Those people are obviously not representative of the electorate.
The country's number one expert Peter Kellner has predicted Con + LD = 323 seats, enough to carry on governing provided Sinn Fein continue not to take their seats.
Kellner correctly forecast the Euro election result about a year before it happened, so I think he knows what he's talking about.
I have been amazed at the number of people who have said to me (without prompting) that they cannot believe Dave Cameron will be re-elected Prime Minister. This is people of all political persuasions, some of thom quite aware politically, some not at all.
Now, there are two possibilities. Either they are in for a great surprise, and people will vote counter to the way they are currently are telling pollsters, thus making Dave PM; or alternatively, when the election finally happens, the prospect of David Cameron winning another term as Her Majesty's Prime Minister of Great Britain and Nothern Ireland will cause a shift in the vote away from the Tories.
Which will it be?
If I knew that for certain, I could make a killing from the election.
My view FWIW is that the second factor will have an effect, but perhaps not enough to save the country from discovering that it was right to be dismayed at the prospect of another term of Dave.
BBC News says, "A force spokeswoman said Mr Ali was on foot (and off-duty) when he was struck by a blue Vauxhall Corsa travelling towards Greenland Road, Darnall. The driver was not injured.
No-one has been arrested in connection with the crash. Police have appealed for witnesses to the collision to come forward."
Somehow the erstwhile Al Capone may have called that a convenient accident.
I have been amazed at the number of people who have said to me (without prompting) that they cannot believe Bobajob has remembered his login details etc etc.
Oops! And another own goal from the party which just loves tax avoidance:)
BBC: 13:36: Margaret Hodge attacks Labour links to PwC BBC Radio 4 Labour MP Margaret Hodge
Margaret Hodge MP, the chair of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) tells the BBC's World at One she thinks it is "inappropriate" for her party's shadow cabinet to be receiving support from staff on secondment from the accountancy firm PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC)
Will she be returning all the money she earned when she worked for them?
I wonder if she has found out yet how Stemcor managed to pay only 0.01% Corporation Tax on £2.1 billion of turnover generated in the UK.
Weren't they offsetting massive losses from previous years?
I have been amazed at the number of people who have said to me (without prompting) that they cannot believe Bobajob has remembered his login details etc etc.
true
The incessant 'multiple screen names' whinging was was bored me into submission last time.
@helenpidd: Just overheard at a table of all-day drinkers in Rotherham Wetherspoons: "and then he started slagging off nuns!" Funny what breaks through.
Businesses can now use Twitter to target individual postcodes
The social media giant also said the tool could be used by political parties to promote individual candidates to the electorate in specific areas.
With 80% of Twitter’s 15 million UK users accessing the platform via mobiles, smartphones are expected to play a bigger role in the upcoming election than ever before.
I am closely following (And betting) on various facets of politics particularly the 2015 General Election.
Hence the polls are of a great deal of interest to me, not just one in isolation but the general trends through to GE2015.
I not in particular that in general your UKIP figures are weighted from ~ 300 -> 350 through to around 180 -> 200, which is a weighting far in excess of anything that I can see happening with Yougov (286 -> 279 in their latest Sunday Times poll), Ashcroft (120 -> 118ish) or with any of the other parties and any of the other companies.
ICM also produce low UKIP figures but this is due to their treatment of Don't knows and didn't vote last time, not a unweighted -> weighted issue.
I have studied statistics and understand that it is practically speaking impossible to produce a random sample of the population and so weighting is needed - the famous example of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Literary_Digest Gallup vs Literary Digest springs to mind.
For Labour and the Conservatives the movement from the last GE has been in a fairly narrow band (37% -> 30% -> 33% ) or so for the Tories, (28% -> 40% and now seemingly ~ 34% or so for Labour), whereas the rise of UKIP and collapse of the Lib Dem support has been huge in comparison (25 -> 8% and 3% -> ~ 15% for UKIP).
My questions are:
Is UKIP harder to model than the others ?
Do you believe that UKIP supporters are disproportionately likely to sign to your panel ?
Why are Yougov seemingly needing to weight less than yourselves given you are both internet pollsters and so any disproportionate sign up to yourselves would probably take place for Yougov as well... ?
