YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Tories ahead by one: CON 34%, LAB 33%, LD 6%, UKIP 13%, GRN 7%
Stick a fork in the Kippers - they are done. Passé , over, fini, goodnight Vienna...
You forgot about that South Yorkshire town in the news at the moment. That can only ever be like an injection of concentrated elixir to UKIP. (Or so I've been assured.)
It just dawned on me, the 23.5% swing against Clegg isn't even in the top 10 swings in the polls today.
How much did you have on the Clegg bet and at what price?
I'm struggling to believe that poll is right, Clegg is facing LABOUR not the bloody SNP.
Labour 32, Lib Dem 31 something like that would be more believable.
Just been speaking to my mate at Betfair and I know exactly what bets were placed on that market...
Christ you are obsessed with me
Tell your mate, that he's probably violating the Data Protection Act.
Do I need to give the information commissioner a ring in the morning?
You are obsessed with yourself, as your awful thread headers prove
Its not against any law to say how much they have laid on a market to a mate, phone who you like
But I know...
You mean my thread headers that are often quoted elsewhere as the basis of articles.
Thanks, as I said, I'll contact Betfair in the morning.
I'm sure your mate won't get into much trouble.
Do what you like, he wont get into any. no names were mentioned, I dont even know your name.. Its perfectly above board for a betting trader to tell a mate how much they have laid at what price on a market
I think people need to know that Socrates has just been banned from pb. He might be a little monomaniac about the "Muslim issue" but then, so is much of western Europe, in recent months, cf the potential election of Marine Le Pen. Others get obsessed about "Lib Dem switchers", and we don't ban them: they are entitled to their geekiness. We are all geeks.
And Socrates is never personally abusive or insulting, as far as I can recall.
This is a ludicrous and unjust decision which should be rescinded at once. If it is not, this site is very seriously diminished, and I will happily blog to that effect, even if Mike bans me. Who cares.
I think people need to know that Socrates has just been banned from pb. He might be a little monomaniac about the "Muslim issue" but then, so is much of western Europe, in recent months, cf the potential election of Marine Le Pen. Others get obsessed about "Lib Dem switchers", and we don't ban them: they are entitled to their geekiness. We are all geeks.
And Socrates is never personally abusive or insulting, as far as I can recall.
This is a ludicrous and unjust decision which should be rescinded at once. If it is not, this site is very seriously diminished, and I will happily blog to that effect, even if Mike bans me. Who cares.
Is it surprising?
The closing down of this issue on here mirrors the real life goings on & attitudes at Rotherham council very closely
Look how they celebrated on PB when Labour won the SYPCC thanks to votes in Sheffield
I think people need to know that Socrates has just been banned from pb. He might be a little monomaniac about the "Muslim issue" but then, so is much of western Europe, in recent months, cf the potential election of Marine Le Pen. Others get obsessed about "Lib Dem switchers", and we don't ban them: they are entitled to their geekiness. We are all geeks.
And Socrates is never personally abusive or insulting, as far as I can recall.
This is a ludicrous and unjust decision which should be rescinded at once. If it is not, this site is very seriously diminished, and I will happily blog to that effect, even if Mike bans me. Who cares.
I think people need to know that Socrates has just been banned from pb. He might be a little monomaniac about the "Muslim issue" but then, so is much of western Europe, in recent months, cf the potential election of Marine Le Pen. Others get obsessed about "Lib Dem switchers", and we don't ban them: they are entitled to their geekiness. We are all geeks.
And Socrates is never personally abusive or insulting, as far as I can recall.
This is a ludicrous and unjust decision which should be rescinded at once. If it is not, this site is very seriously diminished, and I will happily blog to that effect, even if Mike bans me. Who cares.
If he is banned why?
He does have the habit of making serious unfounded accusations, if that's the reason, fair enough. If it's because he is just banging on about his favourite issues, with no legal issues, it is a poor decision.
