Mr. Jimmy, the difference might be a tweet, versus a tweet directed at (say) a relative of someone recently killed.
Hmm. If a tweet said, for instance, that the 6 dead in Glasgow were worthless/not worth worrying about, would that not count as being directed at the rellies?
How would the relatives find out about it unless they already happened to follow that person - or a related hashtag was involved?
Many, many millions of things are said on Twitter on a daily basis and most probably go unread by anything other than a small handful of people.
This law was never intended to be used on anything like Twitter - as Twitter didn't exist when it was created.
The law is being misused - and has to be revisited before it is dragged even further into disrepute.
It was revised in the early 2000s specifically to cover things like Twitter i.e. public message boards.
Internet messaging in 2001 (the last revision) bears no resemblance to Twitter or other online communication options.
The law is not fit for purpose and is being used completely inappropriately.
We do need to protect people from online harassment and make sure that those who target others in a malicious way online are caught. But the law is being applied far too widely and doing damage to free speech as well as the reputation of the legal system as a whole.
Slight error on my part, the Malicious Communication Act was amended to deal with message boards in 2001 but was joined by the 2003 Communications Act which covered the generally broadcast malicious communication.
IMO the Tories couldnt afford to not settle this prior to 7th May
Sounds progressive
The offer means the vast majority of NHS staff would receive a 1 per cent pay increase, with only those towards the top of national pay scales excluded from the deal. Thousands of the lowest paid staff would receive an extra £200, while minimum pay levels will be raised to £15,100.
Looks like the rebel offensive continues to bear fruit, with heavy casualties inflicted and reserves having to be deployed by government forces. The Novorussian Armed Forces are advancing west of Donetsk, north of Lugansk and probing at Mariupol. Crucially around eight thousand government soldiers are now encircled in the Debaltsevo cauldron.
Hopefully a resolution can be achieved quickly and Europe can apply pressure to the Kiev government to forget their dreams of a narrow Galician inspired state, denying the legitimacy of the majority of Ukrainians, and the neo cons are for once made to account for their foreign policy disasters.
Does RT not have a forum for you to comment on?
Fundamentally I agree with you, it is none of our business.
Mr. Jimmy, the difference might be a tweet, versus a tweet directed at (say) a relative of someone recently killed.
Hmm. If a tweet said, for instance, that the 6 dead in Glasgow were worthless/not worth worrying about, would that not count as being directed at the rellies?
How would the relatives find out about it unless they already happened to follow that person - or a related hashtag was involved?
Many, many millions of things are said on Twitter on a daily basis and most probably go unread by anything other than a small handful of people.
This law was never intended to be used on anything like Twitter - as Twitter didn't exist when it was created.
The law is being misused - and has to be revisited before it is dragged even further into disrepute.
It was revised in the early 2000s specifically to cover things like Twitter i.e. public message boards.
Internet messaging in 2001 (the last revision) bears no resemblance to Twitter or other online communication options.
The law is not fit for purpose and is being used completely inappropriately.
We do need to protect people from online harassment and make sure that those who target others in a malicious way online are caught. But the law is being applied far too widely and doing damage to free speech as well as the reputation of the legal system as a whole.
Slight error on my part, the Malicious Communication Act was amended to deal with message boards in 2001 but was joined by the 2003 Communications Act which covered the generally broadcast malicious communication.
The law really should not be used to enforce good manners and it gets itself into a terrible muddle when it does.
So in Ukraine I presume the intent is that the rebels will eventually win control of pretty much all Donetsk and Luhansk regions and then it's job done, a more lasting ceasefire can be agreed and whether or not any formal agreement is ever reached as to their status - eg, Ukraine does not concede they are independent and nor do most other nations - they will de facto become their own states, but that Russia will not formally absorb them any time soon, leading to the lifting of sanctions once open hostilities cease while still retaining Russia's heavy influence in the region?
IMO the Tories couldnt afford to not settle this prior to 7th May
Sounds progressive
The offer means the vast majority of NHS staff would receive a 1 per cent pay increase, with only those towards the top of national pay scales excluded from the deal. Thousands of the lowest paid staff would receive an extra £200, while minimum pay levels will be raised to £15,100.
Looks like the rebel offensive continues to bear fruit, with heavy casualties inflicted and reserves having to be deployed by government forces. The Novorussian Armed Forces are advancing west of Donetsk, north of Lugansk and probing at Mariupol. Crucially around eight thousand government soldiers are now encircled in the Debaltsevo cauldron.
Hopefully a resolution can be achieved quickly and Europe can apply pressure to the Kiev government to forget their dreams of a narrow Galician inspired state, denying the legitimacy of the majority of Ukrainians, and the neo cons are for once made to account for their foreign policy disasters.
Does RT not have a forum for you to comment on?
Fundamentally I agree with you, it is none of our business.
International affairs are everyone's business or no-one's - We or the Russians or anyone else has as much right to interfere in affairs 100 miles from our borders or 5000 as each other, there isn't a line where it becomes acceptable or not, where one is morally obliged to concede they must not become involved. If a party has enough clout to be involved in a matter, they will have to react in some way, though it may be appropriate, based on interest and power level, to do very little.
''He was ignoring the direction of travel and another PBer said the other day all his leftie voting pals in the constituency expect Anna Soubry to pile votes on to her majority. ''
If Soubry increases her maj I reckon it will be because NP's vote is a no show. That's the trend we've seen in recent months, a discrepancy between labour's poll score and the numbers actually prepared to vote for ed.
In terms of actual on the ground voter punch in 2015 I reckon labour might be closer to 25 than 35 in poll terms.
Individual voter registration might make a difference, too.
Everything is anecdotal except proper polls, but I'm not too worried at present. An Ashcroft revisit that asked with actual candidate names would be good. Individual registration is indeed a serious concern in inner cities for the reasons we've discussed, but registration is actually slightly up in Broxtowe.
But DYOR...
It dates from April 2014, but Ashcroft had you leading Anna Soubry by 44/30%, a swing of 7% compared to 2010. Even if we assume that Soubry will recover some lost ground, that's a big deficit to overcome. I imagine that she's not the sort of MP who would build up much of a personal following.
Odds of 2/5 Nick regaining the seat look fairly attractive to me.
As you indicate, Anna Soubry isn't the sort of representative likely to have the voters climbing out of their sick beds to reach the ballot box.
So in Ukraine I presume the intent is that the rebels will eventually win control of pretty much all Donetsk and Luhansk regions and then it's job done, a more lasting ceasefire can be agreed and whether or not any formal agreement is ever reached as to their status - eg, Ukraine does not concede they are independent and nor do most other nations - they will de facto become their own states, but that Russia will not formally absorb them any time soon, leading to the lifting of sanctions once open hostilities cease while still retaining Russia's heavy influence in the region?