Are very large swings harder to model or is it because it is a "new" party that the problem is ?
Those people are obviously not representative of the electorate.
The country's number one expert Peter Kellner has predicted Con + LD = 323 seats, enough to carry on governing provided Sinn Fein continue not to take their seats.
Kellner correctly forecast the Euro election result about a year before it happened, so I think he knows what he's talking about.
I have been amazed at the number of people who have said to me (without prompting) that they cannot believe Dave Cameron will be re-elected Prime Minister. This is people of all political persuasions, some of thom quite aware politically, some not at all.
Now, there are two possibilities. Either they are in for a great surprise, and people will vote counter to the way they are currently are telling pollsters, thus making Dave PM; or alternatively, when the election finally happens, the prospect of David Cameron winning another term as Her Majesty's Prime Minister of Great Britain and Nothern Ireland will cause a shift in the vote away from the Tories.
Which will it be?
If I knew that for certain, I could make a killing from the election.
My view FWIW is that the second factor will have an effect, but perhaps not enough to save the country from discovering that it was right to be dismayed at the prospect of another term of Dave.
"Those people are obviously not representative of the electorate."
I see that todays Populus poll gave UKIP 16 points. Is that a new high for this pollster?
Joint highest with their poll of 7-8th May 2014
Not surprising because Populus updated their methodology this week, which theoretically should benefit UKIP
What did they do differently?
"If there was a General Election held tomorrow, who do you think you would vote for?"
"Conservative."
"Yeah, but seriously. What about UKIP?"
"No, still voting Consevative."
"Shall I put you down as undecided?"
Hah, that's similar to suggestion I made to Survation, last year.
"If there was a General Election held tomorrow, who do you think you would vote for?
Weirdo Ed Miliband's Labour Party, David Cameron's Tory Party that is brilliantly fixing the mess that Labour left them, Nick Clegg's Lib Dems and LOLZ, sorry I have to ask about UKIP, 'cause no one will vote for them in a general election because it isn't the Euros or localm this matters"
A point that might be more than pedantic, the SNP candidate up against Danny Alexander is Drew Hendry, leader of Highland Council. A while since he saw 20!
So - the Tories are favourites in 273 seats, yet the Over/Under is nearer 283. These 11 seats should theoretically offer a hint of value (purely a price-based exercise).
Devon North 11/10 Pudsey 11/10 Cheadle 6/5 Chester 6/5 Ipswich 6/5 St Ives 6/5 Cornwall North 5/4 Croydon Central 5/4 Keighley 5/4 Northampton North 5/4 Stockton South 5/4
A point that might be more than pedantic, the SNP candidate up against Danny Alexander is Drew Hendry, leader of Highland Council. A while since he saw 20!
Ah, I think I was misinformed by twitter. Many thanks for the correction.
So - the Tories are favourites in 273 seats, yet the Over/Under is nearer 283. These 11 seats should theoretically offer a hint of value (purely a price-based exercise).
Devon North 11/10 Pudsey 11/10 Cheadle 6/5 Chester 6/5 Ipswich 6/5 St Ives 6/5 Cornwall North 5/4 Croydon Central 5/4 Keighley 5/4 Northampton North 5/4 Stockton South 5/4
Pudset looks a better bet than Keighley to me knowing the areas somewhat.
So - the Tories are favourites in 273 seats, yet the Over/Under is nearer 283. These 11 seats should theoretically offer a hint of value (purely a price-based exercise).
Devon North 11/10 Pudsey 11/10 Cheadle 6/5 Chester 6/5 Ipswich 6/5 St Ives 6/5 Cornwall North 5/4 Croydon Central 5/4 Keighley 5/4 Northampton North 5/4 Stockton South 5/4
Off the top of my head there's polling showing the Tories holding Pudsey and Stockton South.
So - the Tories are favourites in 273 seats, yet the Over/Under is nearer 283. These 11 seats should theoretically offer a hint of value (purely a price-based exercise).
