RE: Scottish drink driving. Typically in Scotland the number of people killed by a drunk driver is about 6 a year. On top of this are the 2/3 of deaths where the drink driver is the victim.
Most of these deaths are also where the driver is blitzed, not slightly over the old limit. There may even be in some years none killed by a driver slightly over the new limit. But let us not use statistics when taking irrational decisions that put at risk the enjoyment/livelihood of hundreds of thousands of drivers....
Thanks for posting - any data to back up ?
I also suspect that this is a classic SNP wedge issue - using the powers they have just to make Scotland "different" - with no thought to the consequences.
Different from whom? Not Europe, by an dlarge, which ma suggest that England etc. is out of step.
Also - a bit less please of trying to find something wrong with Scotland so you can have another moan about the SNP. It's not a SNP thing. Unanimous vote at Holyrood.
I replied on previous post Carynx - am not that fussed about the politics of this - more that the rUk doesn't follow down the same path - some data on deaths/accidents and levels of blood alcohol would be instructive - TCPB suggested that total drink driving deaths average 6 per year but had no details on whether this new policy would improve.
Kennry MacAskill (as reported by the Mail) said it was 20 deaths a year.
"Mr MacAskill said the new limit would send a 'clear message' to drivers who ignore the warnings that there is never an excuse to drink and drive. He said: 'Drink-driving shatters families and communities and we must take action to reduce the risk on our roads. The latest estimates show that approximately one in 10 deaths on Scottish roads involve drivers who are over the legal limit and research shows that even just one alcoholic drink before driving can make you three times as likely to be involved in a fatal car crash. As a result, 20 families every year have to cope with the loss of a loved one and around 760 people are treated for injuries caused by someone who thought it was acceptable to drink alcohol and get behind the wheel and drive. We cannot let this continue. That's why I have today introduced legislation to lower the drink-drive limit in Scotland so that, subject to parliamentary approval, new laws will be in place in time for the beginning of the festive period.'"
RE: Scottish drink driving. Typically in Scotland the number of people killed by a drunk driver is about 6 a year. On top of this are the 2/3 of deaths where the drink driver is the victim.
Most of these deaths are also where the driver is blitzed, not slightly over the old limit. There may even be in some years none killed by a driver slightly over the new limit. But let us not use statistics when taking irrational decisions that put at risk the enjoyment/livelihood of hundreds of thousands of drivers....
Thanks for posting - any data to back up ?
I also suspect that this is a classic SNP wedge issue - using the powers they have just to make Scotland "different" - with no thought to the consequences.
Different from whom? Not Europe, by an dlarge, which ma suggest that England etc. is out of step.
Also - a bit less please of trying to find something wrong with Scotland so you can have another moan about the SNP. It's not a SNP thing. Unanimous vote at Holyrood.
I replied on previous post Carynx - am not that fussed about the politics of this - more that the rUk doesn't follow down the same path - some data on deaths/accidents and levels of blood alcohol would be instructive - TCPB suggested that total drink driving deaths average 6 per year but had no details on whether this new policy would improve.
Kennry MacAskill (as reported by the Mail) said it was 20 deaths a year. ...... http://tinyurl.com/nhkn7pj
Yes 20 would be about 8.5% of UK total in 2012. But 2/3 are a drunk driver. Only 1/3 were not the drunk driver (UK stats). Believing that a slightly lower limit will stop drunks getting into a car (and in most cases killing themselves and no one else), is not a sound argument. 1/3 of 20 is 6+ non-drunk drivers Which is what I stated at the start.
But there is an issue you are missing - some of those would not have started drinking at all (and then losing their judgement and carrying on). It's much more of a clear line now, and not just for the driver but passengers and other people around tbem. .
The drink drive limit is not just about fatalities but also no fatal accidental. Over 6500 accidents were alcohol related - no idea in the breakdown of completely smashed to just over the limit.
I can't work out why the Conservatives are 1-2 in Pompey north, seems far too long to me.
Not answering your question. FYI there is worse to come out about UKIP.
Portsmouth North is Frank Judd's old seat and contains Paulsgrove a large council estate, I would have thought that Labour were in with a good chance. Labour won in '74, '97 and '05. The Tories won in '79 with the infamous Peter Griffiths and in '10.
Ah Logical Song! What was the bet you offered that I bottled?
Can't you remember, something about the number of UKIP MPs. Dig it out in the archives if you'd like to reconsider.
I doubt it happened to be honest, I think you are are making it up. If I made a claim and you offered better odds than bookies I would have had it
Listened to PMQs today. Initial verdict: We all lost.
We get a Dave v Ed debate.
It just dawned on me, that will be 90 mins of them hurling insults about the NHS.
Cancel all the debates now.
The interesting thing is that UKIP and the LDs will also have to be given substantial airspace to reply. NOT being one of the two main parties suits them very well indeed.
but seriously is anyone on here going to be betting on a Labour win?
Every time the labour price grows BJO puts more on them, according to him. If the most seats price really blows out, I might be tempted myself, for hedging purposes.
RE: Scottish drink driving. Typically in Scotland the number of people killed by a drunk driver is about 6 a year. On top of this are the 2/3 of deaths where the drink driver is the victim.
Most of these deaths are also where the driver is blitzed, not slightly over the old limit. There may even be in some years none killed by a driver slightly over the new limit. But let us not use statistics when taking irrational decisions that put at risk the enjoyment/livelihood of hundreds of thousands of drivers....
Thanks for posting - any data to back up ?
I also suspect that this is a classic SNP wedge issue - using the powers they have just to make Scotland "different" - with no thought to the consequences.
Different from whom? Not Europe, by an dlarge, which ma suggest that England etc. is out of step.
Also - a bit less please of trying to find something wrong with Scotland so you can have another moan about the SNP. It's not a SNP thing. Unanimous vote at Holyrood.
I replied on previous post Carynx - am not that fussed about the politics of this - more that the rUk doesn't follow down the same path - some data on deaths/accidents and levels of blood alcohol would be instructive - TCPB suggested that total drink driving deaths average 6 per year but had no details on whether this new policy would improve.
Kennry MacAskill (as reported by the Mail) said it was 20 deaths a year. ...... http://tinyurl.com/nhkn7pj
Yes 20 would be about 8.5% of UK total in 2012. But 2/3 are a drunk driver. Only 1/3 were not the drunk driver (UK stats). Believing that a slightly lower limit will stop drunks getting into a car (and in most cases killing themselves and no one else), is not a sound argument. 1/3 of 20 is 6+ non-drunk drivers Which is what I stated at the start.
But there is an issue you are missing - some of those would not have started drinking at all (and then losing their judgement and carrying on). It's much more of a clear line now, and not just for the driver but passengers and other people around tbem. .
Will be interesting to see how it pans out.
In Yerpean countries that have a lower drink-drive limit than ours they also quite often have a lesser penalty for the lower level. This actually makes a lot of sense.