1)Memo to the right: if Labour is as rubbish as you say, why aren’t the Tories streets ahead? 2)Scottish Labour is going down in flames – and taking Miliband’s chance of a majority with them 3)Labour will have to move to the left – or lose the election 4)The implosion of Scottish Labour means the battle for Britain has only just begun 5)Ed Balls forgets a name: we’ve all done it, but then, we’re not all Shadow Chancellor. Ed Balls’s Newsnight slip-up was bad news for Labour for two reasons 6)Tory Party members’ views of coalition red lines: the EU referendum and renegotiation come top – as before 7)UKIP: shooting up like a rocket but coming down like a stick? 8)What does Margaret Hodge bowing out mean for Labour’s mayoral election race? 9)PMQs review: Cameron rides roughshod over Miliband again
1)Hard to argue against really. I see plenty of reasons which perhaps should mean the Tories would be doing better, but they aren't even if that is a little unfair. Sucks to be them really. 2+4)A serious possibility. The death of the Union - for what else can be signified by a party which wants to end the Union winning such masses of parliamentary seats mean, even if many of those who might consider voting SNP would balk at that action as indeed many did last September - is once again depressing me mightily, even though my instincts are to be glad that someone is getting challenged in their safe havens for once. 5+9) Doesn't seem to actually help much beyond the morale stakes for the Tories, but it did allow a genuinely funny line from Cameron, so a worthy slip up by any measure. 8)With the result of a Labour win seeming pretty likely in London, it's hard to be interested in which Labour figure gets the gig really. Not much excitement.
Socrates informs me that he is banned from pb. Quite repulsive, if true.
Are you sure that's right? His avatar hasn't changed to the usual "keep calm and carry on" that we usually see with banned posters.
I think he was just banned from discussing Rotherham et al because he does tend to be a little incautious with some of his comments and accusations.
Do you remember all those times Pork thought he'd been banned again (he had a counter) when it was a case of exceeding the allowed word count on a post or some such. Given his warning earlier today and failure to keep to it I suspect he's been given some time to try to cool off. It's Mike's site and he's free to smite who he likes for whatever reason he chooses. The rest of us are free to read, post or move on.
Really I hate this absolute reverential stuff to Ashcroft, an anachronistic peer of the realm. OGH- if you could put your tongue even further up his rectum you would put enemas out of business.
I said something similar a couple of days ago, this is one big ego trip for Ashcroft.
You are both totally wrong. We have never seen this level and depth of polling before at a UK general election and I have a great respect for Lord Ashcroft's approach.
If you don't like it then tough. My judgement is that this is very important.
I'm sure you can find other sites to go to.
Fair enough and anyone in their right mind will fully respect your opinion.
I'm not for one minute questioning his findings nor the value of them, I am more curious as to why he is actually doing it, it's hardly a profitable commercial enterprise for him.
It's simply a passion to him and he has the money to indulge that passion. I for one am very grateful that he has polling for an interest. As I also appreciate his (also non-profit motivated) interest in bringing VCs and their stories to a wider audience.
Is everything you do purely motivated by profit? I would imagine you spend money on your hobbies - albeit on a different scale.
Clegg surviving or not, it's becoming impossible to ignore just how screwed the LDs are. If he does hang on, it'll be a weird feeling in the parliamentary party afterwards - what other action to restore themselves can they take other than to repudiate everything Clegg and his cohorts did (ignoring that the party was consulted on going into Coalition), but given where many of Clegg's allies have seats, they might make up an even more significant number of those that are left, if the rest are unlucky, making it harder to toss them to the curb.
Really I hate this absolute reverential stuff to Ashcroft, an anachronistic peer of the realm. OGH- if you could put your tongue even further up his rectum you would put enemas out of business.
I said something similar a couple of days ago, this is one big ego trip for Ashcroft.
You are both totally wrong. We have never seen this level and depth of polling before at a UK general election and I have a great respect for Lord Ashcroft's approach.
If you don't like it then tough. My judgement is that this is very important.
I'm sure you can find other sites to go to.
Mike- what the hell do you think Ashcroft is doing this polling for? I mean are you such a patsy? Why should someone like him put his resources into these kind of endeavours except for one huge vanity project. You slavishly follow his every move and it's more than pathetic, it really is. It demeans you and it demands your site.
He does it because he enjoys it.
Quite so.
What on earth would be the point of being a billionaire if you can't enjoy your hobbies?
Really I hate this absolute reverential stuff to Ashcroft, an anachronistic peer of the realm. OGH- if you could put your tongue even further up his rectum you would put enemas out of business.
I said something similar a couple of days ago, this is one big ego trip for Ashcroft.
You are both totally wrong. We have never seen this level and depth of polling before at a UK general election and I have a great respect for Lord Ashcroft's approach.
If you don't like it then tough. My judgement is that this is very important.
I'm sure you can find other sites to go to.
Fair enough and anyone in their right mind will fully respect your opinion.
I'm not for one minute questioning his findings nor the value of them, I am more curious as to why he is actually doing it, it's hardly a profitable commercial enterprise for him.
