Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Remember 2005 when LAB and CON were level pegging on votes

SystemSystem Posts: 12,214
edited January 2015 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Remember 2005 when LAB and CON were level pegging on votes in England but LAB won 92 more seats

The blue team has understandably found great cheer and encouragement in the latest polling from a range of firms. The race is undoubtedly getting closer in terms of votes but it’s seats that matter.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    First!
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    LOL nice one Mike,

    I can look forward to a morning of caterwauling from the usual quarters.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,701
    Tony Blair was Prime Minister in 2005, with an established knack of pitching himself to key swing voters in middle-england marginals.

    With all due respect, and psephological changes notwithstanding, Ed Miliband doesn't have quite the same appeal.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514

    Tony Blair was Prime Minister in 2005, with an established knack of pitching himself to key swing voters in middle-england marginals.

    With all due respect, and psephological changes notwithstanding, Ed Miliband doesn't have quite the same appeal.

    Nor does Cameron
  • audreyanneaudreyanne Posts: 1,376
    edited January 2015
    Whilst you have a partial point Mike this is another thread that ignores the impending LibDem catastrophe in England and Wales. In 2005 the LibDems polled 22% and reached their high water mark of 62 seats. There is also this time a Green surge. In 2005 they polled 1%. For these reasons you cannot compare 2005 to 2015 I'm afraid.

    So, how many seats do you actually think the LibDems are going to win Mike?
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514

    Whilst you have a partial point Mike this is another thread that ignores the impending LibDem catastrophe in England and Wales. In 2005 the LibDems polled 22% and reached their high water mark of 62 seats. There is also this time a Green surge. In 2005 they polled 1%. For these reasons you cannot compare 2005 to 2015 I'm afraid.

    So, how many seats do you actually think the LibDems are going to win Mike?

    Bootle - Conservative gain nailed on.
  • Tony Blair was Prime Minister in 2005, with an established knack of pitching himself to key swing voters in middle-england marginals.

    With all due respect, and psephological changes notwithstanding, Ed Miliband doesn't have quite the same appeal.

    Blair had the knack of introducing postal voting......

  • I think needs a blog tag called Wishful Thinking to file this under.

    For a start one reason 2005 was so distorted was because they piled up votes in safe seats. Many of those votes have now gone to UKIP yet tories still level with Labour shows tory vote spread is different this time.

    Add in Milibands utter charisma, incumbent government better the devil you know factor, libdem collapse and green rise and anything could happen.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,173
    Surely the loss of 25+ seats in Scotland make it unlikely that Labour might even be the largest party overall. Why on earth 2005 should be the marker for 2015 rather than, say 1992? And despite all the hopes of the sandal wearers - the LDs will drop probably below 40 with a number of seats going blue. You're also ignoring the possible impact of Labour shedding votes to the Greens in England - something which could also mar the LDs in some key battlegrounds with the Tories.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    edited January 2015
    Meanwhile ....

    A senior Ukip Environment & Weather spokesman this morning claimed that the overnight earthquake in the East Midlands was the result of a weather dance by a local gay MP. In an exclusive interview from South Thanet Nigel Bonkers-cum-Nuttjob said :

    "This huge tremor in Rutland was caused by local gay MP Alan Duncan. My understanding is that this homosexualist was seen dancing under a glitter ball in the Gay Hussar night club in Oakham singing "It's raining men Hallelujah".

    Clearly the extensive gyrating by this influential gay man has caused the tectonic plates to shift in Rutland. He should be deported to San Francisco where his brand of politics and earth moving activities would be more suited."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31032930
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Tony Blair was Prime Minister in 2005, with an established knack of pitching himself to key swing voters in middle-england marginals.

    With all due respect, and psephological changes notwithstanding, Ed Miliband doesn't have quite the same appeal.

    As I recall, by 2005 Blair was beginning to become a liability. Remember when the Tories floated a "vote Blair, get Brown" meme, but found that people actually preferred Brown?. The LDs did well out of the anti-war vote, being the party opposed to the Iraq misadventure. A lot of those red to yellow switchers were red antiwar voters rather than tactical switchers.

    I also think the rise of UKIP has softened the desire to stop the Tories, giving the haters another target to go for, and also making the Tories appear more centrist.
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    edited January 2015
    ‘Remember 2005’

    Can we compare? - doesn’t this rather ignore the vastly increased polling share of SNP/UKIP and the near collapse of the LibDem vote?
  • audreyanneaudreyanne Posts: 1,376

    ‘Remember 2005’

    Can we compare? - doesn’t this rather ignore the vastly increased polling share of SNP/UKIP and the near collapse of the LibDem vote?

    Yes! But there's no telling Mike. I think he rather likes baiting pb Tories ;)

    (And the Greens who polled 1% in 2005.)
  • GreengageGreengage Posts: 21
    edited January 2015
    JackW said:

    Meanwhile ....

    A senior Ukip Environment & Weather spokesman this morning claimed that the overnight earthquake in the East Midlands was the result of a weather dance by a local gay MP. In an exclusive interview from South Thanet Nigel Bonkers-cum-Nuttjob said :

    "This huge tremor in Rutland was caused by local gay MP Alan Duncan. My understanding is that this homosexualist was seen dancing under a glitter ball in the Gay Hussar night club in Oakham singing "It's raining men Hallelujah".

    Clearly the extensive gyrating by this influential gay man has caused the tectonic plates to shift in Rutland. He should be deported to San Francisco where his brand of politics and earth moving activities would be more suited."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31032930

    Fracking industry has a campaign out to make earthquakes into fun. BBC on board. Are we so very dumb?

    http://tapnewswire.com/2015/01/earthquakes-caused-by-fracking-can-be-fun-says-scientist-in-support-of-industry/

  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    FPT

    Anyone able to explain this to me
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11375667/Men-must-prove-a-woman-said-Yes-under-tough-new-rape-rules.html

    Man and woman meet, both stone cold sober
    They end up in bed
    He asks if she wants sex
    She says yes
    They make love
    The next morning she wakes up and decided it was a bad idea
    She goes to the police and presses charges
    How does he prove consent ?
    Are about to require contracts before bedtime ?
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    I expect there is continuing bias in the system to Labour. Lord Ashcroft's constituency polling suggests that it is far less than 92 seats.

    Meanwhile, post-election discussions will be different for the Conservatives next time, it seems:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31031672
  • Blue_rogBlue_rog Posts: 2,019
    Interesting piece on the Beeb this morning, an opinion poll about the NHS. What was interesting was that satisfaction in the NHS has risen 11% amongst those who identify as Labour supporters.

    Shurly shome mishtake
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Greengage said:

    JackW said:

    Meanwhile ....

    A senior Ukip Environment & Weather spokesman this morning claimed that the overnight earthquake in the East Midlands was the result of a weather dance by a local gay MP. In an exclusive interview from South Thanet Nigel Bonkers-cum-Nuttjob said :

    "This huge tremor in Rutland was caused by local gay MP Alan Duncan. My understanding is that this homosexualist was seen dancing under a glitter ball in the Gay Hussar night club in Oakham singing "It's raining men Hallelujah".