Labour had this coming. Unless it is remarkably well disguised they have done a fraction of the work on policy the Tories did prior to the 2010 election and now they find themselves trapped between their instincts and their record with no coherent policy platform or intellectual direction to fall back on. The widespread dislike of the Tories combined with the new found popularity of UKIP, the SNP and the Greens (which may be eroded in the campaign), mean this is far from over and, black swans aside, I can see opportunities for Labour to recover. But I am not persuaded they have the talent, the direction or even the desire to do so.
Where did it all go wrong? Perhaps history will take a kinder view and say that, like the Tories in 1997-2001, this Labour opposition was doomed from the start; exhausted by 13 years in Government, stripped of many of their most capable politicians during the latter years in power, in need of two terms to rebuild and refocus. But complacency has also played a part. As the Tories got stuck in the economic mire in 2012 and Labour basked in the love of fleeing Liberal Democrats, it all looked too easy. The rise of Ukip, apparently at the Tories expense, put the point beyond doubt. The initial, quite promising, forays into political philosophy ground to a halt; there was no need to explore new forms of capitalism, just stay quiet and wait it out. Throw a few populist bones at the electorate. Double dip, squeezed middle, cost of living crisis. Repeat to fade.
But the indicators were already starting to appear; economic competence ratings, leader ratings, best PM questions, a steadily deflating lead. An economy returning to growth. Employment figures strengthening. Labour denied the reality. I've watched astounded as posters on here have painted new red lines every few months. 40%, lead of 8, 6-8, 3-4, still a lead, no cross-over. Basil kept moving the goalposts but his arms got tired.
And now, less than 100 days from the election Labour aren't sure if they are pragmatists or radicals, cutting spending or investing in growth, welcoming the private sector into health care provision or turning their back on their past. Whether or not the Conservatives deserve another term can still legitimately be debated. But it is becoming increasingly difficult to deny that Labour deserve to lose.
RE: Scottish drink driving. Typically in Scotland the number of people killed by a drunk driver is about 6 a year. On top of this are the 2/3 of deaths where the drink driver is the victim.
Most of these deaths are also where the driver is blitzed, not slightly over the old limit. There may even be in some years none killed by a driver slightly over the new limit. But let us not use statistics when taking irrational decisions that put at risk the enjoyment/livelihood of hundreds of thousands of drivers....
Thanks for posting - any data to back up ?
I also suspect that this is a classic SNP wedge issue - using the powers they have just to make Scotland "different" - with no thought to the consequences.
Different from whom? Not Europe, by an dlarge, which ma suggest that England etc. is out of step.
Also - a bit less please of trying to find something wrong with Scotland so you can have another moan about the SNP. It's not a SNP thing. Unanimous vote at Holyrood.
I replied on previous post Carynx - am not that fussed about the politics of this - more that the rUk doesn't follow down the same path - some data on deaths/accidents and levels of blood alcohol would be instructive - TCPB suggested that total drink driving deaths average 6 per year but had no details on whether this new policy would improve.
Kennry MacAskill (as reported by the Mail) said it was 20 deaths a year. ...... http://tinyurl.com/nhkn7pj
Yes 20 would be about 8.5% of UK total in 2012. But 2/3 are a drunk driver. Only 1/3 were not the drunk driver (UK stats). Believing that a slightly lower limit will stop drunks getting into a car (and in most cases killing themselves and no one else), is not a sound argument. 1/3 of 20 is 6+ non-drunk drivers Which is what I stated at the start.
But there is an issue you are missing - some of those would not have started drinking at all (and then losing their judgement and carrying on). It's much more of a clear line now, and not just for the driver but passengers and other people around tbem. .
Will be interesting to see how it pans out.
Given that there are apparently no stats now, how are we going to compare ?
In Yerpean countries that have a lower drink-drive limit than ours they also quite often have a lesser penalty for the lower level. This actually makes a lot of sense.
Hungary has a zero tolerance law for alcohol in the bloodstream. They also have something close to zero enforcement - but if you do get caught, you're in deep trouble.
It doesn't work too badly, to be absolutely honest.
in the past labour could rely on whatever their poll score was to turn out. Now, they just can't, if the evidence of the last 18 months is anything to go by.
Its partly ed, who is Acme voter repellent. Its partly the total lack of a coherent plan for government. A sixth form debating team could do better.
Think if and when the debates take place I think the moderator should be able to send a leader who doesn't answer a question to a sin bin, or stop him from giving a closing speech as punishment
Think if and when the debates take place I think the moderator should be able to send a leader who doesn't answer a question to a sin bin, or stop him from giving a closing speech as punishment
The main thing I take from the reports of Prime Minister's Questions is that the Conservatives have recently become absolutely ruthless about message discipline. The message may be banal or outright mendacious, but they're sticking to their line relentlessly.
Not much clarity there then - other than to note the source was "3 months to live" MacAskill..
I'm sure one of those 'balanced' organs from which you get your Scottish news would have jumped all over MacAskill if he'd lied about a fairly easily verifiable figure.
I can't work out why the Conservatives are 1-2 in Pompey north, seems far too long to me.
Not answering your question. FYI there is worse to come out about UKIP.
Portsmouth North is Frank Judd's old seat and contains Paulsgrove a large council estate, I would have thought that Labour were in with a good chance. Labour won in '74, '97 and '05. The Tories won in '79 with the infamous Peter Griffiths and in '10.
Ah Logical Song! What was the bet you offered that I bottled?
Can't you remember, something about the number of UKIP MPs. Dig it out in the archives if you'd like to reconsider.
I doubt it happened to be honest, I think you are are making it up. If I made a claim and you offered better odds than bookies I would have had it
Of course I'm not making it up, how dare you suggest such a thing. I guess that the odds weren't better than the bookies, that's an excuse for bottling it.
Looks like I was right when I said Jim Murphy's comments would hurt Labour in London/The South
Scottish Labour leader Jim Murphy may have shot his party in the foot in London by boasting that a “mansion tax” mainly hitting the South-East would fund 1,000 nurses in Scotland, a poll shows today.
The YouGov survey found nearly three in 10 Londoners said his remarks made them feel less favourable towards Labour.
Yep. I really honestly think this is heading one way. I know, I know, I'm a Tory but seriously is anyone on here going to be betting on a Labour win?
3 months to go, including a budget. Barring some national catastrophe or Cameron confessing that he is a closet transsexual who wears SamCam's lingerie to PMQ's, EdM is toast. The most useless political leader since Michael Foot. He has all of Cameron's faults and none of his strengths.
There's really only one major question now:
NOM? or Tory Outright?
The major question is Tory most seats or Labour most seats. There's next to no chance of either side getting a majority.
I'm also sceptical that either side will be able to form a working majority within a coalition with one of the smaller parties. I think a grand coalition is much more likely than people appreciate.
The main thing I take from the reports of Prime Minister's Questions is that the Conservatives have recently become absolutely ruthless about message discipline. The message may be banal or outright mendacious, but they're sticking to their line relentlessly.
In the next few weeks, expect the following line to be trotted out ruthlessly and relentlessly, even more so than "Long Term Economic Plan"
but seriously is anyone on here going to be betting on a Labour win?