Devon North 11/10 Pudsey 11/10 Cheadle 6/5 Chester 6/5 Ipswich 6/5 St Ives 6/5 Cornwall North 5/4 Croydon Central 5/4 Keighley 5/4 Northampton North 5/4 Stockton South 5/4
Off the top of my head there's polling showing the Tories holding Pudsey and Stockton South.
More generally, if there are big moves on the main lines [as there has been recently] then a portfolio of constituencies may be the way to exploit them - that is, if you trust the main move!
For those of us restricted by the bookies, it also gives you a chance to get a more reasonable sum on.
I have been amazed at the number of people who have said to me (without prompting) that they cannot believe Bobajob has remembered his login details etc etc.
So - the Tories are favourites in 273 seats, yet the Over/Under is nearer 283. These 11 seats should theoretically offer a hint of value (purely a price-based exercise).
Devon North 11/10 Pudsey 11/10 Cheadle 6/5 Chester 6/5 Ipswich 6/5 St Ives 6/5 Cornwall North 5/4 Croydon Central 5/4 Keighley 5/4 Northampton North 5/4 Stockton South 5/4
Off the top of my head there's polling showing the Tories holding Pudsey and Stockton South.
More generally, if there are big moves on the main lines [as there has been recently] then a portfolio of constituencies may be the way to exploit them - that is, if you trust the main move!
For those of us restricted by the bookies, it also gives you a chance to get a more reasonable sum on.
So - the Tories are favourites in 273 seats, yet the Over/Under is nearer 283. These 11 seats should theoretically offer a hint of value (purely a price-based exercise).
Devon North 11/10 Pudsey 11/10 Cheadle 6/5 Chester 6/5 Ipswich 6/5 St Ives 6/5 Cornwall North 5/4 Croydon Central 5/4 Keighley 5/4 Northampton North 5/4 Stockton South 5/4
Of course, logically all Tory marginals should offer a hint of value, if their prices haven't changed and the main line move is "real". But these ones should probably be odds-on.
So - the Tories are favourites in 273 seats, yet the Over/Under is nearer 283. These 11 seats should theoretically offer a hint of value (purely a price-based exercise).
Devon North 11/10 Pudsey 11/10 Cheadle 6/5 Chester 6/5 Ipswich 6/5 St Ives 6/5 Cornwall North 5/4 Croydon Central 5/4 Keighley 5/4 Northampton North 5/4 Stockton South 5/4
Of course, logically all Tory marginals should offer a hint of value, if their prices haven't changed and the main line move is "real". But these ones should probably be odds-on.
Of relevance here and more generally, the Economist reports this week on the Conservatives' general election campaign:
"GIVEN the importance of Fountains Road to his job prospects, Ben Gummer MP seems oddly relaxed about the rather ambivalent views he samples along it. They are not hostile; most residents of the 1970s-built semi-detached houses that line the road, in south-west Ipswich, receive the hardworking Tory uncomplainingly, with often a glint of recognition. To have any hope of defending his slender majority in Ipswich in May, however, this is the sort of hard-up, middle-class terrain Mr Gummer must win—and a chill afternoon’s canvassing provides no promise of that.
In a soft Suffolk burr, most people say they have not decided how they’ll vote; almost none shows enthusiasm for the Tory-led coalition government and its toff leader, David Cameron. Yet Ipswich is enjoying its lowest rate of youth unemployment on record, so neither do they complain much. And even Labour Party voters say they have a poor impression of Mr Cameron’s main rival, Ed Miliband: “He doesn’t seem right,” one says. Having long expected a tough fight, Mr Gummer and his team of eager activists find this adequately encouraging."
So - the Tories are favourites in 273 seats, yet the Over/Under is nearer 283. These 11 seats should theoretically offer a hint of value (purely a price-based exercise).
Devon North 11/10 Pudsey 11/10 Cheadle 6/5 Chester 6/5 Ipswich 6/5 St Ives 6/5 Cornwall North 5/4 Croydon Central 5/4 Keighley 5/4 Northampton North 5/4 Stockton South 5/4
Of course, logically all Tory marginals should offer a hint of value, if their prices haven't changed and the main line move is "real". But these ones should probably be odds-on.