    Clearly the extensive gyrating by this influential gay man has caused the tectonic plates to shift in Rutland. He should be deported to San Francisco where his brand of politics and earth moving activities would be more suited."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31032930

    Fracking industry has a campaign out to make earthquakes into fun. BBC on board. Are we so very dumb?

    http://tapnewswire.com/2015/01/earthquakes-caused-by-fracking-can-be-fun-says-scientist-in-support-of-industry/

    Yes.

  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    Indigo said:

    FPT

    Anyone able to explain this to me
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11375667/Men-must-prove-a-woman-said-Yes-under-tough-new-rape-rules.html

    Man and woman meet, both stone cold sober
    They end up in bed
    He asks if she wants sex
    She says yes
    They make love
    The next morning she wakes up and decided it was a bad idea
    She goes to the police and presses charges
    How does he prove consent ?
    Are about to require contracts before bedtime ?

    I don't think many women are at all likely to go to the Police because they regret a one-night stand. Lots of them don't go to the police now when they have been raped, so why would they go to the Police in your scenario? What's the motive?

    At the moment, a woman can meet a man, she can end up in a private place with him, and if the man decides he wants sex regardless of her wishes she has no way of proving her lack of consent to a court. Consequently sexual violence is a crime that is being committed almost without risk of prosecution, and is endemic.

    I do not have a problem with assuming that a woman is telling the truth about her lack of consent when she is under oath in a court of law, unless evidence is presented to the contrary.
  • Indigo said:

    FPT

    Anyone able to explain this to me
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11375667/Men-must-prove-a-woman-said-Yes-under-tough-new-rape-rules.html

    Man and woman meet, both stone cold sober
    They end up in bed
    He asks if she wants sex
    She says yes
    They make love
    The next morning she wakes up and decided it was a bad idea
    She goes to the police and presses charges
    How does he prove consent ?
    Are about to require contracts before bedtime ?

    I don't think many women are at all likely to go to the Police because they regret a one-night stand. Lots of them don't go to the police now when they have been raped, so why would they go to the Police in your scenario? What's the motive?

    At the moment, a woman can meet a man, she can end up in a private place with him, and if the man decides he wants sex regardless of her wishes she has no way of proving her lack of consent to a court. Consequently sexual violence is a crime that is being committed almost without risk of prosecution, and is endemic.

    I do not have a problem with assuming that a woman is telling the truth about her lack of consent when she is under oath in a court of law, unless evidence is presented to the contrary.
    In that case I think you are being naive.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,036

    Indigo said:

    FPT

    Anyone able to explain this to me
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11375667/Men-must-prove-a-woman-said-Yes-under-tough-new-rape-rules.html

    Man and woman meet, both stone cold sober
    They end up in bed
    He asks if she wants sex
    She says yes
    They make love
    The next morning she wakes up and decided it was a bad idea
    She goes to the police and presses charges
    How does he prove consent ?
    Are about to require contracts before bedtime ?

    I don't think many women are at all likely to go to the Police because they regret a one-night stand. Lots of them don't go to the police now when they have been raped, so why would they go to the Police in your scenario? What's the motive?

    At the moment, a woman can meet a man, she can end up in a private place with him, and if the man decides he wants sex regardless of her wishes she has no way of proving her lack of consent to a court. Consequently sexual violence is a crime that is being committed almost without risk of prosecution, and is endemic.

    I do not have a problem with assuming that a woman is telling the truth about her lack of consent when she is under oath in a court of law, unless evidence is presented to the contrary.
    As long as the man is assumed to be telling the truth about her consent, unless proven by evidence otherwise, then that's fine.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited January 2015

    I do not have a problem with assuming that a woman is telling the truth about her lack of consent when she is under oath in a court of law, unless evidence is presented to the contrary.

    Exactly, and what evidence could that possibly be ? Consider the recent case concerning the footballer that is off limits for this forum apparently, but a otherwise identical case where she wasn't drunk gave consent, later had second thoughts and then went to the police to enquire about her handbag and they suggest it could be construed as rape.

  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    edited January 2015

    ‘Remember 2005’

    Can we compare? - doesn’t this rather ignore the vastly increased polling share of SNP/UKIP and the near collapse of the LibDem vote?

    Yes! But there's no telling Mike. I think he rather likes baiting pb Tories ;)

    (And the Greens who polled 1% in 2005.)
    You continue to be in denial about the Ashcroft polling the last two waves of which in LD seats have found a swing to CON of less than 2%.



  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Indigo said:

    I do not have a problem with assuming that a woman is telling the truth about her lack of consent when she is under oath in a court of law, unless evidence is presented to the contrary.

    Exactly, and what evidence could that possibly be ? Consider the recent case concerning the footballer that is off limits for this forum apparently, but a otherwise identical case where she wasn't drunk gave consent, later had second thoughts and then went to the police to enquire about her handbag and they suggest it could be construed as rape.

    Nothing in this latest news report suggests a change in the law, merely in how cases are investigated.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited January 2015
    antifrank said:

    Indigo said:

    I do not have a problem with assuming that a woman is telling the truth about her lack of consent when she is under oath in a court of law, unless evidence is presented to the contrary.

    Exactly, and what evidence could that possibly be ? Consider the recent case concerning the footballer that is off limits for this forum apparently, but a otherwise identical case where she wasn't drunk gave consent, later had second thoughts and then went to the police to enquire about her handbag and they suggest it could be construed as rape.

    Nothing in this latest news report suggests a change in the law, merely in how cases are investigated.
    Even so, since the accused doesn't get any anonymity, their career/family etc. will be destroyed more readily than before. FBI reports from 1996 consistently put the number of "unfounded" rape accusations around 8%, that's quite a few. In any case its a presumption of guilt as far as the investigation is concerned, something you would expect liberals to be concerned about.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382

    Whilst you have a partial point Mike this is another thread that ignores the impending LibDem catastrophe in England and Wales. In 2005 the LibDems polled 22% and reached their high water mark of 62 seats. There is also this time a Green surge. In 2005 they polled 1%. For these reasons you cannot compare 2005 to 2015 I'm afraid.

    So, how many seats do you actually think the LibDems are going to win Mike?



    Can you tell us which of Lord Ashcroft's seat polls you think is wrong?

  • audreyanneaudreyanne Posts: 1,376
    edited January 2015

    Whilst you have a partial point Mike this is another thread that ignores the impending LibDem catastrophe in England and Wales. In 2005 the LibDems polled 22% and reached their high water mark of 62 seats. There is also this time a Green surge. In 2005 they polled 1%. For these reasons you cannot compare 2005 to 2015 I'm afraid.

    So, how many seats do you actually think the LibDems are going to win Mike?



    Can you tell us which of Lord Ashcroft's seat polls you think is wrong?

    Can you tell us how many seats you think the LibDems will win?

    I've been a champion of the idea that the LibDems are excellent at marshalling votes where they're needed (and have a bet with Isam they'll win 4x UKIP seats), but that only goes so far Mike. It remains to be seen how useful are Lord Ashcroft's now rather stale polls from last year, before we saw GE campaigning kick in, Conservative attention focus, and especially the Green surge which is a factor you ignore at your peril: they're polling around 800% of their 2005 position. The LibDems are slumping down in the gutter at the moment: at around 25% of their 2005 position. You're ignoring the facts, Mike.