Every time the labour price grows BJO puts more on them, according to him. If the most seats price really blows out, I might be tempted myself, for hedging purposes.
Labour is going backwards, not sure the Conservatives are going forwards.
Ed PM and Conservatives most seats is an arb and a middle, which is my position on the overall.
Yep. I really honestly think this is heading one way. I know, I know, I'm a Tory but seriously is anyone on here going to be betting on a Labour win?
3 months to go, including a budget. Barring some national catastrophe or Cameron confessing that he is a closet transsexual who wears SamCam's lingerie to PMQ's, EdM is toast. The most useless political leader since Michael Foot. He has all of Cameron's faults and none of his strengths.
There's really only one major question now:
NOM? or Tory Outright?
Given that the Tories need to be 11.4% ahead in England before they stop losing seats to LAB it is hard to see a pathway to an overall majority.
Well aside from people changing their minds between now and polling day, you mistake FPTP for some kind of deterministic system.
UNS is just an estimate of how the system will perform. It's rarely exactly right, and often significantly wrong.
It would be quite possible for a small swing to Labour to occur, and yet for the Tories to gain a few seats.
If the Lord Ashcroft Scottish constituency polling backs up what the Scottish VI polling is saying, then we're going to know with a bit more certainty that the Tories are going to the largest party, because I can't see Lab being the largest party if they've shed 30 MPs in North Britain.
If the Tories are going to be the largest party, then they've almost certainly won the popular vote.
What will Labour do, because their job is more difficult than the Tories. The Tories have only shed votes to one party, Dave can show some Eurosceptic leg and he can get some back.
Whereas Labour has shed votes to three parties, UKIP, the SNP and The Greens.
I'm not sure there's a policy that appeals to all three parties short of the Labour party giving Ed Miliband a public wedgie in Trafalgar Square.
I'm intrigued by the sort of leg-showing that you think Cameron will be able to use to get UKIP voters back at this point.
From what I read in today's papers, the EU is preparing to humiliate Greece's government, and torpedo the absurd notion that austerity can be 'turned away from'
Ed was dire today, really whiny and he repeatedly gave Cameron a chance to bash him and quote stats back at him.
That weaponise quote is a big problem. Ed can own up to it and see it plastered everywhere during the campaign, he can try and duck it and face questions about it until polling day, or he can deny it and pick a fight with the BBC.
Think if and when the debates take place I think the moderator should be able to send a leader who doesn't answer a question to a sin bin, or stop him from giving a closing speech as punishment
The debates are structured - will be 10 mins max on the peoples religion.
Yep. I really honestly think this is heading one way. I know, I know, I'm a Tory but seriously is anyone on here going to be betting on a Labour win?
3 months to go, including a budget. Barring some national catastrophe or Cameron confessing that he is a closet transsexual who wears SamCam's lingerie to PMQ's, EdM is toast. The most useless political leader since Michael Foot. He has all of Cameron's faults and none of his strengths.
There's really only one major question now:
NOM? or Tory Outright?
The major question is Tory most seats or Labour most seats. There's next to no chance of either side getting a majority.
I'm also sceptical that either side will be able to form a working majority within a coalition with one of the smaller parties. I think a grand coalition is much more likely than people appreciate.
I think you could be right. Can you imagine Ed as PM, Cameron as Home or Foreign Secretary 'though?
RE: Scottish drink driving. Typically in Scotland the number of people killed by a drunk driver is about 6 a year. On top of this are the 2/3 of deaths where the drink driver is the victim.
Most of these deaths are also where the driver is blitzed, not slightly over the old limit. There may even be in some years none killed by a driver slightly over the new limit. But let us not use statistics when taking irrational decisions that put at risk the enjoyment/livelihood of hundreds of thousands of drivers....
Thanks for posting - any data to back up ?
I also suspect that this is a classic SNP wedge issue - using the powers they have just to make Scotland "different" - with no thought to the consequences.
Different from whom? Not Europe, by an dlarge, which ma suggest that England etc. is out of step.
Also - a bit less please of trying to find something wrong with Scotland so you can have another moan about the SNP. It's not a SNP thing. Unanimous vote at Holyrood.
As I understand it, in Europe lower penalties kick in at 50mg whereas the Scottish option applies the full force of the law at 50mg that is applied in England at 80mg.
We do seem to get hung up on Scotland and England having different laws, Scotland is a separate country with its own legal system, and now its own legislature, learn to live with it.
@Flockers_pb - A good summary of the Labour situation.
It's interesting that the Conservatives are polling pretty much exactly where they were in the summer of 2012, in the aftermath of the Omnishambles budget. Insofar as swingback has occurred it has been solely from Labour to other Opposition parties, which is both a damning judgement on Labour's failings as an Opposition and a judgement on the parties of Government.
Normally swingback would involve the Government polling recovering as the election approaches, but that hasn't happened... yet.
The main thing I take from the reports of Prime Minister's Questions is that the Conservatives have recently become absolutely ruthless about message discipline. The message may be banal or outright mendacious, but they're sticking to their line relentlessly.
They all really want to win: not all for the same reasons, but you can't have everything.
I'm not convinced half the Shadow Cabinet even want to win.
RE: Scottish drink driving. Typically in Scotland the number of people killed by a drunk driver is about 6 a year. On top of this are the 2/3 of deaths where the drink driver is the victim.
Most of these deaths are also where the driver is blitzed, not slightly over the old limit. There may even be in some years none killed by a driver slightly over the new limit. But let us not use statistics when taking irrational decisions that put at risk the enjoyment/livelihood of hundreds of thousands of drivers....
Thanks for posting - any data to back up ?
I also suspect that this is a classic SNP wedge issue - using the powers they have just to make Scotland "different" - with no thought to the consequences.
Different from whom? Not Europe, by an dlarge, which ma suggest that England etc. is out of step.
Also - a bit less please of trying to find something wrong with Scotland so you can have another moan about the SNP. It's not a SNP thing. Unanimous vote at Holyrood.
As I understand it, in Europe lower penalties kick in at 50mg whereas the Scottish option applies the full force of the law at 50mg that is applied in England at 80mg.
We do seem to get hung up on Scotland and England having different laws, Scotland is a separate country with its own legal system, and now its own legislature, learn to live with it.
I hear you - but if it means my holidays are impacted by golf clubs closing then perhaps we should invade to ensure sanity is restored.
UKIP has grown an solidified over the last 2 years, but unfortunately there are still spots where people think their egos trump all. It is a shame that the Fareham group can't grow up. I expect it will take someone from the executive to shake them up; probably.
Yebbut it's exactly this tone from the top that makes them behave like this. If the leader runs an inauthentic and borderline quite queeny personality cult, why should the yokels be any more grown up?
The most perfect attack on the Blair administration I have ever seen in print.
Clearly applicable there too. The Tories don't really do personality cult leaders, which is why Farage was never going to fit in given that he needs a party that's all about Nigel Farage. But nor indeed do the other parties do personality cults. It seems to be a Labour invention, dating from when they had a leader who had a personality.