I am not accusing Stemcor of illegality. But it is behaving no differently to Amazon or Starbucks or anyone else.
That's a very strong claim and one you seem to have no basis for making. Indeed the facts in the article (the amount of tax paid when UK profits were higher) would strongly suggest that you are wrong.
I see nothing to suggest that this company seeks to allocate profits to lower tax jurisdictions rather than where they were actually made and it is this kind of behaviour Hodge has been criticising multi-nationals for.
Hodge is criticising multi-nationals for doing something which is in compliance with the laws. Stemcor is also complying with the laws
She is criticising the multi-nationals for doing something. You have accused this company of doing the same thing as these multi-nationals and hence her, indirectly, of hypocrisy. I am just pointing out that you have no basis for making that accusation and indeed the facts that there are tend to suggest you might be wrong to do so.
No - I am saying that all these companies comply with the law. Hodge is saying that even though they comply with the law they are somehow behaving immorally. I think that an absurd position to take. The more sensible approach would be to campaign to change the law though she would rapidly find that she would come up against the inevitable effects of the Single Market within the EU, of which she is a supporter.
I think it even more absurd for her to take a high and mighty position about companies not paying more tax than they are legally obliged to pay when she herself is the beneficiary of similar arrangements.
I have been amazed at the number of people who have said to me (without prompting) that they cannot believe Dave Cameron will be re-elected Prime Minister. This is people of all political persuasions, some of thom quite aware politically, some not at all.
Now, there are two possibilities. Either they are in for a great surprise, and people will vote counter to the way they are currently are telling pollsters, thus making Dave PM; or alternatively, when the election finally happens, the prospect of David Cameron winning another term as Her Majesty's Prime Minister of Great Britain and Nothern Ireland will cause a shift in the vote away from the Tories.
Which will it be?
If I knew that for certain, I could make a killing from the election.
My view FWIW is that the second factor will have an effect, but perhaps not enough to save the country from discovering that it was right to be dismayed at the prospect of another term of Dave.
Given the state of the polls (both VI and leader favourability) I assume you are getting even more people saying that they cannot believe ed miliband will be elected Prime Minister (and you just aren't amazed about that). Either that or there is a huge bias at work here.
Also struggling to imagine your lifestyle. Either you are a professional pollster or you go to the same dinner parties as audreyanne.
I'm at a loss as to why events in Rotherham should be "above politics" when they were clearly partly facilitated by the rotten politics of the town.
Sarah Champion, on the other hand, has come in from outside of those rotten politics, and has generally being doing a very decent job in very difficult circumstances. All the more disappointing that she should make such an off-key remark.
No she has not.
It was publicly known before she became an MP that there were issues with child abuse in the constituency, although not on the scale which we now know.
I can find no mention of her being involved in any local initiatives concerning child sexual exploitation. I have searched Google between when she was elected and just before the publication of the Jay Report and she did not appear to have done anything locally to help abuse victims.
However, she was involved in a Barnados inquiry which did not focus on Rotherham. Yes, the national campaigns are important but she should not ignore constituency issues.
Those people are obviously not representative of the electorate.
The country's number one expert Peter Kellner has predicted Con + LD = 323 seats, enough to carry on governing provided Sinn Fein continue not to take their seats.
Kellner correctly forecast the Euro election result about a year before it happened, so I think he knows what he's talking about.
I have been amazed at the number of people who have said to me (without prompting) that they cannot believe Dave Cameron will be re-elected Prime Minister. This is people of all political persuasions, some of thom quite aware politically, some not at all.
Now, there are two possibilities. Either they are in for a great surprise, and people will vote counter to the way they are currently are telling pollsters, thus making Dave PM; or alternatively, when the election finally happens, the prospect of David Cameron winning another term as Her Majesty's Prime Minister of Great Britain and Nothern Ireland will cause a shift in the vote away from the Tories.
Which will it be?
If I knew that for certain, I could make a killing from the election.
My view FWIW is that the second factor will have an effect, but perhaps not enough to save the country from discovering that it was right to be dismayed at the prospect of another term of Dave.
"Those people are obviously not representative of the electorate."