    As for me, I posted yesterday and the day before an extremely detailed list of the 20 out of 25 seats I think the Conservatives will take from the yellows, plus another 8 seats I rate as possible outsiders.

    So I repeat: can you tell us how many seats you think the LibDems will win? I'm sure I'm not alone in being fascinated to hear your response. It's easy to snipe, harder to stick your neck above the parapet. Come on, how many?
  • kierankieran Posts: 77
    Antifrank is essentially right on this. Just wanted to demonstrate this through the numbers.

    If Labour and the Conservatives got equal votes in England and there was a uniform swing then Labour would win about 25 - 30 seats more than the Conservatives in England. The Ashcroft polls have shown the swing in the Lab / Con marginals is, on average, in line with the national swing, indicating this is a rough mean point.

    This also assumes Labour and Conservatives win a similar number of seats from the Lib Dems. This is supported by Ashcroft polling which shows a huge swing in Lab / LD marginals and a much smaller one in Con / LD marginals but leading to a similar seat loss.

    This is down a long way from 2005 - because 2005 was a perfect storm for the Conservatives due to:

    - Iraq / tuition fees hurt Labour disproportionately in safe seats, boosting LD national vote share but only losing a handful of seats.
    - Blair was clearly an asset in marginal seats.
    - Incumbency was entrenched and few people stood down (as happened in many marginals in 2010).
    - There had been no boundary changes for a decade, maximising 'electoral drag', whereby on average the electorate in Con seats grows faster than in Lab seats.
    - Pure luck. Labour won lots of super marginals by very, very slim margins.

    This meant in 2010 the Tories significantly outperformed UNS in England. They achieved very big swings in some seats moving them from marginals to virtually safe seats. Take Kent as an example. In 2005 Labour won a number of these seats by wafer thin margins, the Conservatives now hold these by 10k plus margins in many cases.

    There are a lot of things which could affect whether Labour or the Conservatives under or over perform the UNS this year:

    - How much of an incumbency boost will the Conservatives get?
    - How much will 'electoral drag' affect the Conservatives?
    - How much will Labour benefit from the 'marginal effect' whereby (see 2010 and 1997) when there is a swing to the opposition in the marginal seats?
    - How will minor parties like the Lib Dems / Greens and UKIP affect the distribution of seats?
    - Will the Conservatives win lots of seats from the Lib Dems?

    There is a lot of uncertainty and it is likely one party will outperform UNS but it is difficult to say which one that will be.

    Based on UNS Labour could win a plurality of English seats while being 2% behind the Conservatives in England. Of course, even with a disastrous election in Scotland they are unlikely to not have some seat lead in Scotland - plus they are likely to win at least 15 seats more than the Conservatives in Wales. This all means Labour could win a plurality of seats overall while being 3-4% behind in England (i.e about a 4% swing).

    The polls at the moment seem to be suggesting about a 3% swing overall across GB, but that probably would be 4% or more in England given Labour's under performance in Scotland (and to a lesser extent Wales).
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,538
    Indigo said:

    FPT

    Anyone able to explain this to me
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11375667/Men-must-prove-a-woman-said-Yes-under-tough-new-rape-rules.html

    Man and woman meet, both stone cold sober
    They end up in bed
    He asks if she wants sex
    She says yes
    They make love
    The next morning she wakes up and decided it was a bad idea
    She goes to the police and presses charges
    How does he prove consent ?
    Are about to require contracts before bedtime ?

    The burden of proof remains with the Prosecution, not the Defence. That's the law, and that remains unchanged.

    Admittedly, the news report seems to imply that prosecutors should assume that the burden of proof rests with the Defence.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Biggest difference between 2005 and now is the calibre of the red leader. 2005 won 3 elections , 2015 one will never be prime minister.
  • kieran said:

    Antifrank is essentially right on this. Just wanted to demonstrate this through the numbers.

    If Labour and the Conservatives got equal votes in England and there was a uniform swing then Labour would win about 25 - 30 seats more than the Conservatives in England. The Ashcroft polls have shown the swing in the Lab / Con marginals is, on average, in line with the national swing, indicating this is a rough mean point.

    This is down a long way from 2005 - because 2005 was a perfect storm for the Conservatives due to:

    - Iraq / tuition fees hurt Labour disproportionately in safe seats, boosting LD national vote share but only losing a handful of seats.
    - Blair was clearly an asset in marginal seats.
    - Incumbency was entrenched and few people stood down (as happened in many marginals in 2010).
    - There had been no boundary changes for a decade, maximising 'electoral drag', whereby on average the electorate in Con seats grows faster than in Lab seats.
    - Pure luck. Labour won lots of super marginals by very, very slim margins.

    This meant in 2010 the Tories significantly outperformed UNS in England. They achieved very big swings in some seats moving them from marginals to virtually safe seats. Take Kent as an example. In 2005 Labour won a number of these seats by wafer thin margins, the Conservatives now hold these by 10k plus margins in many cases.

    There are a lot of things which could affect whether Labour or the Conservatives under or over perform the UNS this year:

    - How much of an incumbency boost will the Conservatives get?
    - How much will 'electoral drag' affect the Conservatives?
    - How much will Labour benefit from the 'marginal effect' whereby (see 2010 and 1997) when there is a swing to the opposition in the marginal seats?
    - How will minor parties like the Lib Dems / Greens and UKIP affect the distribution of seats?
    - Will the Conservatives win lots of seats from the Lib Dems?

    There is a lot of uncertainty and it is likely one party will outperform UNS but it is difficult to say which one that will be.

    Based on UNS Labour could win a plurality of English seats while being 2% behind the Conservatives in England. Of course, even with a disastrous election in Scotland they are unlikely to not have some seat lead in Scotland - plus they are likely to win at least 15 seats more than the Conservatives in Wales. This all means Labour could win a plurality of seats overall while being 3-4% behind in England (i.e about a 4% swing).

    The polls at the moment seem to be suggesting about a 3% swing overall across GB, but that probably would be 4% or more in England given Labour's under performance in Scotland (and to a lesser extent Wales).

    Thank you, Kieran, for a reasoned post supported by facts.

    Other posters please look and learn.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,711
    edited January 2015

    Whilst you have a partial point Mike this is another thread that ignores the impending LibDem catastrophe in England and Wales. In 2005 the LibDems polled 22% and reached their high water mark of 62 seats. There is also this time a Green surge. In 2005 they polled 1%. For these reasons you cannot compare 2005 to 2015 I'm afraid.

    So, how many seats do you actually think the LibDems are going to win Mike?



    Can you tell us which of Lord Ashcroft's seat polls you think is wrong?

    Can you tell us how many seats you think the LibDems will win?

    I've been a champion of the idea that the LibDems are excellent at marshalling votes where they're needed (and have a bet with Isam they'll win 4x UKIP seats), but that only goes so far Mike. It remains to be seen how useful are Lord Ashcroft's now rather stale polls from last year, before we saw GE campaigning kick in, Conservative attention focus, and especially the Green surge which is a factor you ignore at your peril: they're polling around 800% of their 2005 position. The LibDems are slumping down in the gutter at the moment: at around 25% of their 2005 position. You're ignoring the facts, Mike.