Unfortunately for Labour, this means people now pay more attention to their leader than they used to do. This is bad news when the leader is who it has been (Broon, Moribund) or indeed anyone else it might be. Labour weren't as handicapped by this in the past because it was generally understood by the voters that Michael Foot, Neil Kinnock, and John Smith were not the standout personalities or the most prominent intellectuals of their party. They were just journeyman nondescript bozos who had schemed their way into the job via backroom deals and cosying up to the unions, but were of no special merit. They were primus inter irrumatores, as it were, and what you'd expect of an anti-meritocratic party led by white ex-public and grammar school boys.
Redward is simply another such, but is unfairly burdened with residual expectation. When we get past this, and voters once again realise that Labour's leader is just another generic abject wanker manoeuvred into post on a Buggins' turn basis, their expectations will decline correspondingly and the leader of the day will become the nullity that he traditionally was pre-Blair, with little difference between his own and his party's ratings.
but seriously is anyone on here going to be betting on a Labour win?
Every time the labour price grows BJO puts more on them, according to him. If the most seats price really blows out, I might be tempted myself, for hedging purposes.
Labour is going backwards, not sure the Conservatives are going forwards.
Ed PM and Conservatives most seats is an arb and a middle, which is my position on the overall.
Labour have definitely fallen over the last six months, but the Tories seem to be flatlining (NB. this is up to date for last weekend's ELBOW, before this week's crossover!)
Labour on the NHS reminds me of Alistair Darling during second ScotRef debate, when he pushed the currency point once too often. The audience groaned and he lost the debate.
Labour need something fresh to say or at the very least a fresh way of saying it.
Normally swingback would involve the Government polling recovering as the election approaches, but that hasn't happened... yet.
True, but admitting you think the government has done a reasonable job and you might give them another chance is a bit like admitting you watch internet porn (if you're a floating voter). It's just not something you do.
RE: Scottish drink driving. Typically in Scotland the number of people killed by a drunk driver is about 6 a year. On top of this are the 2/3 of deaths where the drink driver is the victim.
Most of these deaths are also where the driver is blitzed, not slightly over the old limit. There may even be in some years none killed by a driver slightly over the new limit. But let us not use statistics when taking irrational decisions that put at risk the enjoyment/livelihood of hundreds of thousands of drivers....
Thanks for posting - any data to back up ?
I also suspect that this is a classic SNP wedge issue - using the powers they have just to make Scotland "different" - with no thought to the consequences.
Different from whom? Not Europe, by an dlarge, which ma suggest that England etc. is out of step.
Also - a bit less please of trying to find something wrong with Scotland so you can have another moan about the SNP. It's not a SNP thing. Unanimous vote at Holyrood.
As I understand it, in Europe lower penalties kick in at 50mg whereas the Scottish option applies the full force of the law at 50mg that is applied in England at 80mg.
We do seem to get hung up on Scotland and England having different laws, Scotland is a separate country with its own legal system, and now its own legislature, learn to live with it.
What is striking is that the PBTory view on this is parody-kipper: fight to the death to preserve a chap's right to have a couple of quick ones at the 19th hole, and mow down an immigrant or two in the Jag on the way home. When they rage at Farage they rage at their own reflection in the mirror.
Yep. I really honestly think this is heading one way. I know, I know, I'm a Tory but seriously is anyone on here going to be betting on a Labour win?
3 months to go, including a budget. Barring some national catastrophe or Cameron confessing that he is a closet transsexual who wears SamCam's lingerie to PMQ's, EdM is toast. The most useless political leader since Michael Foot. He has all of Cameron's faults and none of his strengths.
There's really only one major question now:
NOM? or Tory Outright?
Given that the Tories need to be 11.4% ahead in England before they stop losing seats to LAB it is hard to see a pathway to an overall majority.
Well aside from people changing their minds between now and polling day, you mistake FPTP for some kind of deterministic system.
UNS is just an estimate of how the system will perform. It's rarely exactly right, and often significantly wrong.
It would be quite possible for a small swing to Labour to occur, and yet for the Tories to gain a few seats.
The decline in the Lib Dem vote share probably means that the Conservatives need a smaller lead than 11% to win an overall majority.
That said, I still don't see them winning an overall majority, unless Ashcroft's polls in Lib Dem held seats are seriously wrong.
You'd think this would be the sort of thing Miliband would be getting his teeth into, with his previous record on the energy market and wanting to create a different kind of capitalism, but I suppose Labour has not yet shaken off its obeisance to big business either.
You'd think this would be the sort of thing Miliband would be getting his teeth into, with his previous record on the energy market and wanting to create a different kind of capitalism, but I suppose Labour has not yet shaken off its obeisance to big business either.
You mean allowing mergers to take place to reduce the number of suppliers.
You'd think this would be the sort of thing Miliband would be getting his teeth into, with his previous record on the energy market and wanting to create a different kind of capitalism, but I suppose Labour has not yet shaken off its obeisance to big business either.
I'm not sure ed wants to remind people that if his freeze policy was in place their bills would be higher.
RE: Scottish drink driving. Typically in Scotland the number of people killed by a drunk driver is about 6 a year. On top of this are the 2/3 of deaths where the drink driver is the victim.
Most of these deaths are also where the driver is blitzed, not slightly over the old limit. There may even be in some years none killed by a driver slightly over the new limit. But let us not use statistics when taking irrational decisions that put at risk the enjoyment/livelihood of hundreds of thousands of drivers....
Thanks for posting - any data to back up ?
I also suspect that this is a classic SNP wedge issue - using the powers they have just to make Scotland "different" - with no thought to the consequences.
Different from whom? Not Europe, by an dlarge, which ma suggest that England etc. is out of step.
Also - a bit less please of trying to find something wrong with Scotland so you can have another moan about the SNP. It's not a SNP thing. Unanimous vote at Holyrood.
As I understand it, in Europe lower penalties kick in at 50mg whereas the Scottish option applies the full force of the law at 50mg that is applied in England at 80mg.
We do seem to get hung up on Scotland and England having different laws, Scotland is a separate country with its own legal system, and now its own legislature, learn to live with it.
What is striking is that the PBTory view on this is parody-kipper: fight to the death to preserve a chap's right to have a couple of quick ones at the 19th hole, and mow down an immigrant or two in the Jag on the way home. When they rage at Farage they rage at their own reflection in the mirror.
Oh dear Ishmael - was your application for membership to the golf club turned down ? Perhaps next time don't turn up in a grey boilersuit marked with CCCP on the lapel..
RE: Scottish drink driving. Typically in Scotland the number of people killed by a drunk driver is about 6 a year. On top of this are the 2/3 of deaths where the drink driver is the victim.
Most of these deaths are also where the driver is blitzed, not slightly over the old limit. There may even be in some years none killed by a driver slightly over the new limit. But let us not use statistics when taking irrational decisions that put at risk the enjoyment/livelihood of hundreds of thousands of drivers....
