab most seats now, as I keep telling Big John Owls.
I noticed EICIPM was available at 2.1 yesterday good tip Pulpstar
The bet I would like to see is Labour forming a government with sub-270 seats. SNP Bloc (inc Greens and Plaid) would possibly provide a majority over 323. Obviously it's fairly derivative in nature but it would seem to be a very interesting option with a lot of profit available.
Back Ed Miliband PM rather than Lab most seats now, as I keep telling Big John Owls.
Given the volatility then you all must be mad thinking about bets.
The bet I would like to see is Labour forming a government with sub-270 seats. SNP Bloc (inc Greens and Plaid) would possibly provide a majority over 323. Obviously it's fairly derivative in nature but it would seem to be a very interesting option with a lot of profit available.
Back Ed Miliband PM rather than Lab most seats now, as I keep telling Big John Owls.
I noticed EICIPM was available at 2.1 yesterday good tip Pulpstar
The bet I would like to see is Labour forming a government with sub-270 seats. SNP Bloc (inc Greens and Plaid) would possibly provide a majority over 323. Obviously it's fairly derivative in nature but it would seem to be a very interesting option with a lot of profit available.
Back Ed Miliband PM rather than Lab most seats now, as I keep telling Big John Owls.
Given the volatility then you all must be mad thinking about bets.
Oh I'm not adding to my Ed Mili PM position which I generally have at 6-4+ at the moment, I'm just pointing out that I think it is a better bet than Lab most seats given the various likely groups in the 2015 and onward parliament.
The bet I would like to see is Labour forming a government with sub-270 seats. SNP Bloc (inc Greens and Plaid) would possibly provide a majority over 323. Obviously it's fairly derivative in nature but it would seem to be a very interesting option with a lot of profit available.
Back Ed Miliband PM rather than Lab most seats now, as I keep telling Big John Owls.
I think it isnt about Ed for PM as there's lots of ways for that. The value has to be in how low can the Labour Seat total be while Ed gets the keys to No 10. That's the value.
The bet I would like to see is Labour forming a government with sub-270 seats. SNP Bloc (inc Greens and Plaid) would possibly provide a majority over 323. Obviously it's fairly derivative in nature but it would seem to be a very interesting option with a lot of profit available.
Back Ed Miliband PM rather than Lab most seats now, as I keep telling Big John Owls.
I noticed EICIPM was available at 2.1 yesterday good tip Pulpstar
Trolling aside, what do we have left for Jan by the way? 3 populus, 1 ashcroft (do they even count since those nonsense Tory leads?) and 8 yougovs? Or are there any monthlies left?
I'm not wrong yet. If your boss said he wanted something "by Monday", you would not expect to get the sack at 5.30pm on Friday... This principle is recognised in law, where the notice must include the day or period in question [In Railway Sleeper Supply Company (1885)]
How about.... We get all the candidates on stage to listen to the audience debating what they should do? :-) (the rather obvious and painful suggestions will be ignored if it goes out before the watershed)
Comments
You meet for a half day a week for a year. Quorum is 17. Decisions are a 2/3 majority. You get to know the other members of the grand jury and their thought processes, hot buttons and approach very well.
Within the last 48 hours, Con has become favourite. Latest:
Con 1.97/1.98
Lab 2.04/2.06
I would have thought it was quite a big moment, betting wise.
Yes, the patrician Tories probably are too and most of the ones in the Tory Reform Group (Sir George Young, Alistair Burt, Jonathan Evans, Stephen Dorell, Robert Buckland, Richard Fuller) and I expect some of the Cameron A-listers too (Nicky Morgan, Liz Truss, Angie Bray, Anna Soubry and Caroline Dineage)
Some of them (particularly in the TRG) are probably shy 'philes.
Worst of all for Clegg. Deputy PM, and has equal billing with a party with 1 MP.
Looks like punters believe Eds crapness is too big a hurdle for Lab to gain most seats.
We will see i still think EICIPM is the most likely scenario so have taken some 2.02 and 2.04
I don't see it MD.
Ed will have 3 attack dogs to his left
Clegg will be out meuslied
Farage will be ganged up 1 to 6.
Thats why I don't see them rushing to agree.
The contemporary definition is probably one who consistently advocates for us to opt-in to EU measures, and suggests future enhanced EU cooperation, on the basis of effectiveness, or influence.
On that basis, you could probably up it to a core of 30-40 EU-phile Tory MPs, with another similar number more or less happy with being whipped on it.
The battle for the soul of the Tory party on the EU will be fought over the 150 mainstream eurosceptic MPs.
"We are the mainstream of the Conservative Party.
Europhiles always have a complex relationship with reality...
We are fundamentally united by our belief that the UK national interest is best served working for changes within the EU, not being marginalised at the fringes.
I would characterise Cameron waiting to be told by Angela Merkel what changes are allowed to our immigration policy counts as pretty marginalised, don't you?
This group believes that the nation would be best served by the Conservative Party campaigning for a ‘yes’ vote in any future in/out referendum"
And that will happen, of course, because the Tory party leadership will side with these people rather than the views of their own parliamentary party and members.
Oh how I lol'd.
The party is becoming more eurosceptic with time. I expect the Tory party by the mid 2020s to be pretty solidly anti-EU.
Labour are facing a perfect storm, so I rule nothing out.
I'm not sure how much money has prompted the Betfair moves - very often the exchanges move on next to nothing.