It's simply a passion to him and he has the money to indulge that passion. I for one am very grateful that he has polling for an interest. As I also appreciate his (also non-profit motivated) interest in bringing VCs and their stories to a wider audience.
Is everything you do purely motivated by profit? I would imagine you spend money on your hobbies - albeit on a different scale.
Tbh Would you be bothered about making a profit if you were a billionaire ?
Really I hate this absolute reverential stuff to Ashcroft, an anachronistic peer of the realm. OGH- if you could put your tongue even further up his rectum you would put enemas out of business.
I said something similar a couple of days ago, this is one big ego trip for Ashcroft.
You are both totally wrong. We have never seen this level and depth of polling before at a UK general election and I have a great respect for Lord Ashcroft's approach.
If you don't like it then tough. My judgement is that this is very important.
I'm sure you can find other sites to go to.
Fair enough and anyone in their right mind will fully respect your opinion.
I'm not for one minute questioning his findings nor the value of them, I am more curious as to why he is actually doing it, it's hardly a profitable commercial enterprise for him.
It's simply a passion to him and he has the money to indulge that passion. I for one am very grateful that he has polling for an interest. As I also appreciate his (also non-profit motivated) interest in bringing VCs and their stories to a wider audience.
Is everything you do purely motivated by profit? I would imagine you spend money on your hobbies - albeit on a different scale.
Really I hate this absolute reverential stuff to Ashcroft, an anachronistic peer of the realm. OGH- if you could put your tongue even further up his rectum you would put enemas out of business.
I said something similar a couple of days ago, this is one big ego trip for Ashcroft.
You are both totally wrong. We have never seen this level and depth of polling before at a UK general election and I have a great respect for Lord Ashcroft's approach.
If you don't like it then tough. My judgement is that this is very important.
I'm sure you can find other sites to go to.
Fair enough and anyone in their right mind will fully respect your opinion.
I'm not for one minute questioning his findings nor the value of them, I am more curious as to why he is actually doing it, it's hardly a profitable commercial enterprise for him.
It's simply a passion to him and he has the money to indulge that passion. I for one am very grateful that he has polling for an interest. As I also appreciate his (also non-profit motivated) interest in bringing VCs and their stories to a wider audience.
Is everything you do purely motivated by profit? I would imagine you spend money on your hobbies - albeit on a different scale.
Tbh Would you be bothered about making a profit if you were a billionaire ?
I'd pursue my hobbies and dreams !
I think you will be closing in on Billionaire status on 8.5.15
Really I hate this absolute reverential stuff to Ashcroft, an anachronistic peer of the realm. OGH- if you could put your tongue even further up his rectum you would put enemas out of business.
I said something similar a couple of days ago, this is one big ego trip for Ashcroft.
You are both totally wrong. We have never seen this level and depth of polling before at a UK general election and I have a great respect for Lord Ashcroft's approach.
If you don't like it then tough. My judgement is that this is very important.
I'm sure you can find other sites to go to.
Mike- what the hell do you think Ashcroft is doing this polling for? I mean are you such a patsy? Why should someone like him put his resources into these kind of endeavours except for one huge vanity project. You slavishly follow his every move and it's more than pathetic, it really is. It demeans you and it demands your site.
He does it because he enjoys it.
Quite so.
What on earth would be the point of being a billionaire if you can't enjoy your hobbies?
Indeed, he can't really bet on politics, well he could but even a £10k bet is meaningless to him - so he polls, finds information. Helps out amateur psephologists
Socrates informs me that he is banned from pb. Quite repulsive, if true.
Are you sure that's right? His avatar hasn't changed to the usual "keep calm and carry on" that we usually see with banned posters.
I think he was just banned from discussing Rotherham et al because he does tend to be a little incautious with some of his comments and accusations.
Do you remember all those times Pork thought he'd been banned again (he had a counter) when it was a case of exceeding the allowed word count on a post or some such. Given his warning earlier today and failure to keep to it I suspect he's been given some time to try to cool off. It's Mike's site and he's free to smite who he likes for whatever reason he chooses. The rest of us are free to read, post or move on.
@Charles is right, I think. The avatar would have changed if there was a ban enforced at a technical blog level. Much more plausible, as others have pointed out, that after the topic-specific ban he's stormed off and slammed the door loudly. But only temporarily, I hope.
Really I hate this absolute reverential stuff to Ashcroft, an anachronistic peer of the realm. OGH- if you could put your tongue even further up his rectum you would put enemas out of business.