    As for me, I posted yesterday and the day before an extremely detailed list of the 20 out of 25 seats I think the Conservatives will take from the yellows, plus another 8 seats I rate as possible outsiders.

    So I repeat: can you tell us how many seats you think the LibDems will win? I'm sure I'm not alone in being fascinated to hear your response. It's easy to snipe, harder to stick your neck above the parapet. Come on, how many?
    4 x UKIP is only likely to be 8 or possibly 12!
  • audreyanneaudreyanne Posts: 1,376

    Whilst you have a partial point Mike this is another thread that ignores the impending LibDem catastrophe in England and Wales. In 2005 the LibDems polled 22% and reached their high water mark of 62 seats. There is also this time a Green surge. In 2005 they polled 1%. For these reasons you cannot compare 2005 to 2015 I'm afraid.

    So, how many seats do you actually think the LibDems are going to win Mike?



    Can you tell us which of Lord Ashcroft's seat polls you think is wrong?

    Can you tell us how many seats you think the LibDems will win?

    I've been a champion of the idea that the LibDems are excellent at marshalling votes where they're needed (and have a bet with Isam they'll win 4x UKIP seats), but that only goes so far Mike. It remains to be seen how useful are Lord Ashcroft's now rather stale polls from last year, before we saw GE campaigning kick in, Conservative attention focus, and especially the Green surge which is a factor you ignore at your peril: they're polling around 800% of their 2005 position. The LibDems are slumping down in the gutter at the moment: at around 25% of their 2005 position. You're ignoring the facts, Mike.

    As for me, I posted yesterday and the day before an extremely detailed list of the 20 out of 25 seats I think the Conservatives will take from the yellows, plus another 8 seats I rate as possible outsiders.

    So I repeat: can you tell us how many seats you think the LibDems will win? I'm sure I'm not alone in being fascinated to hear your response. It's easy to snipe, harder to stick your neck above the parapet. Come on, how many?
    4xUKIP is only likely to be 8 or possibly 12!
    Shhhh, don't tell Isam ;)

  • TGOHF said:

    Biggest difference between 2005 and now is the calibre of the red leader. 2005 won 3 elections , 2015 one will never be prime minister.

    That's an article of faith amongst Tory supporters on here, TG, and it may well be justified.

    As a punter, I prefer form to faith. It's a preference borne of decades betting on horses. The racecourses of the world are strewn with the picked bones of punters those who believed that '...on the day, it will all be different'.

    Is it different with politics?
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Blue_rog said:

    Interesting piece on the Beeb this morning, an opinion poll about the NHS. What was interesting was that satisfaction in the NHS has risen 11% amongst those who identify as Labour supporters.

    Shurly shome mishtake

    It is at an all time high, and satisfaction is fairly equally spread between parties:

    http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/bsa-survey-2014/who-satisfied-with-nhs

    Though satisfaction levels are noticeably lower in Wales.
  • audreyanneaudreyanne Posts: 1,376
    So how do you see the form of the LibDems, Peter? How many seats have you chalked them for given their current polling at c. 6% against 23% last time out?
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    Greens equal first among 18-24 year olds in today's Yougov.

  • So how do you see the form of the LibDems, Peter? How many seats have you chalked them for given their current polling at c. 6% against 23% last time out?

    Very difficult to call, Audrey.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited January 2015

    Tony Blair was Prime Minister in 2005, with an established knack of pitching himself to key swing voters in middle-england marginals.

    With all due respect, and psephological changes notwithstanding, Ed Miliband doesn't have quite the same appeal.

    Blair pulled off quite a feat in Kent in 2005 when his party managed to hold 5 seats by less than 1,000 votes: Medway (213), Gillingham (254), Dartford (706), Thanet South (664), Sittingbourne (79).

    It's notable that not even the most optimistic Labour supporter is expecting to win any of these this year (with the possible exception of Thanet South if there's a very even 3 way split).
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    TGOHF said:

    Biggest difference between 2005 and now is the calibre of the red leader. 2005 won 3 elections , 2015 one will never be prime minister.

    Indeed. Tony Blair would never have attracted LD switchers in the way that EdM has.

  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    So how do you see the form of the LibDems, Peter? How many seats have you chalked them for given their current polling at c. 6% against 23% last time out?

    This tweet would suggest that there is potential for the LD vote to drop lower, they are the most undecided at 84% willing to change. Even the other parties have 40%+ willing to change. It is all looking a bit fluid to me.

    twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/560404884634492928?s=09
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    "There had been no boundary changes for a decade, maximising 'electoral drag', whereby on average the electorate in Con seats grows faster than in Lab seats."

    I'll have to pick you up on that one. The boundaries used in 2005 were based on 1991 electorates, so 14 years out-of-date. The boundaries to be used this year are based on the year 2000 electorates, so 15 years out-of-date.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,963
    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. Indigo, so, the law now doesn't believe people are innocent until proven guilty?

    It's insane to assume men are lying and women are telling the truth (also ignoring homosexual rape and when women take sexual advantage of men, but there we are...).
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    By the way, I love these threads. They're my all-time favourites, because they aren't exactly trolling but they produce exactly the reaction that trolling aims for.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,567

    Tony Blair was Prime Minister in 2005, with an established knack of pitching himself to key swing voters in middle-england marginals.

    With all due respect, and psephological changes notwithstanding, Ed Miliband doesn't have quite the same appeal.

    As I recall, by 2005 Blair was beginning to become a liability. Remember when the Tories floated a "vote Blair, get Brown" meme, but found that people actually preferred Brown?. The LDs did well out of the anti-war vote, being the party opposed to the Iraq misadventure. A lot of those red to yellow switchers were red antiwar voters rather than tactical switchers.

    I also think the rise of UKIP has softened the desire to stop the Tories, giving the haters another target to go for, and also making the Tories appear more centrist.
    I have a similar recollection - in 2005 in an English marginal, my vote dropped 6.7 points to LibDems, Greens and an ex-Labour independent, and that was nearly all about Iraq. While I've come to disagree with Tony in important areas (interventionism, privatisation), I still like him, but there were substantial numbers of people who wouldn't vote Labour after Iraq while he was leader - more than the anti-Gordon vote in 2010 (when my vote dropped just 3.4 points) and more than the anti-Ed vote now.

    My honest impression is that most people aren't currently planning to vote on leader preference - none of the leaders is really attracting either love or hatred. If you ask people who they prefer they'll have a think and tell you, but it's not a decisive factor. In fact, the elusive thing about this election is that there aren't any obvious decisive factors, and people are defaulting to instinctive preferences for the flavour of one party or another (plus some tactical voting). Those instinctive preferences are quite hard to shift either way, which is IMO why the polls are so stable.

  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    Biggest difference between 2005 and now is the calibre of the blue leader -- not the red leader.

    Howard was not an appealing figure to the majority of floating voters, and the Tories had catastrophically mismanaged the business of being in opposition. The country had tired of Blair by 2005, but the Tories did not manage to provide a viable alternative.