On topic, I'm not that bothered about the debates. Whatever format or formats are chosen, someone is going to be aggrieved or believe they should be included and someone else shouldn't be included.
Participation is being judged on ifs, buts and maybes. There are by any measure only two parties capable of forming a majority Government though one of them hasn't done so for a decade and the other for more than 20 years.
Yet it's that failure to win a majority that brings the smaller parties to the table. Arguably, the SNP can be kingmakers but so could the LDs - I'm less certain about UKIP and the Greens but it can't be ruled out. The British public have the right to know what the terms of support of the minor parties would be - who would they back or rather who would they NOT back and why ?
So, two debates with five and two debates with two looks about right to me. Though I'm an LD, I struggle to justify Nick Clegg's place at the top table without Nicola Sturgeon being there so perhaps a four but then Farage, Bennett, Galloway et al get agitated.
https://twitter.com/darthmyles
On that basis, you would admit the Monster Raving Loonies but not the SNP?
It's a logical position, I suppose.
That's not democratic. the Rolling News and Broadcast News will also focus on the debates, further elevating the status and electoral performance of those parties featured to the detriment to those who are excluded.
The eligibility to the debates is not about "who you can vote for" if you want a democratic and fair process, it is about "who will be disadvantaged" and that means Major Parties being excluded - which means the SNP and Plaid. I offered you a simple and fair way out, SNP and Plaid are in Electoral Pact, one ticket in the debates.
But you would rather gerrymander the outcome by excluding them from a debate where their opponents will receive massive exposure.
IF a wealthy person stumped £650k to fight every seat, would such person be entitled to a lectern at the debates ?
It's one of those issues with a whole host of unfair options and very few fair ones so OGH's view that the debates won't happen at all is probably on the money (well, his money and very nice money it is too I would imagine).
Can doesn't mean should.
'Local' debates should not be held if the two nationalist parties are getting seats on the UK-wide debates.
Besides, my preference is for no debates at all - the ultimate form of equality for the parties.
Mr. Gin, we'll only know that when we know what the result ends up being.
Has he committed to take part yet?
I suspect whatever we political obsessives might think most people would be mildly curious to see the debates - there still seems to be a lot of people who are not committed to any Party- and Cameron's posturing about this does him very little credit.
I suspect he would find defending his Government's record on issues like immigration much harder than the verbal knockabout of PMQs or the stage-managed rally and there have been instances where he has become a tad rattled when put under pressure.
I think SNP surge will subside if it does not Lab need to do very well elsewhere to get most seats.
We will see in just over 100 days
And by the same token , we don't give and airborne Saxon fornication about you.
My guess is that tonight will be a tie.
Soft crossover is when the first Tory lead appears in a poll, but it isn't really representative or sustained. Occurred on May 11th 2014. I predicted, in 2013, "by May 2014."
Hard crossover is when we can say with reasonable certainty that the Tories really are in the lead. I predicted, in 2013, "by January 2015."
I see where you are getting confused.
I meant you specifically.
Plaid available @ 12/5 at William Hill for Ynys Mon.
I've just had a little bite. Candidate looks credible (ex-BBC producer), it's pretty marginal, and Plaid stormed the Welsh assembly by-election here in 2013 with almost 60% of the vote. They also won a plurality of the vote at the Anglesey County Council election in 2013.
In the Euros last year, Plaid also won in Anglesey, UKIP were a strong second, with Labour way behind in third. Only just ahead of the Conservatives.
Given Plaid may well be in the debates, now, and Ed's continued faltering, this looks like value.
Scottish government backed event aimed at 'removing the barriers' to breastfeeding told mothers that breastfeeding would not be 'appropriate'
Mothers invited to a Scottish Government-backed breastfeeding conference were left angry and bemused after being told that they would not be allowed to breastfeed their babies.
Organisers for the event, titled “Shifting the Curve - Sharing the Challenge Breastfeeding Summit”, said it was "open to everyone who works with children and families" and aimed to “remove some of the barriers” about breastfeeding.
Yet when mothers asked if they could breastfeed their babies at next month’s conference at Edinburgh’s Murrayfield Stadium, they were told by officials that this would not be "appropriate”. "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11363965/Mothers-banned-from-breastfeeding-at-breastfeeding-conference.html
'Labour are losing votes to three parties, UKIP, SNP and Greens.'
Might be more,Plaid & Galloway haven't got going yet.
Ta...
Although Ynys Mon has elected Labour, Tory and Plaid Cymru MPs in recent years, it has never failed to re-elect a sitting candidate.
The changes happened when 1) the Tory MP was hauled off to prison and could not stand in 1987, 2) the Plaid Cymru MP decided to stand for the assembly and so did not stand in 2001.
My reading is that, if Albert Owen is standing for Labour, he'll almost certainly win. The seat will change hands when Albert Owen decides to retire (he is now 66).
Alastair Campbell@campbellclaret·45 secs45 seconds ago
Trying to think of somewhere I would less like to be than Davos. Struggling
je suis Tim....
;-)
3 populus, 1 ashcroft (do they even count since those nonsense Tory leads?) and 8 yougovs? Or are there any monthlies left?
well its clear that you are not qualified to do so. .
We get all the candidates on stage to listen to the audience debating what they should do?
:-)
(the rather obvious and painful suggestions will be ignored if it goes out before the watershed)