I said something similar a couple of days ago, this is one big ego trip for Ashcroft.
You are both totally wrong. We have never seen this level and depth of polling before at a UK general election and I have a great respect for Lord Ashcroft's approach.
If you don't like it then tough. My judgement is that this is very important.
I'm sure you can find other sites to go to.
Fair enough and anyone in their right mind will fully respect your opinion.
I'm not for one minute questioning his findings nor the value of them, I am more curious as to why he is actually doing it, it's hardly a profitable commercial enterprise for him.
It's simply a passion to him and he has the money to indulge that passion. I for one am very grateful that he has polling for an interest. As I also appreciate his (also non-profit motivated) interest in bringing VCs and their stories to a wider audience.
Is everything you do purely motivated by profit? I would imagine you spend money on your hobbies - albeit on a different scale.
Tbh Would you be bothered about making a profit if you were a billionaire ?
I'd pursue my hobbies and dreams !
I think you will be closing in on Billionaire status on 8.5.15
Really I hate this absolute reverential stuff to Ashcroft, an anachronistic peer of the realm. OGH- if you could put your tongue even further up his rectum you would put enemas out of business.
I said something similar a couple of days ago, this is one big ego trip for Ashcroft.
You are both totally wrong. We have never seen this level and depth of polling before at a UK general election and I have a great respect for Lord Ashcroft's approach.
If you don't like it then tough. My judgement is that this is very important.
I'm sure you can find other sites to go to.
Fair enough and anyone in their right mind will fully respect your opinion.
I'm not for one minute questioning his findings nor the value of them, I am more curious as to why he is actually doing it, it's hardly a profitable commercial enterprise for him.
It's simply a passion to him and he has the money to indulge that passion. I for one am very grateful that he has polling for an interest. As I also appreciate his (also non-profit motivated) interest in bringing VCs and their stories to a wider audience.
Is everything you do purely motivated by profit? I would imagine you spend money on your hobbies - albeit on a different scale.
Fair enough, just seems a strange hobby.
Humanising though. I recall a comedy piece once about how today's billionaires are much more disappointing as villains than the titans of old, all distant and tyrannical, shrouded in mystery, whereas today's will get into twitter spats and minor issues and share their funny little hobbies with the world, or even occasionally be likable people! I do like how occasionally Rupert Murdoch seems to spend an afternoon teasing and winding up politicians and media by making vague comments on twitter and the like.
Can't say that I was ever impressed with Cameron's management of relations with Scotland.
From the transcript, Brown sounds like he just decided to that Independence is the best solution. He must be. Surely he can't be saying that democracy should be sacrificed in order to strengthen dead institutional concepts?
Brown lost his marbles pre 2007. A shameful coverup ever since.
I am still of the view that Brown never had any marbles.
Perhaps TSE just decided to "isolate" him forever?
Another delightful Porkism - every decision of the moderating team was an extension of TSE's personal vendetta against him. I'm sure Socrates thinks he kepts to the moderator's rules but this is a guy who thinks its ok to continue posting on a legally sensitive matter because he quickly retracts when he oversteps the mark.
Socrates informs me that he is banned from pb. Quite repulsive, if true.
Are you sure that's right? His avatar hasn't changed to the usual "keep calm and carry on" that we usually see with banned posters.
I think he was just banned from discussing Rotherham et al because he does tend to be a little incautious with some of his comments and accusations.
Do you remember all those times Pork thought he'd been banned again (he had a counter) when it was a case of exceeding the allowed word count on a post or some such. Given his warning earlier today and failure to keep to it I suspect he's been given some time to try to cool off. It's Mike's site and he's free to smite who he likes for whatever reason he chooses. The rest of us are free to read, post or move on.
@Charles is right, I think. The avatar would have changed if there was a ban enforced at a technical blog level. Much more plausible, as others have pointed out, that after the topic-specific ban he's stormed off and slammed the door loudly. But only temporarily, I hope.
Really I hate this absolute reverential stuff to Ashcroft, an anachronistic peer of the realm. OGH- if you could put your tongue even further up his rectum you would put enemas out of business.
I said something similar a couple of days ago, this is one big ego trip for Ashcroft.
You are both totally wrong. We have never seen this level and depth of polling before at a UK general election and I have a great respect for Lord Ashcroft's approach.
If you don't like it then tough. My judgement is that this is very important.
I'm sure you can find other sites to go to.
Fair enough and anyone in their right mind will fully respect your opinion.