Thanks for posting - any data to back up ?
I also suspect that this is a classic SNP wedge issue - using the powers they have just to make Scotland "different" - with no thought to the consequences.
Different from whom? Not Europe, by an dlarge, which ma suggest that England etc. is out of step.
Also - a bit less please of trying to find something wrong with Scotland so you can have another moan about the SNP. It's not a SNP thing. Unanimous vote at Holyrood.
Carnyx, If SNP said they were going to give everybody in England a million pounds He would be whinging about it , hardly worth trying to debate rationally , he hates Scotland , having emigrated, and just likes whining. He is only surpassed by the cretinous Watcher.
RE: Scottish drink driving. Typically in Scotland the number of people killed by a drunk driver is about 6 a year. On top of this are the 2/3 of deaths where the drink driver is the victim.
Most of these deaths are also where the driver is blitzed, not slightly over the old limit. There may even be in some years none killed by a driver slightly over the new limit. But let us not use statistics when taking irrational decisions that put at risk the enjoyment/livelihood of hundreds of thousands of drivers....
Thanks for posting - any data to back up ?
I also suspect that this is a classic SNP wedge issue - using the powers they have just to make Scotland "different" - with no thought to the consequences.
Different from whom? Not Europe, by an dlarge, which ma suggest that England etc. is out of step.
Also - a bit less please of trying to find something wrong with Scotland so you can have another moan about the SNP. It's not a SNP thing. Unanimous vote at Holyrood.
As I understand it, in Europe lower penalties kick in at 50mg whereas the Scottish option applies the full force of the law at 50mg that is applied in England at 80mg.
We do seem to get hung up on Scotland and England having different laws, Scotland is a separate country with its own legal system, and now its own legislature, learn to live with it.
What is striking is that the PBTory view on this is parody-kipper: fight to the death to preserve a chap's right to have a couple of quick ones at the 19th hole, and mow down an immigrant or two in the Jag on the way home. When they rage at Farage they rage at their own reflection in the mirror.
Oh dear Ishmael - was your application for membership to the golf club turned down ? Perhaps next time don't turn up in a grey boilersuit marked with CCCP on the lapel..
Yes, spot on.
Don't know where to turn now in my ceaseless quest for the company of hilariously aspirational lower middle class bank managers.
Looks like I was right when I said Jim Murphy's comments would hurt Labour in London/The South
Scottish Labour leader Jim Murphy may have shot his party in the foot in London by boasting that a “mansion tax” mainly hitting the South-East would fund 1,000 nurses in Scotland, a poll shows today.
The YouGov survey found nearly three in 10 Londoners said his remarks made them feel less favourable towards Labour.
Tim Montgomerie says focusing on Labour's potential coalition partners is this week's Conservative Party election strategy:
"Mr Cameron wants voters to think hard about the factions that Mr Miliband might need to rely upon to govern.
There'll be Mr Salmond -- forever demanding that the Scottish tail wags the English dog. There'll be Caroline Lucas demanding decriminalisation of membership of terrorist organisations. And there'll be union leaders such as Len McCluskey calling for more taxes to pay for higher public sector wages. If you thought the prospect of Ed Miliband governing on his own was bad enough, think of the people he might have to cuddle up to."
You'd think this would be the sort of thing Miliband would be getting his teeth into, with his previous record on the energy market and wanting to create a different kind of capitalism, but I suppose Labour has not yet shaken off its obeisance to big business either.
Miliband will be roasted still further in the election over the fact that thanks to his threat to freeze prices at their expense, the power companies haven't reduced them, in case the bum gets in and carries this out.
He has therefore damaged everyone's wallet without even having been elected. That really takes some doing.
Yep. I really honestly think this is heading one way. I know, I know, I'm a Tory but seriously is anyone on here going to be betting on a Labour win?
3 months to go, including a budget. Barring some national catastrophe or Cameron confessing that he is a closet transsexual who wears SamCam's lingerie to PMQ's, EdM is toast. The most useless political leader since Michael Foot. He has all of Cameron's faults and none of his strengths.
There's really only one major question now:
NOM? or Tory Outright?
There's a problem with your theory, Cameron is so poor he couldn't beat Brown and he'll struggle beat Miliband. You are talking in hope not expectation
Keighley @ 5/4 is seat #281 (in ascending odds order), roughly meaning Tories Most Seats Sherwood @ 11/4 is seat #326, meaning TOM
Now the specific seats don't really matter, but it's interesting that they should be this close in price, given the supposed inevitability of a Hung Parliament.
If you want to back TOM, back the 6.6 on betfair or the 5/1 widely available.
If you want to back Tories Most Seats, make yourself a portfolio of seats in the 11/10 - 11/8 range.
@Flockers_pb - A good summary of the Labour situation.
It's interesting that the Conservatives are polling pretty much exactly where they were in the summer of 2012, in the aftermath of the Omnishambles budget. Insofar as swingback has occurred it has been solely from Labour to other Opposition parties, which is both a damning judgement on Labour's failings as an Opposition and a judgement on the parties of Government.
Normally swingback would involve the Government polling recovering as the election approaches, but that hasn't happened... yet.
...and the question is whether that is going to apply in marginals. This is where a ground game becomes crucial. Because we'e been canvassing almost every week for 20 years, we know, largely, where the potential LibDem/Green leaners are, and I don't expect it to be impossible (or even difficult) to get the majority of them.
NHS questions guarantees a 0-0 draw, predictable aggressive bashing of the opponent is about all we get.
One of Eddie's biggest errors may be not removing Burnham when he wanted to do so, with the very capable Liz Kendall running the attacks, a little more subtle and clever approach would have been more effective.
Burnham is a nasty individual and his past doesn't help him. Even for a modern politician he is an obvious self-serving, ambitious careerist.
RE: Scottish drink driving. Typically in Scotland the number of people killed by a drunk driver is about 6 a year. On top of this are the 2/3 of deaths where the drink driver is the victim.
the enjoyment/livelihood of hundreds of thousands of drivers....
Thanks for posting - any data to back up ?
I also suspect that this is a classic SNP wedge issue - using the powers they have just to make Scotland "different" - with no thought to the consequences.
I replied on previous post Carynx - am not that fussed about the politics of this - more that the rUk doesn't follow down the same path - some data on deaths/accidents and levels of blood alcohol would be instructive - TCPB suggested that total drink driving deaths average 6 per year but had no details on whether this new policy would improve.
Kennry MacAskill (as reported by the Mail) said it was 20 deaths a year.
I am sorry to say I agree on this one , the new law will do nothing for road safety and just criminalise a few people who have an odd drink. Pathetic in my mind and will do nothing to deter drunk drivers. MacAskill was a plank.
Sherwood at 11-4 for the Tories is an interesting bet. 9 point gap on Ashcroft polling in July. Plenty of UKIP to go after, demographically trending to the Tories, active local MP. Think I'll grab a bit of that, more value than Broxtowe imo.