    Cameron is a more emollient figure than Howard, his ratings correctly show he his a boost to his party.

    So, I am not convinced by the analogy to 2005 (or indeed any other previous election).

    The 2015 election will be unique. That is its charm.

  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. Indigo, so, the law now doesn't believe people are innocent until proven guilty?

    It's insane to assume men are lying and women are telling the truth (also ignoring homosexual rape and when women take sexual advantage of men, but there we are...).

    The law is not being changed.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited January 2015
    antifrank said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. Indigo, so, the law now doesn't believe people are innocent until proven guilty?

    It's insane to assume men are lying and women are telling the truth (also ignoring homosexual rape and when women take sexual advantage of men, but there we are...).

    The law is not being changed.
    No, its just that when the man says she consented, and the woman said she didn't, absent any other information then police will assume the man is lying, and proceed to destroy his life with a full investigation, the fact that the court subsequently finds him innocent is not going to help his marriage and job prospects.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    chestnut said:

    Greens equal first among 18-24 year olds in today's Yougov.

    And the highest Green support comes from London.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited January 2015
    38 polls so far this month:

    Lab lead: 22
    Con lead: 7
    Tie: 9

    I wonder how long Labour will be able to keep their figure above 50%. It'll obviously drop below that level if they fail to register a lead in all of the next 7 polls.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Financier said:

    chestnut said:

    Greens equal first among 18-24 year olds in today's Yougov.

    And the highest Green support comes from London.
    18-24's in London are probably among the least likely group of voters to turn out.
  • Do we have a Berdych vs Murray prediction this morning from HenryG? .... This match due to start in 10 minutes!
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,963
    More bullshit regarding women in the justice system:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31027549

    Fallopian-deprived ape Simon Hughes has called for the number of women in prison to be halved. Despite there being more than 20 men incarcerated for every one woman. And women getting lighter custodial sentences.

    The random firing of neurons which approximates in the skull of Hughes to what normal people enjoy as 'reasoning' has led him to claim this:
    "Female offenders are a "special case" and should be treated differently to men because many had been victims themselves, he told BBC Radio 5 live Breakfast."

    It's true, ovaries do attract victimhood, whereas testicle deflect being criminal activity from their bearer, whilst filling the plum-possessor with nasty criminal desire of his own (which, of course, are only committed against women).

    We could always judge people by the content of their characters, rather than the content of their trousers.

    "When asked why female offenders should be treated differently to men Mr Hughes said: "Women are a special case for very good, evidenced reasons. Firstly, many more women who go to prison have themselves been victims. They've often been abused or in violent partnerships.

    "Secondly, many more women have caring responsibilities than men do.""

    The first is also true of men. A huge minority (around 40%, give or take) of domestic abuse victims are men. The second is giving women a huge unfair advantage in the field of custody and then using that blatant sexist prejudice to justify leniency for criminal behaviour!

    What a cretin.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,410
    Ashcroft polling suggests that the Lib Dems will outpoll whatever it's said they will poll.

    To calculate - Sum all the Ashcroft polls in LD marginals and adjust by the Ashcroft 2nd question

    Assume same no of votes as last time for simplicity:

    e.g.

    For Southport there is a 16% increase which is an extra 7000 votes.

    Sum that over all Lib Dem marginals (Including current Con Holds, Lab holds) and you're left with an "extra" vote figure.

    Assuming the effect is 5000 votes on average in 20 seats (I have no idea), then thats an extra 100,000 votes.

    Then feed it back in to the national vote share.



  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Indigo said:

    antifrank said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. Indigo, so, the law now doesn't believe people are innocent until proven guilty?

    It's insane to assume men are lying and women are telling the truth (also ignoring homosexual rape and when women take sexual advantage of men, but there we are...).

    The law is not being changed.
    No, its just that when the man says she consented, and the woman said she didn't, absent any other information then police will assume the man is lying, and proceed to destroy his life with a full investigation, the fact that the court subsequently finds him innocent is not going to help his marriage and job prospects.
    A rather odd reading of the report, but I congratulate you on your creative reading.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    Re: LDs

    As Lord A says, a poll is only a snapshot in time and valid for that moment, but probably is more valuable the nearer the poll is to the Event.

    So if the LDs get 10% of the GB vote at the GE, is OGH and others saying that the vast majority of that 10% will be concentrated in the 57 seats that the LDs are defending and very few votes in the other 575 GB seats? This does not seem credible.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited January 2015
    "Fallopian-deprived ape Simon Hughes has called for the number of women in prison to be halved."

    This is one of the pet policies of liberal extremists. The fact is women are capable of being as evil and criminally-minded as men, something people like Hughes like to turn a blind eye to. It's all down to "hormones" and "circumstances" as far as they're concerned, which is actually immensely patronising to women.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,963
    Mr. JS, indeed, patronising to women and blatantly discriminatory against men. Bigotry par excellence.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    edited January 2015
    antifrank said:

    By the way, I love these threads. They're my all-time favourites, because they aren't exactly trolling but they produce exactly the reaction that trolling aims for.

    Thanks. You get good discussions when people are provoked.

    Until three years ago almost all the headers were headlined by a question. That was changed as a matter of policy in 2012 so that the headline now makes an assertion which some may agree with and others won't.

    In that year I was blogging on the US election for Telegraph which then did not like posts that posed questions. I changed my style and thought that it worked and we changed things on PB as well.

  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Tony Blair was Prime Minister in 2005, with an established knack of pitching himself to key swing voters in middle-england marginals.

    With all due respect, and psephological changes notwithstanding, Ed Miliband doesn't have quite the same appeal.

    As I recall, by 2005 Blair was beginning to become a liability. Remember when the Tories floated a "vote Blair, get Brown" meme, but found that people actually preferred Brown?. The LDs did well out of the anti-war vote, being the party opposed to the Iraq misadventure. A lot of those red to yellow switchers were red antiwar voters rather than tactical switchers.

    I also think the rise of UKIP has softened the desire to stop the Tories, giving the haters another target to go for, and also making the Tories appear more centrist.
    I have a similar recollection - in 2005 in an English marginal, my vote dropped 6.7 points to LibDems, Greens and an ex-Labour independent, and that was nearly all about Iraq. While I've come to disagree with Tony in important areas (interventionism, privatisation), I still like him, but there were substantial numbers of people who wouldn't vote Labour after Iraq while he was leader - more than the anti-Gordon vote in 2010 (when my vote dropped just 3.4 points) and more than the anti-Ed vote now.

    My honest impression is that most people aren't currently planning to vote on leader preference - none of the leaders is really attracting either love or hatred. If you ask people who they prefer they'll have a think and tell you, but it's not a decisive factor. In fact, the elusive thing about this election is that there aren't any obvious decisive factors, and people are defaulting to instinctive preferences for the flavour of one party or another (plus some tactical voting). Those instinctive preferences are quite hard to shift either way, which is IMO why the polls are so stable.

    2005 was the first GE in 4 where I did not vote Labour. After Iraq and Milburns NHS privatisation I left the party. Too much mendacity about both issues, apart from my own feelings on the subject.