I'm not for one minute questioning his findings nor the value of them, I am more curious as to why he is actually doing it, it's hardly a profitable commercial enterprise for him.
It's simply a passion to him and he has the money to indulge that passion. I for one am very grateful that he has polling for an interest. As I also appreciate his (also non-profit motivated) interest in bringing VCs and their stories to a wider audience.
Is everything you do purely motivated by profit? I would imagine you spend money on your hobbies - albeit on a different scale.
Tbh Would you be bothered about making a profit if you were a billionaire ?
I'd pursue my hobbies and dreams !
Maybe setting my sights low for billionaire status, possibly multi-millionaire, but I'd build or (preferably) restore a J-class yacht.
Would Tories in Sheffield Hallam really let the seat go to Labour by not propping up Clegg? I thought they were meant to be more tactical than the rest of us idiots.
Can't believe I almost went to bed without noticing the Tories had retaken the lead; the election is still an open contest!
Socrates informs me that he is banned from pb. Quite repulsive, if true.
Are you sure that's right? His avatar hasn't changed to the usual "keep calm and carry on" that we usually see with banned posters.
I think he was just banned from discussing Rotherham et al because he does tend to be a little incautious with some of his comments and accusations.
Do you remember all those times Pork thought he'd been banned again (he had a counter) when it was a case of exceeding the allowed word count on a post or some such. Given his warning earlier today and failure to keep to it I suspect he's been given some time to try to cool off. It's Mike's site and he's free to smite who he likes for whatever reason he chooses. The rest of us are free to read, post or move on.
@Charles is right, I think. The avatar would have changed if there was a ban enforced at a technical blog level. Much more plausible, as others have pointed out, that after the topic-specific ban he's stormed off and slammed the door loudly. But only temporarily, I hope.
The correct term is a 'Flounce'.
No, it isn't.
The correct term is banned, and further to that banned by an egotistical moderator with his own agenda.
Socrates informs me that he is banned from pb. Quite repulsive, if true.
Are you sure that's right? His avatar hasn't changed to the usual "keep calm and carry on" that we usually see with banned posters.
I think he was just banned from discussing Rotherham et al because he does tend to be a little incautious with some of his comments and accusations.
Do you remember all those times Pork thought he'd been banned again (he had a counter) when it was a case of exceeding the allowed word count on a post or some such. Given his warning earlier today and failure to keep to it I suspect he's been given some time to try to cool off. It's Mike's site and he's free to smite who he likes for whatever reason he chooses. The rest of us are free to read, post or move on.
@Charles is right, I think. The avatar would have changed if there was a ban enforced at a technical blog level. Much more plausible, as others have pointed out, that after the topic-specific ban he's stormed off and slammed the door loudly. But only temporarily, I hope.
The correct term is a 'Flounce'.
To be honest I did actually type "flounce" in my first comment draft and rephrased it before publishing.
Really I hate this absolute reverential stuff to Ashcroft, an anachronistic peer of the realm. OGH- if you could put your tongue even further up his rectum you would put enemas out of business.
I said something similar a couple of days ago, this is one big ego trip for Ashcroft.
You are both totally wrong. We have never seen this level and depth of polling before at a UK general election and I have a great respect for Lord Ashcroft's approach.
If you don't like it then tough. My judgement is that this is very important.
I'm sure you can find other sites to go to.
Fair enough and anyone in their right mind will fully respect your opinion.
I'm not for one minute questioning his findings nor the value of them, I am more curious as to why he is actually doing it, it's hardly a profitable commercial enterprise for him.
It's simply a passion to him and he has the money to indulge that passion. I for one am very grateful that he has polling for an interest. As I also appreciate his (also non-profit motivated) interest in bringing VCs and their stories to a wider audience.
Is everything you do purely motivated by profit? I would imagine you spend money on your hobbies - albeit on a different scale.
Tbh Would you be bothered about making a profit if you were a billionaire ?
I'd pursue my hobbies and dreams !
I think you will be closing in on Billionaire status on 8.5.15
You've got to be joking lol
You have definitely made me quite a bit of money in past couple of weeks.
Can't say that I was ever impressed with Cameron's management of relations with Scotland.
From the transcript, Brown sounds like he just decided to that Independence is the best solution. He must be. Surely he can't be saying that democracy should be sacrificed in order to strengthen dead institutional concepts?
Brown lost his marbles pre 2007. A shameful coverup ever since.
I am still of the view that Brown never had any marbles.