Polling vs PB Tory anecdote:
Latest poll:
Lab 34 Con 31
90 days to go.
Since when was Labour party supporter Peter Kellner a PB Tory?
I am not accusing Stemcor of illegality. But it is behaving no differently to Amazon or Starbucks or anyone else.
That's a very strong claim and one you seem to have no basis for making. Indeed the facts in the article (the amount of tax paid when UK profits were higher) would strongly suggest that you are wrong.
I see nothing to suggest that this company seeks to allocate profits to lower tax jurisdictions rather than where they were actually made and it is this kind of behaviour Hodge has been criticising multi-nationals for.
Hodge is criticising multi-nationals for doing something which is in compliance with the laws. Stemcor is also complying with the laws
She is criticising the multi-nationals for doing something. You have accused this company of doing the same thing as these multi-nationals and hence her, indirectly, of hypocrisy. I am just pointing out that you have no basis for making that accusation and indeed the facts that there are tend to suggest you might be wrong to do so.
Hodge is saying that even though they comply with the law they are somehow behaving immorally. I think that an absurd position to take.
I think it is absurd that you think that is absurd. And contrary to your earlier assertion I think the behaviour of Stemcor appears to be very different to the behaviour of these multi-nationals.
I've just put a small wager on UKIP in Stoke on Trent. I don't expect to win... but...
When there was a flap by unnamed Shadow Cabinet members worrying about UKIP taking Labour seats with a 5,000 majority, I flagged Tristram Hunt as one of the likely bleaters. Not impossible. He lost 13.6% of the vote last time. But there is a huge LibDem vote to go for - 21.7% last time. Must give him some hope. Down to how good a local kipper he faces I guess. Wiki says Mick Harold - any background?
Greens have Jan Zablocki. Presumably not a nun (but possibly Catholic?). Wonder how toxic Hunt's comments might be with the wider Polish community generally? CCHQ need to get some leaflets in Polish out - remind them which Socialist Party hates nuns and kept the Berlin Wall up....
I'm at a loss as to why events in Rotherham should be "above politics" when they were clearly partly facilitated by the rotten politics of the town.
Sarah Champion, on the other hand, has come in from outside of those rotten politics, and has generally being doing a very decent job in very difficult circumstances. All the more disappointing that she should make such an off-key remark.
No she has not.
It was publicly known before she became an MP that there were issues with child abuse in the constituency, although not on the scale which we now know.
I can find no mention of her being involved in any local initiatives concerning child sexual exploitation. I have searched Google between when she was elected and just before the publication of the Jay Report and she did not appear to have done anything locally to help abuse victims.
However, she was involved in a Barnados inquiry which did not focus on Rotherham. Yes, the national campaigns are important but she should not ignore constituency issues.
Did you watch the Documentary about the Commons this week?
She definitely has been doing something. IIRC prior to her intervention, the groomer needed to make contact twice, for the groomer to be charged.
She got the law changed, so it only needed contact once, for the groomer to be charged.
I'm at a loss as to why events in Rotherham should be "above politics" when they were clearly partly facilitated by the rotten politics of the town.
Sarah Champion, on the other hand, has come in from outside of those rotten politics, and has generally being doing a very decent job in very difficult circumstances. All the more disappointing that she should make such an off-key remark.
No she has not.
It was publicly known before she became an MP that there were issues with child abuse in the constituency, although not on the scale which we now know.
I can find no mention of her being involved in any local initiatives concerning child sexual exploitation. I have searched Google between when she was elected and just before the publication of the Jay Report and she did not appear to have done anything locally to help abuse victims.
However, she was involved in a Barnados inquiry which did not focus on Rotherham. Yes, the national campaigns are important but she should not ignore constituency issues.
You are being ridiculous. "I couldnt find anything in google" = she did not appear to have done anything locally.
Personally I don't read very much into this, but what else is twitter for if not for passing on speculation based on almost nothing?
Matt Chorley @MattChorley · 4m4 minutes ago Is Farage struggling in South Thanet? Ukip just sent email to supporters asking for help campaigning there on Feb 15
Personally I don't read very much into this, but what else is twitter for if not for passing on speculation based on almost nothing?