Looks like I was right when I said Jim Murphy's comments would hurt Labour in London/The South
Scottish Labour leader Jim Murphy may have shot his party in the foot in London by boasting that a “mansion tax” mainly hitting the South-East would fund 1,000 nurses in Scotland, a poll shows today.
The YouGov survey found nearly three in 10 Londoners said his remarks made them feel less favourable towards Labour.
Tim Montgomerie says focusing on Labour's potential coalition partners is this week's Conservative Party election strategy:
"Mr Cameron wants voters to think hard about the factions that Mr Miliband might need to rely upon to govern.
There'll be Mr Salmond -- forever demanding that the Scottish tail wags the English dog. There'll be Caroline Lucas demanding decriminalisation of membership of terrorist organisations. And there'll be union leaders such as Len McCluskey calling for more taxes to pay for higher public sector wages. If you thought the prospect of Ed Miliband governing on his own was bad enough, think of the people he might have to cuddle up to."
RE: Scottish drink driving. Typically in Scotland the number of people killed by a drunk driver is about 6 a year. On top of this are the 2/3 of deaths where the drink driver is the victim.
the enjoyment/livelihood of hundreds of thousands of drivers....
Thanks for posting - any data to back up ?
I also suspect that this is a classic SNP wedge issue - using the powers they have just to make Scotland "different" - with no thought to the consequences.
I replied on previous post Carynx - am not that fussed about the politics of this - more that the rUk doesn't follow down the same path - some data on deaths/accidents and levels of blood alcohol would be instructive - TCPB suggested that total drink driving deaths average 6 per year but had no details on whether this new policy would improve.
Kennry MacAskill (as reported by the Mail) said it was 20 deaths a year.
I am sorry to say I agree on this one , the new law will do nothing for road safety and just criminalise a few people who have an odd drink. Pathetic in my mind and will do nothing to deter drunk drivers. MacAskill was a plank.
Freeze on energy bills when they're going down, going big on the cost-of-living crisis when prices at the pumps and food prices are dropping. No doubt, he'll point to the EU as the way forward just before they implode.
All those black swans seem to have just one target for their droppings.
You'd think this would be the sort of thing Miliband would be getting his teeth into, with his previous record on the energy market and wanting to create a different kind of capitalism, but I suppose Labour has not yet shaken off its obeisance to big business either.
Miliband will be roasted still further in the election over the fact that thanks to his threat to freeze prices at their expense, the power companies haven't reduced them, in case the bum gets in and carries this out.
He has therefore damaged everyone's wallet without even having been elected. That really takes some doing.
Add in the cost of his Green taxes whilst at the DECC as Secretary of State, and he's a One Man Cost of Living Crisis.
'The cost of Ed: £78 a year
But it doesn’t end there – Ed previously proposed policies that would add another £125 to bills by 2020.'
You'd think this would be the sort of thing Miliband would be getting his teeth into, with his previous record on the energy market and wanting to create a different kind of capitalism, but I suppose Labour has not yet shaken off its obeisance to big business either.
Miliband will be roasted still further in the election over the fact that thanks to his threat to freeze prices at their expense, the power companies haven't reduced them, in case the bum gets in and carries this out.
He has therefore damaged everyone's wallet without even having been elected. That really takes some doing.
Er, I thought some companies HAD actually reduced prices. Doesn’t mean that to promise that you’ll freeze them isn’t a foolish and shortsighted policy, though.
Rubbish. The energy price freeze was always utterly nonsensical and deserves everything it gets.
If ed really wanted cheaper energy prices he should have promised to increase competition and break up the big six. He could have promised to make renewables compete in the real world.
That would have run entirely contrary to his dismal socialist ideology.
Ed doesn't want cheap energy prices any more than he wants better care for NHS patients. He just wants power.
Keighley @ 5/4 is seat #281 (in ascending odds order), roughly meaning Tories Most Seats Sherwood @ 11/4 is seat #326, meaning TOM
Now the specific seats don't really matter, but it's interesting that they should be this close in price, given the supposed inevitability of a Hung Parliament.
If you want to back TOM, back the 6.6 on betfair or the 5/1 widely available.
If you want to back Tories Most Seats, make yourself a portfolio of seats in the 11/10 - 11/8 range.
Crikey, didn't expect Sherwood to be in that.
Anyone want £15 @ 3-1 on the Conservatives there ?
From what I read in today's papers, the EU is preparing to humiliate Greece's government, and torpedo the absurd notion that austerity can be 'turned away from'
This should be fun.
Tsipras was an idiot, he made the same mistake as Cameron, he told them he wouldn't default. Now they are feeling relaxed since it was the only thing that worried them and are going to take the p155.
There's a problem with your theory, Cameron is so poor he couldn't beat Brown and he'll struggle beat Miliband. You are talking in hope not expectation
You forget that Labour were in power and coming out of a 66 seat majority with a honeymoon period PM, who admittedly turned out to be a buffoon.
This time Cameron's Conservatives are in power and hold the cards.
Andy Burnham currently being machine gunned in the HoC by his 'weaoponised' record as Health Secretary
Seemed to be on the back foot v. Kirsty on Newsnight last night.
There was a fantastic moment at the end where he said the percentages should be devolved to local decision making. The precise opposite of how he started out saying there's needs to be overall integration. What a prat.
As both parties stepped up their election campaigns, the Labour leader’s efforts to put the NHS at the heart of his party’s strategy appeared to backfire.
I hardly ever watch PMQs but I just took a look at it since people here were aghast at it. Yet more proof to me that the heir to Blair stuff was just a smokescreen. Cameron is really the Tory Brown, he's taken his cue from Gordon who never bothered answering the questions at PMQs and just changed the subject. Cameron now does the same. Nobody likes it so why don't we just get rid of PMQs?
audreyanne as this is a betting site your confidence will be rewarded handsomely. Cameron is weak and duplicitous, if he was any good Ed would be sunk by now.
Significant headline in Beeb. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-31015807: Care spending 'cut by fifth in 10 years. And if you look at the bar chart they could have said has fallen by almost a fifth under Coalition.
Looks like I was right when I said Jim Murphy's comments would hurt Labour in London/The South
Scottish Labour leader Jim Murphy may have shot his party in the foot in London by boasting that a “mansion tax” mainly hitting the South-East would fund 1,000 nurses in Scotland, a poll shows today.
The YouGov survey found nearly three in 10 Londoners said his remarks made them feel less favourable towards Labour.
Tim Montgomerie says focusing on Labour's potential coalition partners is this week's Conservative Party election strategy:
"Mr Cameron wants voters to think hard about the factions that Mr Miliband might need to rely upon to govern.
There'll be Mr Salmond -- forever demanding that the Scottish tail wags the English dog. There'll be Caroline Lucas demanding decriminalisation of membership of terrorist organisations. And there'll be union leaders such as Len McCluskey calling for more taxes to pay for higher public sector wages. If you thought the prospect of Ed Miliband governing on his own was bad enough, think of the people he might have to cuddle up to."