On that topic, people say Brown and Ed M supporters are thin on the ground thesedays, but - anecdote alert - I happened across that rarest of people the other day; someone who likes and is impressed by both Brown and Ed M, despite residing in the true blue Tory shires. An incredible shock.
Can't say that I was ever impressed with Cameron's management of relations with Scotland.
From the transcript, Brown sounds like he just decided to that Independence is the best solution. He must be. Surely he can't be saying that democracy should be sacrificed in order to strengthen dead institutional concepts?
Brown lost his marbles pre 2007. A shameful coverup ever since.
I am still of the view that Brown never had any marbles.
On that topic, people say Brown and Ed M supporters are thin on the ground thesedays, but - anecdote alert - I happened across that rarest of people the other day; someone who likes and is impressed by both Brown and Ed M, despite residing in the true blue Tory shires. An incredible shock.
Can't say that I was ever impressed with Cameron's management of relations with Scotland.
From the transcript, Brown sounds like he just decided to that Independence is the best solution. He must be. Surely he can't be saying that democracy should be sacrificed in order to strengthen dead institutional concepts?
The quote about ''creating two classes of MP'' is bananas. We already have two classes of MP but which favour Labour. The SNP made great play about not voting on English only matters, yet Brown says that just because the English have the nerve to want a bit of what HE went out of his way to promise Scotland then this has 'scuppered the union'. I think this speech goes some way to pointing up the total delusional world that Gordon Brown inhabits.
The Survation website has no mention of the Sheffield Hallam poll. It does however have this weird headline: "New Poll of the Jewish Community Finds 88% Have Not Considered Leaving the UK"
Can't say that I was ever impressed with Cameron's management of relations with Scotland.
From the transcript, Brown sounds like he just decided to that Independence is the best solution. He must be. Surely he can't be saying that democracy should be sacrificed in order to strengthen dead institutional concepts?
Brown lost his marbles pre 2007. A shameful coverup ever since.
I am still of the view that Brown never had any marbles.
On that topic, people say Brown and Ed M supporters are thin on the ground thesedays, but - anecdote alert - I happened across that rarest of people the other day; someone who likes and is impressed by both Brown and Ed M, despite residing in the true blue Tory shires. An incredible shock.
Can't say that I was ever impressed with Cameron's management of relations with Scotland.
From the transcript, Brown sounds like he just decided to that Independence is the best solution. He must be. Surely he can't be saying that democracy should be sacrificed in order to strengthen dead institutional concepts?
Brown lost his marbles pre 2007. A shameful coverup ever since.
I am still of the view that Brown never had any marbles.
On that topic, people say Brown and Ed M supporters are thin on the ground thesedays, but - anecdote alert - I happened across that rarest of people the other day; someone who likes and is impressed by both Brown and Ed M, despite residing in the true blue Tory shires. An incredible shock.
Were they on medication?
I could not speculate as to such, but a greatly intelligent and amusing person in every other way. In truth, the rare Labour supporters I come across in these parts seem much more fond of Brown than Blair - those that don't come across just like Tories for some reason. For my part, I don't like Brown as such, but I never disliked him as much as the oily Blair, and never really understood his appeal, real as it must have been to win so many times.
Can't say that I was ever impressed with Cameron's management of relations with Scotland.
From the transcript, Brown sounds like he just decided to that Independence is the best solution. He must be. Surely he can't be saying that democracy should be sacrificed in order to strengthen dead institutional concepts?
The quote about ''creating two classes of MP'' is bananas. We already have two classes of MP
Quite. I am seriously uncertain as to the best approach to take on this conundrum - if dozens of seats are voting for a party that wants the Union to end, then the Union is dying a death anyway irrespective of the heartening IndyRef result - but that argument has never made a lick of sense to me as a reason not to do something, divorced as it is from the reality of the situation.
Perhaps Joyce Thacker has joined the Moderation team?
At least she had her priorities straight back when she was employed by Rotherham council.
I think Rotherham will pale into insignificance when compared to the Westminster VIP sex ring. Hopefully the number of witnesses will continue to grow and those involved, who are still alive, serve lengthy prison sentences.
The Survation website has no mention of the Sheffield Hallam poll. It does however have this weird headline: "New Poll of the Jewish Community Finds 88% Have Not Considered Leaving the UK"
Headline? I'm sure I read about that in the Chronic back in mid January.
Would Tories in Sheffield Hallam really let the seat go to Labour by not propping up Clegg? I thought they were meant to be more tactical than the rest of us idiots.
...