Matt Chorley @MattChorley · 4m4 minutes ago Is Farage struggling in South Thanet? Ukip just sent email to supporters asking for help campaigning there on Feb 15
For me, January's budget data is important. Big month for tax receipts. apparently.
In theory this is the month when we find out whether all the newly self-employed people have made a positive start with their new businesses, or are essentially twiddling their thumbs while collecting Working Tax Credit.
Personally I don't read very much into this, but what else is twitter for if not for passing on speculation based on almost nothing?
Matt Chorley @MattChorley · 4m4 minutes ago Is Farage struggling in South Thanet? Ukip just sent email to supporters asking for help campaigning there on Feb 15
Feeling frivolous.... who will offer me the best odds for £20 that a Labour MP defects to another party before May 7th 2015?
Me crazily saying someone will.
Will check back at 6pm for any takers / best odds.
It's an interesting question - who would be the most likely labour MP to go green? They'd have to be confident they'd hold their seat and take their labour supporters with them. Someone not too tribal and without ministerial ambitions.
I'm struggling to think of any tbh. Paul Blomfield possibly?
Same with the euro elections. Labour were out in front and UKIP third until just before the result when there was a drastic and large reconfiguration.
Nope, UKIP were polling in the 20s / 30s for the Euros all of 2014 and polled in the lead months before the actual vote. I think you are misremembering what happened last year.
Labour were the pollsters favourite for the EU elections until a month before.
I'm at a loss as to why events in Rotherham should be "above politics" when they were clearly partly facilitated by the rotten politics of the town.
Sarah Champion, on the other hand, has come in from outside of those rotten politics, and has generally being doing a very decent job in very difficult circumstances. All the more disappointing that she should make such an off-key remark.
No she has not.
It was publicly known before she became an MP that there were issues with child abuse in the constituency, although not on the scale which we now know.
I can find no mention of her being involved in any local initiatives concerning child sexual exploitation. I have searched Google between when she was elected and just before the publication of the Jay Report and she did not appear to have done anything locally to help abuse victims.
However, she was involved in a Barnados inquiry which did not focus on Rotherham. Yes, the national campaigns are important but she should not ignore constituency issues.
You are being ridiculous. "I couldnt find anything in google" = she did not appear to have done anything locally.
She has been announcing to the world everything else she has been involved in. If she can take credit for the Barnardos report and various other things she would have mentioned the local work she has done.
I would have thought now, especially with the prospect of losing her seat, she would let her constituents know what she has done to rid the area of child abusers. Maybe reopening the Risky Business outreach program which the Labour run council were so keen on? But I suppose its better to keep quiet about any good work you have done locally.
I will give credit where its due, Simon Danczuk has been doing a great job and I hope he retains his seat.
I've just put a small wager on UKIP in Stoke on Trent. I don't expect to win... but...
When there was a flap by unnamed Shadow Cabinet members worrying about UKIP taking Labour seats with a 5,000 majority, I flagged Tristram Hunt as one of the likely bleaters. Not impossible. He lost 13.6% of the vote last time. But there is a huge LibDem vote to go for - 21.7% last time. Must give him some hope. Down to how good a local kipper he faces I guess. Wiki says Mick Harold - any background?
Greens have Jan Zablocki. Presumably not a nun (but possibly Catholic?). Wonder how toxic Hunt's comments might be with the wider Polish community generally? CCHQ need to get some leaflets in Polish out - remind them which Socialist Party hates nuns and kept the Berlin Wall up....
Jan Zablocki is a CWU trade unionist. Sort of person who would once have formed the core of Labour's grassroots.
Those people are obviously not representative of the electorate.
The country's number one expert Peter Kellner has predicted Con + LD = 323 seats, enough to carry on governing provided Sinn Fein continue not to take their seats.
Kellner correctly forecast the Euro election result about a year before it happened, so I think he knows what he's talking about.
I have been amazed at the number of people who have said to me (without prompting) that they cannot believe Dave Cameron will be re-elected Prime Minister. This is people of all political persuasions, some of thom quite aware politically, some not at all.