    I think the NHS is now in fairly neutral territory, with LibLabConKip all advocating much the same policy, and only the Greens willing to go the full Syrizia.

    I agree with you that most voters choose by overall impression rather than detailed manifesto analysis. I am not convinced the rather lacklustre Labour front bench is giving the right first impression, apart from Liz Kendall of course!
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    edited January 2015
    AndyJS said:

    Financier said:

    chestnut said:

    Greens equal first among 18-24 year olds in today's Yougov.

    And the highest Green support comes from London.
    18-24's in London are probably among the least likely group of voters to turn out.
    So is the apparent Green surge unlikely to materialise at the GE?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,125
    AndyJS said:

    Financier said:

    chestnut said:

    Greens equal first among 18-24 year olds in today's Yougov.

    And the highest Green support comes from London.
    18-24's in London are probably among the least likely group of voters to turn out.
    Yep, as I've said before it is time pollsters started asking whether people are actually registered. I'm not convinced the large numbers of Green student voters, for example, are actually registered. They may be so fired up that they sort this out in the Spring, but I remain to be persuaded.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,036
    AndyJS said:

    "Fallopian-deprived ape Simon Hughes has called for the number of women in prison to be halved."

    This is one of the pet policies of liberal extremists. The fact is women are capable of being as evil and criminally-minded as men, something people like Hughes like to turn a blind eye to. It's all down to "hormones" and "circumstances" as far as they're concerned, which is actually immensely patronising to women.

    Yes, equality.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited January 2015

    Mr. JS, indeed, patronising to women and blatantly discriminatory against men. Bigotry par excellence.

    Which of Hindley or Rosemary West is he proposing to release ?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,937
    edited January 2015
    Financier said:

    Re: LDs

    As Lord A says, a poll is only a snapshot in time and valid for that moment, but probably is more valuable the nearer the poll is to the Event.

    So if the LDs get 10% of the GB vote at the GE, is OGH and others saying that the vast majority of that 10% will be concentrated in the 57 seats that the LDs are defending and very few votes in the other 575 GB seats? This does not seem credible.

    This LibDem whistling in the darkness symbolises hope over mathematics...

    The LibDems have the smell death about them

    Labour has the stench of hypocrisy.

    UKIP has the pong of wee, with a whiff of racism.

    The Tories have the smell of bleach. Pungent, but gets the job done.
  • saddenedsaddened Posts: 2,245
    antifrank said:

    By the way, I love these threads. They're my all-time favourites, because they aren't exactly trolling but they produce exactly the reaction that trolling aims for.

    They are amusing, but I'd go further and say they are designed as trolling. They are another straw in the wind against Mike's claim that this site has no party bias. It does and his happiness in trolling the blues is proof of that.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,410
    Has Sheffield Central been Ashcrofted yet - I suspect a yellow massacre there (There need to be places they underperform UNS) and thats my prime candidate.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited January 2015

    I agree with you that most voters choose by overall impression rather than detailed manifesto analysis. I am not convinced the rather lacklustre Labour front bench is giving the right first impression, apart from Liz Kendall of course!

    I know he is probably the brightest star in a rather dim firmament, but I cant believe they still have Balls on the front bench, he must be indelibly linked to GB and his policies and style of government. I would expect Balls to cost Labour a percent or two on his own, not as bad as EdM, but no need to compound an error.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,567
  • 'Ed Miliband promises Scotland home rule bill if Labour win the election
    On his first visit to Glasgow since Jim Murphy became Scottish Labour leader, he also pledges to devolve work programme'

    http://tinyurl.com/nw29yf4

    Game changer.

    I wonder if Morphy, McTernan & co will get Ed into a Scotland strip and arrange a game of keepie-up with a haggis in front of the press?
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966

    The Tories have the smell of bleach. Pungent, but gets the job done.

    The bleach is still struggling to overcome the smell of sanctimony and bullshit.

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,410

    'Ed Miliband promises Scotland home rule bill if Labour win the election
    On his first visit to Glasgow since Jim Murphy became Scottish Labour leader, he also pledges to devolve work programme'

    http://tinyurl.com/nw29yf4

    Game changer.

    I wonder if Morphy, McTernan & co will get Ed into a Scotland strip and arrange a game of keepie-up with a haggis in front of the press?

    Vote SNP and keep Labour 'honest' - that's what many will do I suspect.

    Tbh if he goes too far he could start losing some unionist votes to the Tories, whose vote appears resolute.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,125
    I'm sure you can't wait to get back to Parliament in order to watch this every week Nick :-)
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    edited January 2015
    Someone please tell me that the Telegraph is reporting this badly, and that men won't really have to prove their innocence in rape cases:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11375667/Men-must-prove-a-woman-said-Yes-under-tough-new-rape-rules.html
  • That didn't last long.

    @AnasSarwar 08:10: Anas Sarwar
    I can confirm that Sarwar snr. has resigned as Governor of Punjab. An honest man, doing the honest thing. More details soon...
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Socrates said:

    Someone please tell me that the Telegraph is reporting this badly, and that men won't really have to prove their innocence in rape cases:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11375667/Men-must-prove-a-woman-said-Yes-under-tough-new-rape-rules.html

    It's true I'm afraid.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,036

    That didn't last long.

    @AnasSarwar 08:10: Anas Sarwar
    I can confirm that Sarwar snr. has resigned as Governor of Punjab. An honest man, doing the honest thing. More details soon...

    What has he allegedly done?
  • audreyanneaudreyanne Posts: 1,376

    Financier said:

    Re: LDs

    As Lord A says, a poll is only a snapshot in time and valid for that moment, but probably is more valuable the nearer the poll is to the Event.

    So if the LDs get 10% of the GB vote at the GE, is OGH and others saying that the vast majority of that 10% will be concentrated in the 57 seats that the LDs are defending and very few votes in the other 575 GB seats? This does not seem credible.

    This LibDem whistling in the darkness symbolises hope over mathematics...

    The LibDems have the smell death about them

    Labour has the stench of hypocrisy.

    UKIP has the pong of wee, with a whiff of racism.

    The Tories have the smell of bleach. Pungent, but gets the job done.
    Pulpstar said:

    Ashcroft polling suggests that the Lib Dems will outpoll whatever it's said they will poll.

    So how do you see the form of the LibDems, Peter? How many seats have you chalked them for given their current polling at c. 6% against 23% last time out?

    Very difficult to call, Audrey.
    We should all also heed the pertinent comparison between Lord A and Angus Reid. This is not, I emphasise, on what I'm basing my calculations but anyone who pins their projections and betting on one largely untested pollster, in equally untested constituency polling, is a fool. Particularly when that pollster was a whopping 17% out at Middleton and Heywood. I repeat, that's not anything to do with my calculations, but dismiss the strong signals coming from the national vote share at your peril.
  • Jeremy Warner in the Telegraph:

    " These low rates have now persisted for an awfully long time, lending them an air of permanence. What makes this so worrying is that we know from experience that recessions typically take a three to four percentage point reduction in interest rates to turn them around.