If the Lib Dems are on 23, the Tories are on 22 and Labour's on 33, then there's practically no point voting tactically; you might as well fight for the win.
The quote about ''creating two classes of MP'' is bananas. We already have two classes of MP
Quite. I am seriously uncertain as to the best approach to take on this conundrum - if dozens of seats are voting for a party that wants the Union to end, then the Union is dying a death anyway irrespective of the heartening IndyRef result - but that argument has never made a lick of sense to me as a reason not to do something, divorced as it is from the reality of the situation.
The UK is going down the same route. It does not necessarily mean break-up, London parties simply have to readjust. Scotland does not want indy, it wants respect and lots of money. The problem will come when the ENGLISH object, but I doubt they ever will.
Maybe you're right - certainly I'm so emotionally invested in keeping the Union, I'll get offended by things but would probably give in even if I think it is unfair on the English. My worry is that while the Scots may not want Indy, in trying to get what they do want, they could end up going down that route, if it causes problems such as the one you suggest.
Now that we can appreciate the long-term tactical genius of losing all those Scottish seats, that should ensure a further historical revision upwards of Sir John Major.
Quite extraordinary. Labour majority almost 20 with Betfair Exchange.
Sounds about right to me. Labour need to gain net 57 seats, and if they lose 25 in Scotland then it seems out of reach.
Particularly if the campaign carries on like it has the last couple of weeks by the 2 Eds.
If they get a majority there will probably have been a recovery of sorts in Scotland... so as they're related contingencies count 15 gains for the Nats say
The Survation website has no mention of the Sheffield Hallam poll. It does however have this weird headline: "New Poll of the Jewish Community Finds 88% Have Not Considered Leaving the UK"
Rotherham Labour had a "deep rooted culture of cover-up"
"Jahangir Akhtar declined to comment" - BBC News
Jahangir Akhtar.. hmmmm
Well Look North (Yorkshire) managed to get through their half past six programme without mentioning the words Asian, muslim, Pakistani or (I think), Labour.
Rotherham Labour had a "deep rooted culture of cover-up"
"Jahangir Akhtar declined to comment" - BBC News
Jahangir Akhtar.. hmmmm
Well Look North (Yorkshire) managed to get through their half past six programme without mentioning the words Asian, muslim, Pakistani or (I think), Labour.
Maybe they just don't want to get banned from PB ?
Don't forget Rother Valley comes under Rotherham council, and the voters there are less likely to POSTAL vote.
Rother Valley looks like excellent value in comparison to Rotherham. I believe the Ashcroft polling there was slightly more favourable to UKIP as well.
Socrates informs me that he is banned from pb. Quite repulsive, if true.
What? For endlessly smearing government ministers and weaponising child abuse? All from behind a nom de plume?
Socrates has made clear on several occasions that he does not use his real name because of specific restrictions in his employment. You on the other hand are just a cowardly piece of shit shilling for the Tory party.
The Survation website has no mention of the Sheffield Hallam poll. It does however have this weird headline: "New Poll of the Jewish Community Finds 88% Have Not Considered Leaving the UK"
or if you want to go all daily mail,
HOUSE PRICE CRASH FEARED AS SURVEY SHOWS THOUSANDS OF JEWS READY TO FLEE BRITAIN
Don't forget Rother Valley comes under Rotherham council, and the voters there are less likely to POSTAL vote.
Rother Valley looks like excellent value in comparison to Rotherham. I believe the Ashcroft polling there was slightly more favourable to UKIP as well.
I'm in the happy position of winning £100 if UKIP take the seat and losing nothing if they don't. I'm ruling out a Conservative voctory here
'I think Rotherham will pale into insignificance when compared to the Westminster VIP sex ring.'
You think it will exceed the 1,600 cases of abuse that took pace in Rotherham ?
I believe a number of papers have mentioned the sex ring may have committed numerous murders, both of children and potential whistleblowers. There are MPs both serving and retired, the judiciary, the police, the security services, the civil service all potentially implicated. Potentially a cover up on a huge scale by the very people we trust to look after our best interests and keep us safe.
Comments
Tell your mate, that he's probably violating the Data Protection Act.
Do I need to give the information commissioner a ring in the morning?
Its not against any law to say how much they have laid on a market to a mate, phone who you like
But I know...
Thanks, as I said, I'll contact Betfair in the morning.
I'm sure your mate won't get into much trouble.
Go for it
Lab maj 20.0 (!)