Yes, the current territory is not sustainable, Slaviansk has the water supplies and Mariupol a needed port. Negotiations went nowhere, they were supposed to have withdrawn from the airport voluntarily as per the Minsk agreement for example, and the ceasefire agreed to as they were on the run.
As much as some rebels might want to be part of Russia this will not happen. As Lavrov replied to 'what if the rebels won't accept a federalised solution', that's Kiev's problem not ours.
Looks like the rebel offensive continues to bear fruit, with heavy casualties inflicted and reserves having to be deployed by government forces. The Novorussian Armed Forces are advancing west of Donetsk, north of Lugansk and probing at Mariupol. Crucially around eight thousand government soldiers are now encircled in the Debaltsevo cauldron.
Hopefully a resolution can be achieved quickly and Europe can apply pressure to the Kiev government to forget their dreams of a narrow Galician inspired state, denying the legitimacy of the majority of Ukrainians, and the neo cons are for once made to account for their foreign policy disasters.
Does RT not have a forum for you to comment on?
Fundamentally I agree with you, it is none of our business.
International affairs are everyone's business or no-one's - We or the Russians or anyone else has as much right to interfere in affairs 100 miles from our borders or 5000 as each other, there isn't a line where it becomes acceptable or not, where one is morally obliged to concede they must not become involved. If a party has enough clout to be involved in a matter, they will have to react in some way, though it may be appropriate, based on interest and power level, to do very little.
I don't think you understand, the Russians are providing absolutely no aid or equipment to the rebels. They don't allow fighter across the border into Ukraine, they provide no logistical support and they absolutely don't provide any heavy equipment. This is a purely internal Ukraine matter.
Anyone who says otherwise, especially NATO, is a liar.
So in Ukraine I presume the intent is that the rebels will eventually win control of pretty much all Donetsk and Luhansk regions and then it's job done, a more lasting ceasefire can be agreed and whether or not any formal agreement is ever reached as to their status - eg, Ukraine does not concede they are independent and nor do most other nations - they will de facto become their own states, but that Russia will not formally absorb them any time soon, leading to the lifting of sanctions once open hostilities cease while still retaining Russia's heavy influence in the region?
The purpose is a frozen conflict like those in Georgia, Moldova. That way if the government of Ukraine ever tries acting independently from Russia, Moscow can kick off a war again through its proxy militias. It's a method of control rather than territorial annexation.
Looks like the rebel offensive continues to bear fruit, with heavy casualties inflicted and reserves having to be deployed by government forces. The Novorussian Armed Forces are advancing west of Donetsk, north of Lugansk and probing at Mariupol. Crucially around eight thousand government soldiers are now encircled in the Debaltsevo cauldron.
Hopefully a resolution can be achieved quickly and Europe can apply pressure to the Kiev government to forget their dreams of a narrow Galician inspired state, denying the legitimacy of the majority of Ukrainians, and the neo cons are for once made to account for their foreign policy disasters.
Does RT not have a forum for you to comment on?
Fundame
International affairs are everyone's business or no-one's - We or the Russians or anyone else has as much right to interfere in affairs 100 miles from our borders or 5000 as each other, there isn't a line where it becomes acceptable or not, where one is morally obliged to concede they must not become involved. If a party has enough clout to be involved in a matter, they will have to react in some way, though it may be appropriate, based on interest and power level, to do very little.
I don't think you understand, the Russians are providing absolutely no aid or equipment to the rebels. They don't allow fighter across the border into Ukraine, they provide no logistical support and they absolutely don't provide any heavy equipment. This is a purely internal Ukraine matter.
Anyone who says otherwise, especially NATO, is a liar.
I don't think you understand either, as I don't recall mentioning anything about practical support of any kind in my post. In my first I talked of influence, which is not the same thing necessarily (though it can be), and in the above post I was making a general point about international relations and the fallacy of 'not our business', which is not true in an interconnected world, even if sometimes matters are of negligible interest to our business as a nation or not worth the cost of making a significant intervention diplomatically or otherwise. Even 'purely internal' matters are not of no business to those outside of that nation, particularly when it involves disputes over sovereignty which impact others' interests.
To take your words at face value, Russia has had no business making comment on this affair either, nor has anyone else, and yet I'm sure I recall both sides sticking their big noses into the Ukranian's affairs as though it was their business. Huh.
Or maybe you are making an argument against something else and quoted me by mistake.
David Cameron is clearly a pull on his party, while Ed Miliband is clearly a drag on his.
Anyone claiming to know how the next election is going to pan out should be forced to stare at this set of results.
I thought Cameron would be about 70/30 given so called perceptions Ed to be honest
There's an element of circularity. Most of the public will appreciate that Prime Minister Cameron means a Conservative agenda in government. And that the Conservatives in power means David Cameron (probably) as Prime Minister. So those downsides/upsides are factored into both questions for a lot of people.
I don't think you understand, the Russians are providing absolutely no aid or equipment to the rebels. They don't allow fighter across the border into Ukraine, they provide no logistical support and they absolutely don't provide any heavy equipment. This is a purely internal Ukraine matter. Anyone who says otherwise, especially NATO, is a liar.
Given Putin's personal history and Russian involvement in Abkhazia, South Ossetia et al, it is difficult to take the above seriously. Since sarcasm is difficult to perceive in writing, it was possible you were being sarcastic (in which case I apologise). But if you meant it sincerely, I am honour bound to point out that a) the Russians are providing the support you deny, and b) this is a proxy war between NATO and the Russians.
David Cameron is clearly a pull on his party, while Ed Miliband is clearly a drag on his.
Anyone claiming to know how the next election is going to pan out should be forced to stare at this set of results.
I thought Cameron would be about 70/30 given so called perceptions Ed to be honest
There's an element of circularity. Most of the public will appreciate that Prime Minister Cameron means a Conservative agenda in government. And that the Conservatives in power means David Cameron (probably) as Prime Minister. So those downsides/upsides are factored into both questions for a lot of people.
Yes it's not really that straightforward a question
Odds of 2/5 Nick regaining the seat look fairly attractive to me.
As you indicate, Anna Soubry isn't the sort of representative likely to have the voters climbing out of their sick beds to reach the ballot box.
Hmm, I think there might be some projection going on here. SeanF of course doesn't like her because she's not anti-EU. I can see that she might not be quite to the taste of an old metropolitan lefty roué such as yourself(!). But it would be a mistake to assume that she won't be popular with a good chunk of her voters. She's commendably feisty, speaks her mind (and how!), and is quite high-profile on the TV and as a minister.