Looks like I was right when I said Jim Murphy's comments would hurt Labour in London/The South
Scottish Labour leader Jim Murphy may have shot his party in the foot in London by boasting that a “mansion tax” mainly hitting the South-East would fund 1,000 nurses in Scotland, a poll shows today.
The YouGov survey found nearly three in 10 Londoners said his remarks made them feel less favourable towards Labour.
Tim Montgomerie says focusing on Labour's potential coalition partners is this week's Conservative Party election strategy:
"Mr Cameron wants voters to think hard about the factions that Mr Miliband might need to rely upon to govern.
There'll be Mr Salmond -- forever demanding that the Scottish tail wags the English dog. There'll be Caroline Lucas demanding decriminalisation of membership of terrorist organisations. And there'll be union leaders such as Len McCluskey calling for more taxes to pay for higher public sector wages. If you thought the prospect of Ed Miliband governing on his own was bad enough, think of the people he might have to cuddle up to."
The 2015 election campaign is going to be as much about the potential power brokers, as it is about Con/Lab.
That might have the paradoxical effect of driving voters back to Labour thus giving them an absolute majority.
People who are thinking of voting SNP or Green are hardly natural Tory voters.
I think it's as likely to reinforce the view that coalition government will be the election result, and steer swing voters towards minor parties they are sympathetic to rather than Con/Lab.
Looks like I was right when I said Jim Murphy's comments would hurt Labour in London/The South
Scottish Labour leader Jim Murphy may have shot his party in the foot in London by boasting that a “mansion tax” mainly hitting the South-East would fund 1,000 nurses in Scotland, a poll shows today.
The YouGov survey found nearly three in 10 Londoners said his remarks made them feel less favourable towards Labour.
Tim Montgomerie says focusing on Labour's potential coalition partners is this week's Conservative Party election strategy:
"Mr Cameron wants voters to think hard about the factions that Mr Miliband might need to rely upon to govern.
There'll be Mr Salmond -- forever demanding that the Scottish tail wags the English dog. There'll be Caroline Lucas demanding decriminalisation of membership of terrorist organisations. And there'll be union leaders such as Len McCluskey calling for more taxes to pay for higher public sector wages. If you thought the prospect of Ed Miliband governing on his own was bad enough, think of the people he might have to cuddle up to."
The main thing I take from the reports of Prime Minister's Questions is that the Conservatives have recently become absolutely ruthless about message discipline. The message may be banal or outright mendacious, but they're sticking to their line relentlessly.
I agree entirely with that.
Cameron has been guilty of being too polite and not fully-abreast of his brief during his tenure. But of late he has been menacing and his backbenchers have ramped up the aggression. His advisors are arming Cameron with juicy quotes too, a sign of good planning. This isn't good for Labour; Ed could be crushed under it - he has a very weak front bench.
RE: Scottish drink driving. Typically in Scotland the number of people killed by a drunk driver is about 6 a year. On top of this are the 2/3 of deaths where the drink driver is the victim.
Most of these deaths are also where the driver is blitzed, not slightly over the old limit. There may even be in some years none killed by a driver slightly over the new limit. But let us not use statistics when taking irrational decisions that put at risk the enjoyment/livelihood of hundreds of thousands of drivers....
Thanks for posting - any data to back up ?
I also suspect that this is a classic SNP wedge issue - using the powers they have just to make Scotland "different" - with no thought to the consequences.
Different from whom? Not Europe, by an dlarge, which ma suggest that England etc. is out of step.
Also - a bit less please of trying to find something wrong with Scotland so you can have another moan about the SNP. It's not a SNP thing. Unanimous vote at Holyrood.
As I understand it, in Europe lower penalties kick in at 50mg whereas the Scottish option applies the full force of the law at 50mg that is applied in England at 80mg.
We do seem to get hung up on Scotland and England having different laws, Scotland is a separate country with its own legal system, and now its own legislature, learn to live with it.
What is striking is that the PBTory view on this is parody-kipper: fight to the death to preserve a chap's right to have a couple of quick ones at the 19th hole, and mow down an immigrant or two in the Jag on the way home. When they rage at Farage they rage at their own reflection in the mirror.
Oh dear Ishmael - was your application for membership to the golf club turned down ? Perhaps next time don't turn up in a grey boilersuit marked with CCCP on the lapel..
Yes, spot on.
Don't know where to turn now in my ceaseless quest for the company of hilariously aspirational lower middle class bank managers.
Comments
Will be interesting to see how it pans out.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2015/jan/28/cameron-and-miliband-at-pmqs-politics-live-blog
Entry at 1227.
Every time the labour price grows BJO puts more on them, according to him. If the most seats price really blows out, I might be tempted myself, for hedging purposes.
Where did it all go wrong? Perhaps history will take a kinder view and say that, like the Tories in 1997-2001, this Labour opposition was doomed from the start; exhausted by 13 years in Government, stripped of many of their most capable politicians during the latter years in power, in need of two terms to rebuild and refocus. But complacency has also played a part. As the Tories got stuck in the economic mire in 2012 and Labour basked in the love of fleeing Liberal Democrats, it all looked too easy. The rise of Ukip, apparently at the Tories expense, put the point beyond doubt. The initial, quite promising, forays into political philosophy ground to a halt; there was no need to explore new forms of capitalism, just stay quiet and wait it out. Throw a few populist bones at the electorate. Double dip, squeezed middle, cost of living crisis. Repeat to fade.
But the indicators were already starting to appear; economic competence ratings, leader ratings, best PM questions, a steadily deflating lead. An economy returning to growth. Employment figures strengthening. Labour denied the reality. I've watched astounded as posters on here have painted new red lines every few months. 40%, lead of 8, 6-8, 3-4, still a lead, no cross-over. Basil kept moving the goalposts but his arms got tired.
And now, less than 100 days from the election Labour aren't sure if they are pragmatists or radicals, cutting spending or investing in growth, welcoming the private sector into health care provision or turning their back on their past. Whether or not the Conservatives deserve another term can still legitimately be debated. But it is becoming increasingly difficult to deny that Labour deserve to lose.
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 2m2 minutes ago
Cameron in supremely confident mood. Now even getting gag out of his chat with Greek PM: "I asked him what his long term economic plan was"
@BBCNormanS: Jeremy Hunt says "major incident" row being spun as part of Labour campaign to weaponise NHS
It doesn't work too badly, to be absolutely honest.
in the past labour could rely on whatever their poll score was to turn out. Now, they just can't, if the evidence of the last 18 months is anything to go by.
Its partly ed, who is Acme voter repellent. Its partly the total lack of a coherent plan for government. A sixth form debating team could do better.
https://twitter.com/CCHQPress/status/560416891416870912
I guess that the odds weren't better than the bookies, that's an excuse for bottling it.
Scottish Labour leader Jim Murphy may have shot his party in the foot in London by boasting that a “mansion tax” mainly hitting the South-East would fund 1,000 nurses in Scotland, a poll shows today.