Con >seats 1.77
The closing down of this issue on here mirrors the real life goings on & attitudes at Rotherham council very closely
Look how they celebrated on PB when Labour won the SYPCC thanks to votes in Sheffield
He does have the habit of making serious unfounded accusations, if that's the reason, fair enough. If it's because he is just banging on about his favourite issues, with no legal issues, it is a poor decision.
I think he was just banned from discussing Rotherham et al because he does tend to be a little incautious with some of his comments and accusations.
1)Memo to the right: if Labour is as rubbish as you say, why aren’t the Tories streets ahead?
2)Scottish Labour is going down in flames – and taking Miliband’s chance of a majority with them
3)Labour will have to move to the left – or lose the election
4)The implosion of Scottish Labour means the battle for Britain has only just begun
5)Ed Balls forgets a name: we’ve all done it, but then, we’re not all Shadow Chancellor. Ed Balls’s Newsnight slip-up was bad news for Labour for two reasons
6)Tory Party members’ views of coalition red lines: the EU referendum and renegotiation come top – as before
7)UKIP: shooting up like a rocket but coming down like a stick?
8)What does Margaret Hodge bowing out mean for Labour’s mayoral election race?
9)PMQs review: Cameron rides roughshod over Miliband again
1)Hard to argue against really. I see plenty of reasons which perhaps should mean the Tories would be doing better, but they aren't even if that is a little unfair. Sucks to be them really.
2+4)A serious possibility. The death of the Union - for what else can be signified by a party which wants to end the Union winning such masses of parliamentary seats mean, even if many of those who might consider voting SNP would balk at that action as indeed many did last September - is once again depressing me mightily, even though my instincts are to be glad that someone is getting challenged in their safe havens for once.
5+9) Doesn't seem to actually help much beyond the morale stakes for the Tories, but it did allow a genuinely funny line from Cameron, so a worthy slip up by any measure.
8)With the result of a Labour win seeming pretty likely in London, it's hard to be interested in which Labour figure gets the gig really. Not much excitement.
Earth to Labour, Earth to Labour...
Edit: Phew. Still alive!
As for Socrates, he shouldn't be banned.
Is everything you do purely motivated by profit? I would imagine you spend money on your hobbies - albeit on a different scale.
What on earth would be the point of being a billionaire if you can't enjoy your hobbies?
I'd pursue my hobbies and dreams !
So no more discussion on moderation issues.
And for the record I am grateful too.
4 months later they scored 28.3%...
http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/free-pork.html
Mike owns PB.com. Mike say's what we can and can't discuss on his website. We do what we're told and if we don't like it we go somewhere else.
Them's the rules and have been for as long as I've posted here in 2007.
Don't know what's so hard to understand about this.
Can't believe I almost went to bed without noticing the Tories had retaken the lead; the election is still an open contest!
The correct term is banned, and further to that banned by an egotistical moderator with his own agenda.
Thanks for the tips on next leader market value
I think Rotherham will pale into insignificance when compared to the Westminster VIP sex ring. Hopefully the number of witnesses will continue to grow and those involved, who are still alive, serve lengthy prison sentences.
Edit: Yes, Jewish Chronicle, 14th Jan: http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/128162/jc-poll-reveals-88-cent-british-jews-have-not-considered-leaving-uk
Tory maj and Tory seats now moving in...
>Seats 1.73, heading for 58% chance...
Particularly if the campaign carries on like it has the last couple of weeks by the 2 Eds.
Lab need 68 to get 326.
Which seat is target 72 for Labour ?
https://rotherhampolitics.wordpress.com/2015/01/08/jahangir-akhtar-disloyalty-knows-no-bounds/
Con 1.73
Lab 2.40
That's not what the hmmmm meant but who expects you to get things right eh ting tong?
Labour overall majority + 228.59
Conservative majority +108.78
NOM -108.85
Conservative most seats -139.03
Labour most seats +110.78
Am I in trouble
I cannot see Labour gaining 100 odd seats in England and Wales. There have been very few elections with that many gains.
Don't forget Rother Valley comes under Rotherham council, and the voters there are less likely to POSTAL vote.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dDRiT1FSRTF2bjVYRThSTnRaNzFXMlE#gid=0
'I think Rotherham will pale into insignificance when compared to the Westminster VIP sex ring.'
You think it will exceed the 1,600 cases of abuse that took pace in Rotherham ?
There is a world of difference.
HOUSE PRICE CRASH FEARED AS SURVEY SHOWS THOUSANDS OF JEWS READY TO FLEE BRITAIN