David Cameron is clearly a pull on his party, while Ed Miliband is clearly a drag on his.
Anyone claiming to know how the next election is going to pan out should be forced to stare at this set of results.
I thought Cameron would be about 70/30 given perceptions of Ed to be honest
I think the image of Ed M is not as terrible as the reality, but either way I think antifrank is right that the drag or bolstering factor of the respective parties when assessing their worthiness as PM.
Many ex-Tories might well believe Cameron would make a decent PM, he's just not a decent Tory PM for example.
So in Ukraine I presume the intent is that the rebels will eventually win control of pretty much all Donetsk and Luhansk regions and then it's job done, a more lasting ceasefire can be agreed and whether or not any formal agreement is ever reached as to their status - eg, Ukraine does not concede they are independent and nor do most other nations - they will de facto become their own states, but that Russia will not formally absorb them any time soon, leading to the lifting of sanctions once open hostilities cease while still retaining Russia's heavy influence in the region?
The purpose is a frozen conflict like those in Georgia, Moldova. That way if the government of Ukraine ever tries acting independently from Russia, Moscow can kick off a war again through its proxy militias. It's a method of control rather than territorial annexation.
Yup. Norman Castles in England, British Plantations in Ireland, Yankee Forts in Indian Territory, US bases in Iraq, this is how it's done. Grab a piece of territory, control the border, mount raids into surrounding territory, expand the area under control, repeat until done.
To me it suggests that if Labour had a half-credible leader this election wouldn't really be a contest.
Possibly, but a half-credible leader would have to have some, you know, policies. That would put off some of the voters, who (for the moment at least) can kid themselves that Ed can avoid all those nasty decision things which seem to trouble them so much.
Given how Russia hugely downplayed the specific Jewish element of the Nazis crimes after the war - presenting it all as a fight between fascists and anti-fascists - in which the Russians were the only victims and the heroic winners, that's a bit rich.
Given how Russia hugely downplayed the specific Jewish element of the Nazis crimes after the war - presenting it all as a fight between fascists and anti-fascists - in which the Russians were the only victims and the heroic winners, that's a bit rich.
Indeeed - Ukraine also were instrumental in liberating Paris, Rome and Athens!
Given how Russia hugely downplayed the specific Jewish element of the Nazis crimes after the war - presenting it all as a fight between fascists and anti-fascists - in which the Russians were the only victims and the heroic winners, that's a bit rich.
That was100% due to Stalin; a Georgian anti-semite from his youth.
The Poles had no reason to love the Russians. And the Russians are no slouches when it comes to rewriting history and their own somewhat inglorious role in the carve-up of Eastern Europe in 1939, let alone what they did from 1945 onwards. Nor did they do much about combating anti-Semitism in post-war Russia either.
He certainly doesnt sound much like James Dean Bradfield. Worst version of any Manics song I've ever heard. Vote Green Get ISIS - you know it makes sense.
Given how Russia hugely downplayed the specific Jewish element of the Nazis crimes after the war - presenting it all as a fight between fascists and anti-fascists - in which the Russians were the only victims and the heroic winners, that's a bit rich.
To be fair, in Western history, we often downplay the gypsies, Slavs, homosexuals and others that were killed in the Holocaust.
Given how Russia hugely downplayed the specific Jewish element of the Nazis crimes after the war - presenting it all as a fight between fascists and anti-fascists - in which the Russians were the only victims and the heroic winners, that's a bit rich.
That was100% due to Stalin; a Georgian anti-semite from his youth.
Ukraine also played the dominant role in 1939-1940, when they single-handedly won the Battle of Britain for us
Given how Russia hugely downplayed the specific Jewish element of the Nazis crimes after the war - presenting it all as a fight between fascists and anti-fascists - in which the Russians were the only victims and the heroic winners, that's a bit rich.
To be fair, in Western history, we often downplay the gypsies, Slavs, homosexuals and others that were killed in the Holocaust.
The cost of coalition: how the LibDems will hand the Conservatives victory 1/3
I was going to hold off this until after the first week of February’s fieldwork but since Pb.com has gone febrile I’ll stick it up now.
There’s an assumption amongst many that we’re heading for a hung parliament. In part it’s this human tendency to assume that what happened last time is bound to repeat. But it isn’t. Two, and possibly now three, factors are different this time. 1. LibDems 2. UKIP 3. Greens. I’m not going to bore you with details on those: they should be obvious. I’m also going to ignore here 2. And 3. For simple reasons. Firstly the Greens will damage Labour in Lab marginals, and that’s a different issue to the one I’m discussing here. Secondly there’s little evidence that UKIP will marshall forces in LibDem marginals sufficient to damage Tories. They aren’t the kind of seats where UKIP will score well. Instead I’m focusing on the LibDem-Cons marginal.
Let’s suppose for a second that the Cons and Lab poll close to GE2010: 36.1 / 29. I’m going to give them both an extra 1% and say it’s 37/30. That may be generous to Labour, less so to the Conservatives for all sorts of good reasons to do with the next 3 months of campaigning.
Okay, so last time the LibDems polled 23% for 57 seats. This time they will be lucky to get out of single figures in vote share. We all know they’re great at marshaling where they need it, but this will push them only so far. There comes a point where even they can’t resist the tide. Let’s give them too an extra 1% over their European result last year: giving them 8% which is roughly where they’re currently polling. Even that may be optimistic, but we will work with it.
Let’s suppose for a second that UKIP hit 12% after a bit of pressure during the campaign.
Baxterise those figures and you have an outright Conservative majority of 24. The LibDems lose 45 seats, and the Conservatives gain 31 of them. Bingo.
Now we all know it won’t quite work like that. We’ve also seen Lord Ashcroft’s (now stale) polls taken when the Tories were bumping along the bottom. We know the LibDems are good local campaigners. However, against that I think the Conservatives will actually poll above 37%. So here are 33 yellow seats that I think are vulnerable. My current estimate is that the Conservatives will win at least 20 of them (but I think they may take more than that).
The cost of coalition: how the LibDems will hand the Conservatives victory 2/3
20 of the following 25 to go from yellow to blue
Berwick-upon-Tweed Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk Brecon and Radnorshire Carshalton and Wallington Cheadle Cheltenham Chippenham Colchester Cornwall North Devon North Dorset Mid and Poole North Fife North East (Ming Campbell standing down, outside chance) Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell standing down) Kingston and Surbiton Lewes Portsmouth South (Mike Hancock … ) Solihull Somerton and Frome Southport St Austell and Newquay St Ives Sutton and Cheam Taunton Deane Torbay Wells
The cost of coalition: how the LibDems will hand the Conservatives victory
I was going to hold off this until after the first week of February’s fieldwork but since Pb.com has gone febrile I’ll stick it up now.