    Nobody can know when the next recession might be, but it could be quite soon if the cycle conforms to type. With rates already on the floor, there will be little central bankers can do to counter it when it comes, other than crank up the printing press anew. Fiscal policy too will struggle to deliver. For most governments, the fiscal cannon is already exhausted, with public sector debts approaching or in excess of 100pc of GDP. "

    All very true.

    Remember when the Conservatives used to criticize Gordon Brown for 'not fixing the roof when the sun was shining' ?

    Perhaps they could explain why they're still running a government deficit of £100bn at this stage of the economic cycle ?
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    AndyJS said:

    Socrates said:

    Someone please tell me that the Telegraph is reporting this badly, and that men won't really have to prove their innocence in rape cases:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11375667/Men-must-prove-a-woman-said-Yes-under-tough-new-rape-rules.html

    It's true I'm afraid.
    I struggle to believe that even this illiberal government would throw out the presumption of innocence. It would be a travesty if true.
  • 'Ed Miliband promises Scotland home rule bill if Labour win the election
    On his first visit to Glasgow since Jim Murphy became Scottish Labour leader, he also pledges to devolve work programme'

    http://tinyurl.com/nw29yf4

    Game changer.

    I wonder if Morphy, McTernan & co will get Ed into a Scotland strip and arrange a game of keepie-up with a haggis in front of the press?

    WOW!!!
    Desperate times call for desperate measures. Will this have the desired effect of rescuing a whole raft of Scottish seats for Labour at this 11th hour - and should Cameron react by matching EdM's offer as well as committing to something very similar for England and Wales? Pretty much inevitable I would say ..... it's now simply a matter of time.
  • AndyJS said:

    "Fallopian-deprived ape Simon Hughes has called for the number of women in prison to be halved."

    This is one of the pet policies of liberal extremists. The fact is women are capable of being as evil and criminally-minded as men, something people like Hughes like to turn a blind eye to. It's all down to "hormones" and "circumstances" as far as they're concerned, which is actually immensely patronising to women.

    Have you actually read his comments, or the Prison Reform Trust report that came out this week?

    Some of the things the report found

    1) 4 out 10 women in prison convictions were linked to a need to support their children, usually theft or money related
    2) Women aren't in for violence or sexual crimes
    3) 45% of women are convicted of a new crime within 12 months of release
    4) the above is linked to the fact, ex male prisoners are three times likely to have a job after release than women, the figures are 27% for men, and 9% women
    5) Women prisoners prior to first sentence, are likely to have drug, drink and mental health problems than male prisoners.

    I don't think anyone can disagree with this statement

    "There are some women who do terrible things and deserve to be locked up for a very long time......My concern is for those who are not a danger to society, who have become caught by a system which then does not help them out of it."

    Thus the setting up of a new programme to deal with these problems in a few women's prisons, which will be rolled out this year.
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976

    TGOHF said:

    Biggest difference between 2005 and now is the calibre of the red leader. 2005 won 3 elections , 2015 one will never be prime minister.

    Indeed. Tony Blair would never have attracted LD switchers in the way that EdM has.

    A pedantic point perhaps - but ~half of the GE2010 Lib Dem vote share had already switched to Labour, prior to Ed being made leader in late Sept. This trajectory of LD decline continued for a further few months before hitting it's nadir the following Dec. - Ed could be congratulated for retaining these LD switchers, but attracting them, er not so much.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,125
    To continue on the discussion of PMQs. Personally, I think these two (Cam and Ed) are the worst in a very long time. They both seem to need to resort to shouting to try to get their point across. I know its noisy but seems to me this shows a lack of skill at the process. The use of a slower, lower delivery at certain points would help to calm the atmosphere down. Neither seems to possess a sense of humour. This makes things worse. I don't remember Hague shouting, he used humour and different tones.

    Obviously when Labour elect a new leader in July it will all be different :-)
  • Perhaps the most curious thing about EdM's Labour leadership is how its been based on cowardice and complacency.

    Cowardice in that there's been a complete refusal to think about anything.

    Complacency in that its been assumed that Labour would retain all its 2010 and would automatically get a large slice of 2010 LibDems.

    Now cowardice and complacency were the two faults which led to EdM's elder brother failing to become Labour leader.

    So its odd that EdM has followed these two traits as leader rather than the ruthlessness and boldness which he used to become leader himself.
  • On topic, you could argue Mike, that well, the incumbent government did better than UNS suggested.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,125

    TGOHF said:

    Biggest difference between 2005 and now is the calibre of the red leader. 2005 won 3 elections , 2015 one will never be prime minister.

    Indeed. Tony Blair would never have attracted LD switchers in the way that EdM has.

    A pedantic point perhaps - but ~half of the GE2010 Lib Dem vote share had already switched to Labour, prior to Ed being made leader in late Sept. This trajectory of LD decline continued for a further few months before hitting it's nadir the following Dec. - Ed could be congratulated for retaining these LD switchers, but attracting them, er not so much.
    Anecdotally, I know of a number of LD voters. They don't rate any Ed any more than the rest of the population does. That is to say they don't rate him at all.
  • Global warming coming down from the skies for the third (or fourth) time this winter in Yorkshire.

    Weren't we told it was to become a once a decade event ?
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    Whilst you have a partial point Mike this is another thread that ignores the impending LibDem catastrophe in England and Wales. In 2005 the LibDems polled 22% and reached their high water mark of 62 seats. There is also this time a Green surge. In 2005 they polled 1%. For these reasons you cannot compare 2005 to 2015 I'm afraid.

    So, how many seats do you actually think the LibDems are going to win Mike?



    Can you tell us which of Lord Ashcroft's seat polls you think is wrong?

    Can you tell us how many seats you think the LibDems will win?

    I've been a champion of the idea that the LibDems are excellent at marshalling votes where they're needed (and have a bet with Isam they'll win 4x UKIP seats), but that only goes so far Mike. It remains to be seen how useful are Lord Ashcroft's now rather stale polls from last year, before we saw GE campaigning kick in, Conservative attention focus, and especially the Green surge which is a factor you ignore at your peril: they're polling around 800% of their 2005 position. The LibDems are slumping down in the gutter at the moment: at around 25% of their 2005 position. You're ignoring the facts, Mike.

    As for me, I posted yesterday and the day before an extremely detailed list of the 20 out of 25 seats I think the Conservatives will take from the yellows, plus another 8 seats I rate as possible outsiders.

    So I repeat: can you tell us how many seats you think the LibDems will win? I'm sure I'm not alone in being fascinated to hear your response. It's easy to snipe, harder to stick your neck above the parapet. Come on, how many?
    4xUKIP is only likely to be 8 or possibly 12!
    Shhhh, don't tell Isam ;)

    I refer you to the betting markets which has 5 or more seats at odds on
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    edited January 2015
    FTPT @Danny565
    Danny565 said:

    Alistair said:

    Danny565 said:

    Alistair said:

    antifrank said:

    Alistair said:

    RodCrosby said:

    MaxPB said:

    RodCrosby said:

    Ashcroft believes SNP surge is "real"...