The YouGov survey found nearly three in 10 Londoners said his remarks made them feel less favourable towards Labour.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/jim-murphys-mansion-tax-boast-will-hurt-labour-in-london-poll-finds-10007945.html
I'm also sceptical that either side will be able to form a working majority within a coalition with one of the smaller parties. I think a grand coalition is much more likely than people appreciate.
The line is "Ed Miliband's Labour Party"
Ed PM and Conservatives most seats is an arb and a middle, which is my position on the overall.
UNS is just an estimate of how the system will perform. It's rarely exactly right, and often significantly wrong.
It would be quite possible for a small swing to Labour to occur, and yet for the Tories to gain a few seats.
This should be fun.
That weaponise quote is a big problem. Ed can own up to it and see it plastered everywhere during the campaign, he can try and duck it and face questions about it until polling day, or he can deny it and pick a fight with the BBC.
We do seem to get hung up on Scotland and England having different laws, Scotland is a separate country with its own legal system, and now its own legislature, learn to live with it.
It's interesting that the Conservatives are polling pretty much exactly where they were in the summer of 2012, in the aftermath of the Omnishambles budget. Insofar as swingback has occurred it has been solely from Labour to other Opposition parties, which is both a damning judgement on Labour's failings as an Opposition and a judgement on the parties of Government.
Normally swingback would involve the Government polling recovering as the election approaches, but that hasn't happened... yet.
I'm not convinced half the Shadow Cabinet even want to win.
Unfortunately for Labour, this means people now pay more attention to their leader than they used to do. This is bad news when the leader is who it has been (Broon, Moribund) or indeed anyone else it might be. Labour weren't as handicapped by this in the past because it was generally understood by the voters that Michael Foot, Neil Kinnock, and John Smith were not the standout personalities or the most prominent intellectuals of their party. They were just journeyman nondescript bozos who had schemed their way into the job via backroom deals and cosying up to the unions, but were of no special merit. They were primus inter irrumatores, as it were, and what you'd expect of an anti-meritocratic party led by white ex-public and grammar school boys.
Redward is simply another such, but is unfairly burdened with residual expectation. When we get past this, and voters once again realise that Labour's leader is just another generic abject wanker manoeuvred into post on a Buggins' turn basis, their expectations will decline correspondingly and the leader of the day will become the nullity that he traditionally was pre-Blair, with little difference between his own and his party's ratings.
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/559681942908841984
Labour need something fresh to say or at the very least a fresh way of saying it.
True, but admitting you think the government has done a reasonable job and you might give them another chance is a bit like admitting you watch internet porn (if you're a floating voter). It's just not something you do.
Ed Miliband Will Never Be Prime Minister
Some are saying it you know.
That said, I still don't see them winning an overall majority, unless Ashcroft's polls in Lib Dem held seats are seriously wrong.
You'd think this would be the sort of thing Miliband would be getting his teeth into, with his previous record on the energy market and wanting to create a different kind of capitalism, but I suppose Labour has not yet shaken off its obeisance to big business either.
Don't know where to turn now in my ceaseless quest for the company of hilariously aspirational lower middle class bank managers.
"Mr Cameron wants voters to think hard about the factions that Mr Miliband might need to rely upon to govern.
There'll be Mr Salmond -- forever demanding that the Scottish tail wags the English dog. There'll be Caroline Lucas demanding decriminalisation of membership of terrorist organisations. And there'll be union leaders such as Len McCluskey calling for more taxes to pay for higher public sector wages. If you thought the prospect of Ed Miliband governing on his own was bad enough, think of the people he might have to cuddle up to."
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4334411.ece
The 2015 election campaign is going to be as much about the potential power brokers, as it is about Con/Lab.
Lab out to 1.4 from 1.33
Con in to 3 from 3.5
He has therefore damaged everyone's wallet without even having been elected. That really takes some doing.
Keighley @ 5/4 is seat #281 (in ascending odds order), roughly meaning Tories Most Seats
Sherwood @ 11/4 is seat #326, meaning TOM
Now the specific seats don't really matter, but it's interesting that they should be this close in price, given the supposed inevitability of a Hung Parliament.
If you want to back TOM, back the 6.6 on betfair or the 5/1 widely available.
If you want to back Tories Most Seats, make yourself a portfolio of seats in the 11/10 - 11/8 range.
One of Eddie's biggest errors may be not removing Burnham when he wanted to do so, with the very capable Liz Kendall running the attacks, a little more subtle and clever approach would have been more effective.
Burnham is a nasty individual and his past doesn't help him. Even for a modern politician he is an obvious self-serving, ambitious careerist.
People who are thinking of voting SNP or Green are hardly natural Tory voters.
Freeze on energy bills when they're going down, going big on the cost-of-living crisis when prices at the pumps and food prices are dropping. No doubt, he'll point to the EU as the way forward just before they implode.
All those black swans seem to have just one target for their droppings.
'The cost of Ed: £78 a year
But it doesn’t end there – Ed previously proposed policies that would add another £125 to bills by 2020.'
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/10/the-seven-green-taxes-that-put-112-on-your-energy-bill-and-which-of-them-ed-miliband-brought-in/
Swinging back to LD’s.
Rubbish. The energy price freeze was always utterly nonsensical and deserves everything it gets.
If ed really wanted cheaper energy prices he should have promised to increase competition and break up the big six. He could have promised to make renewables compete in the real world.
That would have run entirely contrary to his dismal socialist ideology.
Ed doesn't want cheap energy prices any more than he wants better care for NHS patients. He just wants power.
Anyone want £15 @ 3-1 on the Conservatives there ?
This time Cameron's Conservatives are in power and hold the cards. There was a fantastic moment at the end where he said the percentages should be devolved to local decision making. The precise opposite of how he started out saying there's needs to be overall integration. What a prat.
It seems to me that the conservatives haven't even really started campaigning yet. They are still governing.
Ed is one nil down while the other team is still in the changing room.
And if you look at the bar chart they could have said has fallen by almost a fifth under Coalition.
Something like really worries us oldies.
If we were to look at a plausible outcome in May, I'd suggest something like Con 34%, Lab 31%, UKIP 13%, Lib Dem 10%.
Electoral calculus gives Con 300, Lab 300, Lib Dem 21, Nationalist 10, Others 19.
Say, 15 Labour losses to the SNP (a conservative estimate); 4 Lib Dem retentions from Labour; 1 Labour loss to UKIP.
Say, 8 Lib Dem retentions from the Conservatives, and 4 Conservative losses to UKIP.
That gives Con 288, Lab 280, Lib Dem 33, Nationalist 25, Others 19, UKIP 5. (but Labour losses to the SNP could be greater).
Were there a first time incumbency effect, that could take the Conservatives back up to 300 or so, and Labour down to 270 or so.
Cameron has been guilty of being too polite and not fully-abreast of his brief during his tenure. But of late he has been menacing and his backbenchers have ramped up the aggression. His advisors are arming Cameron with juicy quotes too, a sign of good planning. This isn't good for Labour; Ed could be crushed under it - he has a very weak front bench.
From the Solicitors' Journal, a classic example of how not to report a poll (indeed, it's not a poll at all).