There’s an assumption amongst many that we’re heading for a hung parliament. In part it’s this human tendency to assume that what happened last time is bound to repeat. But it isn’t. Two, and possibly now three, factors are different this time. 1. LibDems 2. UKIP 3. Greens. I’m not going to bore you with details on those: they should be obvious. I’m also going to ignore here 2. And 3. For simple reasons. Firstly the Greens will damage Labour in Lab marginals, and that’s a different issue to the one I’m discussing here. Secondly there’s little evidence that UKIP will marshall forces in LibDem marginals sufficient to damage Tories. They aren’t the kind of seats where UKIP will score well. Instead I’m focusing on the LibDem-Cons marginal.
Let’s suppose for a second that the Cons and Lab poll close to GE2010: 36.1 / 29. I’m going to give them both an extra 1% and say it’s 37/30. That may be generous to Labour, less so to the Conservatives for all sorts of good reasons to do with the next 3 months of campaigning.
Okay, so last time the LibDems polled 23% for 57 seats. This time they will be lucky to get out of single figures in vote share. We all know they’re great at marshaling where they need it, but this will push them only so far. There comes a point where even they can’t resist the tide. Let’s give them too an extra 1% over their European result last year: giving them 8% which is roughly where they’re currently polling. Even that may be optimistic, but we will work with it.
Let’s suppose for a second that UKIP hit 12% after a bit of pressure during the campaign.
Baxterise those figures and you have an outright Conservative majority of 24. The LibDems lose 45 seats, and the Conservatives gain 31 of them. Bingo.
Now we all know it won’t quite work like that. We’ve also seen Lord Ashcroft’s (now stale) polls taken when the Tories were bumping along the bottom. We know the LibDems are good local campaigners. However, against that I think the Conservatives will actually poll above 37%. So here are 31 yellow seats that I think are vulnerable. My current estimate is that the Conservatives will win at least 20 of them (but I think they may take more than that).
The cost of coalition: how the LibDems will hand the Conservatives victory 3/3
8 other outside chances to watch:
Aberdeenshire West and Kincardine Argyll and Bute Eastbourne Eastleigh Edinburgh West Leeds North West Thornbury and Yate Twickenham (shock of the night: Vince Cable to lose?)
Of course these lists won't exactly work like this. Some that look vulnerable won't be whilst others you think are rock solid will fall. It is ever thus. But my outside tip for THE shock of the night? Vince Cable to lose Twickenham.
Re Putin and all that. While nobody who has read any Vasily Grossman can for a moment doubt the role of the Red Army in the destruction of the Nazi murder machine, nevertheless a degree of humility may also be appropriate on such a solemn occasion. I have in mind the Molotov/Ribbentoff pact and the Red Army's hesitation during the Warsaw Rising.
"I can see that she might not be quite to the taste of an old metropolitan lefty roué such as yourself(!)"
Flattery will get you nowhere, Richard.
I have the advantage of having visited the constituency, and spoken to voters there. There's also Nick's own accounts. Naturally he is not impartial, but nor is he one to call his geese swans. You can ask him yourself but I think he would say that winning friends and influencing people isn't one of her strong suits.
The cost of coalition: how the LibDems will hand the Conservatives victory
I was going to hold off this until after the first week of February’s fieldwork but since Pb.com has gone febrile I’ll stick it up now.
There’s an assumption amongst many that we’re heading for a hung parliament. In part it’s this human tendency to assume that what happened last time is bound to repeat. But it isn’t. Two, and possibly now three, factors are different this time. 1. LibDems 2. UKIP 3. Greens. I’m not going to bore you with details on those: they should be obvious. I’m also going to ignore here 2. And 3. For simple reasons. Firstly the Greens will damage Labour in Lab marginals, and that’s a different issue to the one I’m discussing here. Secondly there’s little evidence that UKIP will marshall forces in LibDem marginals sufficient to damage Tories. They aren’t the kind of seats where UKIP will score well. Instead I’m focusing on the LibDem-Cons marginal.
Let’s suppose for a second that the Cons and Lab poll close to GE2010: 36.1 / 29. I’m going to give them both an extra 1% and say it’s 37/30. That may be generous to Labour, less so to the Conservatives for all sorts of good reasons to do with the next 3 months of campaigning.
Okay, so last time the LibDems polled 23% for 57 seats. This time they will be lucky to get out of single figures in vote share. We all know they’re great at marshaling where they need it, but this will push them only so far. There comes a point where even they can’t resist the tide. Let’s give them too an extra 1% over their European result last year: giving them 8% which is roughly where they’re currently polling. Even that may be optimistic, but we will work with it.
Let’s suppose for a second that UKIP hit 12% after a bit of pressure during the campaign.
Baxterise those figures and you have an outright Conservative majority of 24. The LibDems lose 45 seats, and the Conservatives gain 31 of them. Bingo.
Now we all know it won’t quite work like that. We’ve also seen Lord Ashcroft’s (now stale) polls taken when the Tories were bumping along the bottom. We know the LibDems are good local campaigners. However, against that I think the Conservatives will actually poll above 37%. So here are 31 yellow seats that I think are vulnerable. My current estimate is that the Conservatives will win at least 20 of them (but I think they may take more than that).
1/3
We can all massage the figures and make lots of assumptions to get our desired result.
audreyanne: with respect, I cannot see how the Conservatives can win a majority. Assuming they lose at least 25 seats to Labour, they would then require 45 gains to reach 326. Where are those 45 gains going to come from?
Given how Russia hugely downplayed the specific Jewish element of the Nazis crimes after the war - presenting it all as a fight between fascists and anti-fascists - in which the Russians were the only victims and the heroic winners, that's a bit rich.
To be fair, in Western history, we often downplay the gypsies, Slavs, homosexuals and others that were killed in the Holocaust.
Yes - you're right. We do.
Timothy Snyder's book "Bloodlands" - while harrowing - is very good on the appalling history of and dreadful choices faced by the peoples of Poland, Ukraine, Byelorussia - all the territories between Germany and Russia proper - in the 1933 - 1945 period. It is a dreadful story but very illuminating.
One thing it drove home for me was that the rather crude categorisations of Ukrainians as people who fought for Hitler against the Russians therefore bad is altogether too simplistic. There were for the people living in these places often no good moral choices and the option of being left alone was not available either. Very very hard for us in the West to comprehend what it was like for people who were constantly being put into categories and killed as a result and whose homes were constantly being fought over, not just by the two big countries, but by smaller bands of bandits and armies all jockeying for position in the chaos.