    [snippet of interview on Sky]

    Labour = F*****
    He specifically mentioned "Glasgow" too...
    As a man who bet on SNP in Glasgow back in November that makes me happy.
    I've just placed three more bets on Glasgow constituencies.
    I'm tempted to go big on Glasgow North but I could be falling into the trap of thinking I know an area just because I lived there for years.
    Is there a breakdown available for referendum votes per Glasgow constituency? If Glasgow North had a very high independence vote then I'm definitely tempted.
    Alas, unlike Edinburgh, Glasgow breakdowns for indyref votes are based on Scottish parliament boundaries not Westminster.
    If you've got a link, I wouldn't mind seeing the breakdown by Scottish Parliament boundaries, if it's not too much trouble!
    Glasgow's result by Scottish Parliament Constituency

    https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=22501&p=0

    Edinburgh's results are by Westminster Constituency

    http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/downloads/file/3976/analysis_of_voting_totals_in_the_scottish_independence_referendum_for_the_city_of_edinburgh_area

    EDIT: MARYHILL & SPRINGBURN which covers Glasgow North and some of Glasgow North East had the highest Yes vote in Glasgow.
  • Indigo said:

    antifrank said:

    Indigo said:

    I do not have a problem with assuming that a woman is telling the truth about her lack of consent when she is under oath in a court of law, unless evidence is presented to the contrary.

    Exactly, and what evidence could that possibly be ? Consider the recent case concerning the footballer that is off limits for this forum apparently, but a otherwise identical case where she wasn't drunk gave consent, later had second thoughts and then went to the police to enquire about her handbag and they suggest it could be construed as rape.

    Nothing in this latest news report suggests a change in the law, merely in how cases are investigated.
    Even so, since the accused doesn't get any anonymity, their career/family etc. will be destroyed more readily than before. FBI reports from 1996 consistently put the number of "unfounded" rape accusations around 8%, that's quite a few. In any case its a presumption of guilt as far as the investigation is concerned, something you would expect liberals to be concerned about.
    Only if you expected liberals to be consistent, which would be a foolish expectation because their "concerns" boil down to a form of top trumps, based around race, class, sex and America.

    Eg they are in favour of abortion because a foetus isn't human, but they're opposed to the abortion of girls. If you can abort a foetus because it's not human how can it be a girl? "It" isn't anything. It's just a skin tag or a mole or something.

    Liberals' prejudices are particularly uninstructive to them in rape cases, as we've seen with Julian Assange. He had all kinds of people wading on his side, including Women Against Rape, arguing that he'd done nothing wrong. If you're anti-American enough, liberals will defend your reputation against rape charges.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,125

    'Ed Miliband promises Scotland home rule bill if Labour win the election
    On his first visit to Glasgow since Jim Murphy became Scottish Labour leader, he also pledges to devolve work programme'

    http://tinyurl.com/nw29yf4

    Game changer.

    I wonder if Morphy, McTernan & co will get Ed into a Scotland strip and arrange a game of keepie-up with a haggis in front of the press?

    WOW!!!
    Desperate times call for desperate measures. Will this have the desired effect of rescuing a whole raft of Scottish seats for Labour at this 11th hour - and should Cameron react by matching EdM's offer as well as committing to something very similar for England and Wales? Pretty much inevitable I would say ..... it's now simply a matter of time.
    Have I missed something? This is only promising what has already been promised.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    And this site can help you map Holyrood Constituencys to Westminster Constituencies

    http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/election-maps/gb/
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,064
    Socrates said:

    Someone please tell me that the Telegraph is reporting this badly, and that men won't really have to prove their innocence in rape cases:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11375667/Men-must-prove-a-woman-said-Yes-under-tough-new-rape-rules.html

    Sadly it is true. I can already think of one case I saw when I was at college in which the result would be reversed and the police would have essentially forced him into a plea bargain before a key witness decided to come forward. This man would now be a convicted rapist on the sex offenders register unable to work instead of being an airline pilot for BA. All because of a manipulative 16 year old girl (he was also 16 at the time) who didn't want to tell her boyfriend she had cheated on him at a party.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,963
    Mr. Eagles,

    "1) 4 out 10 women in prison convictions were linked to a need to support their children, usually theft or money related
    2) Women aren't in for violence or sexual crimes
    3) 45% of women are convicted of a new crime within 12 months of release
    4) the above is linked to the fact, ex male prisoners are three times likely to have a job after release than women, the figures are 27% for men, and 9% women
    5) Women prisoners prior to first sentence, are likely to have drug, drink and mental health problems than male prisoners."

    1) What percentage of this is true for men, comparing only valid populations (ie men and women who have kids)?
    2) People who don't commit crimes aren't imprisoned for them. Gosh.
    3) Again, what's the figure for men? Why is reoffending important only for women? And why should being a potential serial criminal be considered grounds for leniency after the first crime? It's an argument for longer sentences and/or better rehabilitation, not soft treatment.
    4) So, 73% of around 80,000 men do not have a job, versus 91% of about 4,000 women. People who commit crimes deserve the penalty, not to be let off because it might adversely affect their employment prospects. That's over 56,000 men against around 3,600 women.
    5) Indeed and they're twice as likely as men to get a psych intervention during the court process which will lead to more such problems being identified. Plus, the two most common psych conditions (depression and stress) are more common in women than men. These are mitigating factors which will be considered during the judicial process.

    It's a demented act to look at the prison population, overwhelmingly male, and decide action *must* be done to reduce the female population. Women already benefit from more lenient sentences and are a clear minority of the prison population. This is politically correct sexism.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966

    "There are some women who do terrible things and deserve to be locked up for a very long time......My concern is for those who are not a danger to society, who have become caught by a system which then does not help them out of it."

    Thus the setting up of a new programme to deal with these problems in a few women's prisons, which will be rolled out this year.

    Do that mean we should be letting out single dad's in jail for tax irregularities ?
  • Socrates said:


    AndyJS said:

    Socrates said:

    Someone please tell me that the Telegraph is reporting this badly, and that men won't really have to prove their innocence in rape cases:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11375667/Men-must-prove-a-woman-said-Yes-under-tough-new-rape-rules.html

    It's true I'm afraid.
    I struggle to believe that even this illiberal government would throw out the presumption of innocence. It would be a travesty if true.
    Quite a contrast compared to this government's non-action when its a certain type of rape.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    MaxPB said:

    Socrates said:

    Someone please tell me that the Telegraph is reporting this badly, and that men won't really have to prove their innocence in rape cases:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11375667/Men-must-prove-a-woman-said-Yes-under-tough-new-rape-rules.html

    Sadly it is true. I can already think of one case I saw when I was at college in which the result would be reversed and the police would have essentially forced him into a plea bargain before a key witness decided to come forward. This man would now be a convicted rapist on the sex offenders register unable to work instead of being an airline pilot for BA. All because of a manipulative 16 year old girl (he was also 16 at the time) who didn't want to tell her boyfriend she had cheated on him at a party.
    Jesus Christ. This government is far, far worse than I could ever have envisioned. They've completely signed up to leftist identity politics where anything that helps a member of an "Oppressed Group" against a member of a "Privileged Group" is A Good Thing, liberal rights be damned.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,711
    Think the rape change was reasonable myself. “What made you think she consented?” doesn’t seem like an unfair question to ask.
This discussion has been closed.