Let’s suppose for a second that the Cons and Lab poll close to GE2010: 36.1 / 29. I’m going to give them both an extra 1% and say it’s 37/30. That may be generous to Labour, less so to the Conservatives for all sorts of good reasons to do with the next 3 months of campaigning.
I always thought generosity to Lab was one of your most obvious traits.
An extra 6 points for Tories from today shold surely be double that when the electorate come to their senses
I have the advantage of having visited the constituency, and spoken to voters there. There's also Nick's own accounts. Naturally he is not impartial, but nor is he one to call his geese swans. You can ask him yourself but I think he would say that winning friends and influencing people isn't one of her strong suit.
No, she's not smooth, she says what she thinks. That might indeed put some people off, but (as the Kippers keep telling us) plain-speaking can also be what people want.
What Nick actually said a few days ago was that she's a 'Marmite' politician. I suspect that is right, and all I'm saying is that it would be a mistake for those who can't stand Marmite to assume that everyone feels the same.
Having said all that, I still make Nick favourite, but not to the extent that I'd bet on him at current odds.
The cost of coalition: how the LibDems will hand the Conservatives victory 3/3
8 other outside chances to watch:
Aberdeenshire West and Kincardine Argyll and Bute Eastbourne Eastleigh Edinburgh West Leeds North West Thornbury and Yate Twickenham (shock of the night: Vince Cable to lose?)
Of course these lists won't exactly work like this. Some that look vulnerable won't be whilst others you think are rock solid will fall. It is ever thus. But my outside tip for THE shock of the night? Vince Cable to lose Twickenham.
On the polls, it seems to me - so far anyway - that the Tories never seem to get beyond a certain level, not consistently anyway (somewhere around 32/33) and then tend to fall back. Labour never seem to fall below a certain level and are more often in the lead. They have - more consistently - had higher leads.
On that basis - and unless there's a significant change - it still looks like some sort of Labour administration.
Possibly the only effect of the recent polls is that it might dishearten Labour (all those voices in the press, the latest one Milburn today, saying that Labour are too cautious/core vote focused) and may give an impetus to the Tories who think victory of a sort is within sight.
So it's down to the campaign, the Budget, any "Black Swan" events, Scotland and what a few thousand voters in a few constituencies will decide.
I have the advantage of having visited the constituency, and spoken to voters there. There's also Nick's own accounts. Naturally he is not impartial, but nor is he one to call his geese swans. You can ask him yourself but I think he would say that winning friends and influencing people isn't one of her strong suit.
No, she's not smooth, she says what she thinks. That might indeed put some people off, but (as the Kippers keep telling us) plain-speaking can also be what people want.
What Nick actually said a few days ago was that she's a 'Marmite' politician. I suspect that is right, and all I'm saying is that it would be a mistake for those who can't stand Marmite to assume that everyone feels the same.
Having said all that, I still make Nick favourite, but not to the extent that I'd bet on him at current odds.
You are theorising, Richard. I'm talking from first hand experience. It was clear to me from canvassing there last time that Nick had a considerable edge on personal vote. This was rather borne out by the actual vote.
Marmite candidate? I suspect Nick is being tactful, but I won't put words in his mouth. I'll just say that I doubt his 'personal edge' has diminished from five years ago.
I'm on at 1/2, so the 2/5 is not unduly tempting, but for those starting with a blank sheet I would say the current odds contain a smidgeon of value. As for yourself, I will of course stretch things a bit and offer you a little over the odds if you fancy a bet on Ms Soubry.
So it's down to the campaign, the Budget, any "Black Swan" events, Scotland and what a few thousand voters in a few constituencies will decide.
No, it's about how many voters, having got to the Miliband abyss and finding themselves staring into it, decide to jump in anyway. At the moment it's not a decision they have to take.
The cost of coalition: how the LibDems will hand the Conservatives victory 2/3
20 of the following 25 to go from yellow to blue
Berwick-upon-Tweed Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk Brecon and Radnorshire Carshalton and Wallington Cheadle Cheltenham Chippenham Colchester Cornwall North Devon North Dorset Mid and Poole North Fife North East (Ming Campbell standing down, outside chance) Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell standing down) Kingston and Surbiton Lewes Portsmouth South (Mike Hancock … ) Solihull Somerton and Frome Southport St Austell and Newquay St Ives Sutton and Cheam Taunton Deane Torbay Wells
2/3
The next party to win Kingston & Surbiton will be Labour. Not in 2015 mind. Look at the change in the population profile. Think Mitcham & Morden 30 years ago and now.
On the polls, it seems to me - so far anyway - that the Tories never seem to get beyond a certain level, not consistently anyway (somewhere around 32/33) and then tend to fall back. Labour never seem to fall below a certain level and are more often in the lead. They have - more consistently - had higher leads.
On that basis - and unless there's a significant change - it still looks like some sort of Labour administration.
Indeed. Labour seem largely to have hit their floor, which is within a couple of the Tory ceiling at worst, and sees them home depending on Scotland. I'm hoping for some consistent Tory leads of 3-4 to at least make the final hue of the outcome interesting, even as the various possible permutations mean even without that it will not be outright dull.
I'm on at 1/2, so the 2/5 is not unduly tempting, but for those starting with a blank sheet I would say the current odds contain a smidgeon of value. As for yourself, I will of course stretch things a bit and offer you a little over the odds if you fancy a bet on Ms Soubry.
Shall we say 5/2, maximum £100?
Thanks for the offer, but I think there are better bets around if I want to back the Conservatives. My point was about projection, not the odds. Irrespective of any personal vote, the swing required for Labour to win this seat is so tiny that Nick has to be favourite.
Odds of 2/5 Nick regaining the seat look fairly attractive to me.
As you indicate, Anna Soubry isn't the sort of representative likely to have the voters climbing out of their sick beds to reach the ballot box.
Hmm, I think there might be some projection going on here. SeanF of course doesn't like her because she's not anti-EU. I can see that she might not be quite to the taste of an old metropolitan lefty roué such as yourself(!). But it would be a mistake to assume that she won't be popular with a good chunk of her voters. She's commendably feisty, speaks her mind (and how!), and is quite high-profile on the TV and as a minister.
I naturally have a bias, but I think she'd probably accept that she's a Marmite candidate, who appeals most to people with a strong Tory preference and people who simply like politicians like John Prescott who offer highly spiced politics. Her problem is that there were 17% LibDems, who are not natural fans. The Libdems are in coalition with us locally, and have postponed selecting a candidate until next month: it's fair to say they are not expected to contest the seat as vigorously as in 2010.
That said, I think the margin is currently more like 7% than 14%, matching the national shift since April. If the Tories were ahead by 7-8 nationwide as Audreyanne expects, it'd be a different matter.
''He was ignoring the direction of travel and another PBer said the other day all his leftie voting pals in the constituency expect Anna Soubry to pile votes on to her majority. ''
If Soubry increases her maj I reckon it will be because NP's vote is a no show. That's the trend we've seen in recent months, a discrepancy between labour's poll score and the numbers actually prepared to vote for ed.
In terms of actual on the ground voter punch in 2015 I reckon labour might be closer to 25 than 35 in poll terms.
Individual voter registration might make a difference, too.
Everything is anecdotal except proper polls, but I'm not too worried at present. An Ashcroft revisit that asked with actual candidate names would be good. Individual registration is indeed a serious concern in inner cities for the reasons we've discussed, but registration is actually slightly up in Broxtowe.
But DYOR...
It dates from April 2014, but Ashcroft had you leading Anna Soubry by 44/30%, a swing of 7% compared to 2010. Even if we assume that Soubry will recover some lost ground, that's a big deficit to overcome. I imagine that she's not the sort of MP who would build up much of a personal following.
Since then Labour have lost 15% of their overall vote, and it is a big assumption the original poll was accurate. Nick will hold most of his loyal core vote but that is as far as he will go, it may be enough and like many East Midlands marginals UKIP will be a big key.
I expect the Tories to go well in the East Midlands marginals the economy is on the up round here and I certainly wouldn't put any money on Nick with those odds. This seat will be very close again and it won't be the only one in the area that is.
I wonder if audreyanne is in any way related to Ian Dale, Rik Willis or Marcus Woods. They were also, deludedly, expecting a Tory landslide at the expense of the Liberal Democrats.
The cost of coalition: how the LibDems will hand the Conservatives victory 3/3
8 other outside chances to watch:
Aberdeenshire West and Kincardine Argyll and Bute Eastbourne Eastleigh Edinburgh West Leeds North West Thornbury and Yate Twickenham (shock of the night: Vince Cable to lose?)
Of course these lists won't exactly work like this. Some that look vulnerable won't be whilst others you think are rock solid will fall. It is ever thus. But my outside tip for THE shock of the night? Vince Cable to lose Twickenham.
3/3
My ideal politician would be the bastard lovechild of Southam Observer and Richard Tyndall, with a little bit of tim, David Herdson, rcs100, and a few others mixed in. I'm not going to get that, no matter how much I wish for it.
Strange that 60,000 inmates of Auschwitz chose to flee West with their Nazi guards, rather than wait to be "liberated" by the Soviets...
'Chose'?
“The choice was in our hands. For once we could decide our fate for ourselves. We could both stay in the hospital, where I could, thanks to my doctor, get him [the father] entered as a patient or nurse. Or else we could follow the others.
‘Well, what shall we do, father?’
He was silent.
‘Let's be evacuated with the others,’ I said to him.” Elie Wiesel, Night, Bantam Books paperback (1960), page 78
Oddly, Wiesel makes no mention of gas chambers in his book...
Annoyingly I missed the 8/1 on under 20% saved deposits (which was fantastic value), but before jumping on the 5/2 I did a quick crude calculation. Given the greengasm is very youth orientated and facebooky, I just looked at the constituency data for 18-30 voters on the electoral register in 2012 (573 England and wales seats only - that's all I have the age-breakdown data for)
The greens would save their deposits in the following constituencies;
If <10% 18-30's voters vote green = 0 deposits saved. over 10% = 1 (Sheffield Central) over 12.5% = 12 15% = 40 17.5% = 79 20% = 123 (21.3% of 573 constituencies) 22.5% = 197 25% = 297 27.5% = 373 30% = 454 (78.7% of 573 constituencies)
Given the impact of individual voter registration on the 18-30's, the historically low turnout amongst this age group (was 2010 an exception?), the large number of seats where the greens are standing and the clumpage of green activists around the cities/university seats, I think the 5/2 is a stonking bet. I'd have it at 4/6 personally.
They were also, deludedly, expecting a Tory landslide at the expense of the Liberal Democrats.
How do you know its a delusion? the election is still 100 days away. Judging on the poll figures and every real election since 2014, its a perfectly logical forecast to make, isn't it?
Surely the 'lib dems ground game / anti tory vote is strong' reasoning is far more illogical.
I'd be surprised if there's much of an anti tory vote in some of the Southern lib dem seats. Prosperous constituencies like Kingston and Surbiton have no such qualms, connected as they are to the economic powerhouse of London.
So it's down to the campaign, the Budget, any "Black Swan" events, Scotland and what a few thousand voters in a few constituencies will decide.
No, it's about how many voters, having got to the Miliband abyss and finding themselves staring into it, decide to jump in anyway. At the moment it's not a decision they have to take.
Maybe. I just wonder whether Milliband is as offputting as all that.
Even if they think he's geeky and a bit odd, they might think that he's going to help with fuel bills and he's not obviously a heartless rich chappie. Or they might just vote Labour anyway for other reasons.
Plenty of people voted for Brown and he struck me as even odder and geekier than Milliband.
I may be wholly wrong on this but I could imagine - one-to-one - having a conversation with Ed and being pleasantly surprised in a way that I cannot with Cameron. Possibly I've seen too many types like Cameron in the City.
I just wonder whethr the Ed is odd and not Prime Ministerial meme is overdone. Thatcher was viewed in the same way, thought from a different perspective. Even Heath who was about as far from being a human being as a human can be won an election.
I'm on at 1/2, so the 2/5 is not unduly tempting, but for those starting with a blank sheet I would say the current odds contain a smidgeon of value. As for yourself, I will of course stretch things a bit and offer you a little over the odds if you fancy a bet on Ms Soubry.
Shall we say 5/2, maximum £100?
Thanks for the offer, but I think there are better bets around if I want to back the Conservatives. My point was about projection, not the odds. Irrespective of any personal vote, the swing required for Labour to win this seat is so tiny that Nick has to be favourite.
We're all vulnerable to projection at times, Richard, and I won't pretend I'm immune.
I still think he's a decent 2/5 shot though. I'm not trading out. Not yet, anyway!
False Flag: what motivates you when you post about the conflict in Ukraine?
Because I see my country actively participating in an attack on a reemerging world power meant to weaken it simply because they pursue their own goals and interests which inevitably collide with the Americans. There is faux concern for the collateral damage it causes that is particularly cynical. It is an evil and vindictive policy. So really no different to my opposition to Iraq, Libya, Syria etc.
Strange that 60,000 inmates of Auschwitz chose to flee West with their Nazi guards, rather than wait to be "liberated" by the Soviets...
'Chose'?
“The choice was in our hands. For once we could decide our fate for ourselves. We could both stay in the hospital, where I could, thanks to my doctor, get him [the father] entered as a patient or nurse. Or else we could follow the others.
‘Well, what shall we do, father?’
He was silent.
‘Let's be evacuated with the others,’ I said to him.” Elie Wiesel, Night, Bantam Books paperback (1960), page 78
Oddly, Wiesel makes no mention of gas chambers in his book...
I know I'll regret this..
'Himmler ordered the evacuation of all camps in January 1945, charging camp commanders with "making sure that not a single prisoner from the concentration camps falls alive into the hands of the enemy."[62]'
'The most notorious of the death marches took place in January 1945, when the Soviet army advanced on occupied Poland. Nine days before the Soviets arrived at the death camp at Auschwitz, the SS marched nearly 60,000 prisoners out of the camp toward Wodzisław Śląski (German: Loslau), 56 km (35 mi) away, where they were put on freight trains to other camps. Approximately 15,000 prisoners died on the way.[7]'
Comments
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jan/27/peter-mandelson-400000-pound-tax-free-loan
Wonderfully outrageous.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/nhs/11372710/NHS-strike-halted-amid-more-talks-over-pay.html
IMO the Tories couldnt afford to not settle this prior to 7th May
The offer means the vast majority of NHS staff would receive a 1 per cent pay increase, with only those towards the top of national pay scales excluded from the deal. Thousands of the lowest paid staff would receive an extra £200, while minimum pay levels will be raised to £15,100.
ICYMI: A YouGov poll of London has Labour with a ten point lead, up five from 2010. http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/exclusive-election-poll-labour-could-seize-eight-london-target-seats-as-lead-grows-10002698.html …
Odds of 2/5 Nick regaining the seat look fairly attractive to me.
As you indicate, Anna Soubry isn't the sort of representative likely to have the voters climbing out of their sick beds to reach the ballot box.
As much as some rebels might want to be part of Russia this will not happen. As Lavrov replied to 'what if the rebels won't accept a federalised solution', that's Kiev's problem not ours.
Anyone who says otherwise, especially NATO, is a liar.
Is this good for DC or EM??
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-31008694?ocid=socialflow_twitter
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B8X_Px8IEAAEq01.png
David Cameron is clearly a pull on his party, while Ed Miliband is clearly a drag on his.
Anyone claiming to know how the next election is going to pan out should be forced to stare at this set of results.
To take your words at face value, Russia has had no business making comment on this affair either, nor has anyone else, and yet I'm sure I recall both sides sticking their big noses into the Ukranian's affairs as though it was their business. Huh.
Or maybe you are making an argument against something else and quoted me by mistake.
But does look a virtual toss up this election
The Times of Israel @TimesofIsrael 16m16 minutes ago
Attempts to rewrite Shoah history ‘unacceptable,’ says Putin http://dlvr.it/8GSNl8
I am sure N4E or the Watcher will be along shortly!!!
Many ex-Tories might well believe Cameron would make a decent PM, he's just not a decent Tory PM for example.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/attempts-to-rewrite-shoah-history-unacceptable-says-putin/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
It must be my medication
exlab
@exlabourite
This is Green Party deputy leader.. He sounds quite an angry chap.
http://youtu.be/4EYX8WxpmJw
As it stands so far this week:
Con 32.7
Lab 32.3
UKIP 16.1
LD 7.4
Grn 6.2
UKIP back up by 1.6
http://courtnewsuk.co.uk/newsgallery/?public_id=39672 … this is what happens when u drink alcohol in a "muslim area" in London
Then I shall begin ...
I was going to hold off this until after the first week of February’s fieldwork but since Pb.com has gone febrile I’ll stick it up now.
There’s an assumption amongst many that we’re heading for a hung parliament. In part it’s this human tendency to assume that what happened last time is bound to repeat. But it isn’t. Two, and possibly now three, factors are different this time. 1. LibDems 2. UKIP 3. Greens. I’m not going to bore you with details on those: they should be obvious. I’m also going to ignore here 2. And 3. For simple reasons. Firstly the Greens will damage Labour in Lab marginals, and that’s a different issue to the one I’m discussing here. Secondly there’s little evidence that UKIP will marshall forces in LibDem marginals sufficient to damage Tories. They aren’t the kind of seats where UKIP will score well. Instead I’m focusing on the LibDem-Cons marginal.
Let’s suppose for a second that the Cons and Lab poll close to GE2010: 36.1 / 29. I’m going to give them both an extra 1% and say it’s 37/30. That may be generous to Labour, less so to the Conservatives for all sorts of good reasons to do with the next 3 months of campaigning.
Okay, so last time the LibDems polled 23% for 57 seats. This time they will be lucky to get out of single figures in vote share. We all know they’re great at marshaling where they need it, but this will push them only so far. There comes a point where even they can’t resist the tide. Let’s give them too an extra 1% over their European result last year: giving them 8% which is roughly where they’re currently polling. Even that may be optimistic, but we will work with it.
Let’s suppose for a second that UKIP hit 12% after a bit of pressure during the campaign.
Baxterise those figures and you have an outright Conservative majority of 24. The LibDems lose 45 seats, and the Conservatives gain 31 of them. Bingo.
Now we all know it won’t quite work like that. We’ve also seen Lord Ashcroft’s (now stale) polls taken when the Tories were bumping along the bottom. We know the LibDems are good local campaigners. However, against that I think the Conservatives will actually poll above 37%. So here are 33 yellow seats that I think are vulnerable. My current estimate is that the Conservatives will win at least 20 of them (but I think they may take more than that).
1/3
20 of the following 25 to go from yellow to blue
Berwick-upon-Tweed
Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk
Brecon and Radnorshire
Carshalton and Wallington
Cheadle
Cheltenham
Chippenham
Colchester
Cornwall North
Devon North
Dorset Mid and Poole North
Fife North East (Ming Campbell standing down, outside chance)
Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell standing down)
Kingston and Surbiton
Lewes
Portsmouth South (Mike Hancock … )
Solihull
Somerton and Frome
Southport
St Austell and Newquay
St Ives
Sutton and Cheam
Taunton Deane
Torbay
Wells
2/3
8 other outside chances to watch:
Aberdeenshire West and Kincardine
Argyll and Bute
Eastbourne
Eastleigh
Edinburgh West
Leeds North West
Thornbury and Yate
Twickenham (shock of the night: Vince Cable to lose?)
Of course these lists won't exactly work like this. Some that look vulnerable won't be whilst others you think are rock solid will fall. It is ever thus. But my outside tip for THE shock of the night? Vince Cable to lose Twickenham.
3/3
"I can see that she might not be quite to the taste of an old metropolitan lefty roué such as yourself(!)"
Flattery will get you nowhere, Richard.
I have the advantage of having visited the constituency, and spoken to voters there. There's also Nick's own accounts. Naturally he is not impartial, but nor is he one to call his geese swans. You can ask him yourself but I think he would say that winning friends and influencing people isn't one of her strong suits.
I agree with Nick.
Isnt that rather a lot of words when you could just have written "partisan Tory poster thinks Tories will win the election"?
Timothy Snyder's book "Bloodlands" - while harrowing - is very good on the appalling history of and dreadful choices faced by the peoples of Poland, Ukraine, Byelorussia - all the territories between Germany and Russia proper - in the 1933 - 1945 period. It is a dreadful story but very illuminating.
One thing it drove home for me was that the rather crude categorisations of Ukrainians as people who fought for Hitler against the Russians therefore bad is altogether too simplistic. There were for the people living in these places often no good moral choices and the option of being left alone was not available either. Very very hard for us in the West to comprehend what it was like for people who were constantly being put into categories and killed as a result and whose homes were constantly being fought over, not just by the two big countries, but by smaller bands of bandits and armies all jockeying for position in the chaos.
I always thought generosity to Lab was one of your most obvious traits.
An extra 6 points for Tories from today shold surely be double that when the electorate come to their senses
What Nick actually said a few days ago was that she's a 'Marmite' politician. I suspect that is right, and all I'm saying is that it would be a mistake for those who can't stand Marmite to assume that everyone feels the same.
Having said all that, I still make Nick favourite, but not to the extent that I'd bet on him at current odds.
On that basis - and unless there's a significant change - it still looks like some sort of Labour administration.
Possibly the only effect of the recent polls is that it might dishearten Labour (all those voices in the press, the latest one Milburn today, saying that Labour are too cautious/core vote focused) and may give an impetus to the Tories who think victory of a sort is within sight.
So it's down to the campaign, the Budget, any "Black Swan" events, Scotland and what a few thousand voters in a few constituencies will decide.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B8X4nnGCAAE0HYj.png
Marmite candidate? I suspect Nick is being tactful, but I won't put words in his mouth. I'll just say that I doubt his 'personal edge' has diminished from five years ago.
I'm on at 1/2, so the 2/5 is not unduly tempting, but for those starting with a blank sheet I would say the current odds contain a smidgeon of value. As for yourself, I will of course stretch things a bit and offer you a little over the odds if you fancy a bet on Ms Soubry.
Shall we say 5/2, maximum £100?
Tooting will be even safer Labour this time.
A deeply disturbing article.
http://www.thestar.com.my/News/World/2015/01/27/New-Greek-government-complains-about-EU-Ukraine-statement/
On a brighter note Tsipras's meeting with the Russian ambassador went well yesterday.
with mansion tax misgivings, benefits cap clearances and individual voter registration?
Which party do voters trust on which issue? ComRes poll for ITV: http://comres.co.uk/polls/ITV_News_Index_-_26th_January_2015.pdf … [See Table 3]
That said, I think the margin is currently more like 7% than 14%, matching the national shift since April. If the Tories were ahead by 7-8 nationwide as Audreyanne expects, it'd be a different matter.
I expect the Tories to go well in the East Midlands marginals the economy is on the up round here and I certainly wouldn't put any money on Nick with those odds. This seat will be very close again and it won't be the only one in the area that is.
I'm not going to get that, no matter how much I wish for it.
‘Well, what shall we do, father?’
He was silent.
‘Let's be evacuated with the others,’ I said to him.” Elie Wiesel, Night, Bantam Books paperback (1960), page 78
Oddly, Wiesel makes no mention of gas chambers in his book...
Annoyingly I missed the 8/1 on under 20% saved deposits (which was fantastic value), but before jumping on the 5/2 I did a quick crude calculation. Given the greengasm is very youth orientated and facebooky, I just looked at the constituency data for 18-30 voters on the electoral register in 2012 (573 England and wales seats only - that's all I have the age-breakdown data for)
The greens would save their deposits in the following constituencies;
If <10% 18-30's voters vote green = 0 deposits saved.
over 10% = 1 (Sheffield Central)
over 12.5% = 12
15% = 40
17.5% = 79
20% = 123 (21.3% of 573 constituencies)
22.5% = 197
25% = 297
27.5% = 373
30% = 454 (78.7% of 573 constituencies)
Given the impact of individual voter registration on the 18-30's, the historically low turnout amongst this age group (was 2010 an exception?), the large number of seats where the greens are standing and the clumpage of green activists around the cities/university seats, I think the 5/2 is a stonking bet. I'd have it at 4/6 personally.
A fun list - can it be correct that Poland sees Germany as both the least and most trustworthy nation? Surely a typo.
Greece should be a little embarrassed that everyone else on the list managed to avoid voting for themselves. They probably thought everyone was at it.
How do you know its a delusion? the election is still 100 days away. Judging on the poll figures and every real election since 2014, its a perfectly logical forecast to make, isn't it?
Surely the 'lib dems ground game / anti tory vote is strong' reasoning is far more illogical.
I'd be surprised if there's much of an anti tory vote in some of the Southern lib dem seats. Prosperous constituencies like Kingston and Surbiton have no such qualms, connected as they are to the economic powerhouse of London.
Even if they think he's geeky and a bit odd, they might think that he's going to help with fuel bills and he's not obviously a heartless rich chappie. Or they might just vote Labour anyway for other reasons.
Plenty of people voted for Brown and he struck me as even odder and geekier than Milliband.
I may be wholly wrong on this but I could imagine - one-to-one - having a conversation with Ed and being pleasantly surprised in a way that I cannot with Cameron. Possibly I've seen too many types like Cameron in the City.
I just wonder whethr the Ed is odd and not Prime Ministerial meme is overdone. Thatcher was viewed in the same way, thought from a different perspective. Even Heath who was about as far from being a human being as a human can be won an election.
I still think he's a decent 2/5 shot though. I'm not trading out. Not yet, anyway!
'Himmler ordered the evacuation of all camps in January 1945, charging camp commanders with "making sure that not a single prisoner from the concentration camps falls alive into the hands of the enemy."[62]'
'The most notorious of the death marches took place in January 1945, when the Soviet army advanced on occupied Poland. Nine days before the Soviets arrived at the death camp at Auschwitz, the SS marched nearly 60,000 prisoners out of the camp toward Wodzisław Śląski (German: Loslau), 56 km (35 mi) away, where they were put on freight trains to other camps. Approximately 15,000 prisoners died on the way.[7]'