Now, there are two possibilities. Either they are in for a great surprise, and people will vote counter to the way they are currently are telling pollsters, thus making Dave PM; or alternatively, when the election finally happens, the prospect of David Cameron winning another term as Her Majesty's Prime Minister of Great Britain and Nothern Ireland will cause a shift in the vote away from the Tories.
Which will it be?
If I knew that for certain, I could make a killing from the election.
My view FWIW is that the second factor will have an effect, but perhaps not enough to save the country from discovering that it was right to be dismayed at the prospect of another term of Dave.
Polling vs PB Tory anecdote:
You half an hour ago : "I have been amazed at the number of people who have said to me (without prompting) that they cannot believe Dave Cameron will be re-elected Prime Minister".
I'm at a loss as to why events in Rotherham should be "above politics" when they were clearly partly facilitated by the rotten politics of the town.
Sarah Champion, on the other hand, has come in from outside of those rotten politics, and has generally being doing a very decent job in very difficult circumstances. All the more disappointing that she should make such an off-key remark.
No she has not.
It was publicly known before she became an MP that there were issues with child abuse in the constituency, although not on the scale which we now know.
I can find no mention of her being involved in any local initiatives concerning child sexual exploitation. I have searched Google between when she was elected and just before the publication of the Jay Report and she did not appear to have done anything locally to help abuse victims.
However, she was involved in a Barnados inquiry which did not focus on Rotherham. Yes, the national campaigns are important but she should not ignore constituency issues.
You are being ridiculous. "I couldnt find anything in google" = she did not appear to have done anything locally.
She has been announcing to the world everything else she has been involved in. If she can take credit for the Barnardos report and various other things she would have mentioned the local work she has done.
I would have thought now, especially with the prospect of losing her seat, she would let her constituents know what she has done to rid the area of child abusers. Maybe reopening the Risky Business outreach program which the Labour run council were so keen on? But I suppose its better to keep quiet about any good work you have done locally.
Knock it off, MP. The subject's too serious for cheap political point scoring.
Feeling frivolous.... who will offer me the best odds for £20 that a Labour MP defects to another party before May 7th 2015?
Me crazily saying someone will.
Will check back at 6pm for any takers / best odds.
It's an interesting question - who would be the most likely labour MP to go green? They'd have to be confident they'd hold their seat and take their labour supporters with them. Someone not too tribal and without ministerial ambitions.
I'm struggling to think of any tbh. Paul Blomfield possibly?
I think it's more likely that an MP who was standing down would defect at this stage rather than one who wanted to keep his seat. That Ed Miliband is quite green...
OT Just seen Selma. What wouldn't those on the left give for a leader as articulate as MLK.
Though it was interesting seeing so many English actors play the key roles with distinction ultimately, through an uneven script and probably a shortage of money it wasn't an unqualified success.
Having said that how extraordinary that those events could have taken place during some of our lifetimes.
I'm at a loss as to why events in Rotherham should be "above politics" when they were clearly partly facilitated by the rotten politics of the town.
Sarah Champion, on the other hand, has come in from outside of those rotten politics, and has generally being doing a very decent job in very difficult circumstances. All the more disappointing that she should make such an off-key remark.
No she has not.
It was publicly known before she became an MP that there were issues with child abuse in the constituency, although not on the scale which we now know.
I can find no mention of her being involved in any local initiatives concerning child sexual exploitation. I have searched Google between when she was elected and just before the publication of the Jay Report and she did not appear to have done anything locally to help abuse victims.
However, she was involved in a Barnados inquiry which did not focus on Rotherham. Yes, the national campaigns are important but she should not ignore constituency issues.
You are being ridiculous. "I couldnt find anything in google" = she did not appear to have done anything locally.
She has been announcing to the world everything else she has been involved in. If she can take credit for the Barnardos report and various other things she would have mentioned the local work she has done.
I would have thought now, especially with the prospect of losing her seat, she would let her constituents know what she has done to rid the area of child abusers. Maybe reopening the Risky Business outreach program which the Labour run council were so keen on? But I suppose its better to keep quiet about any good work you have done locally.
Cheap. Tacky. Tawdry. Or maybe just ignorant. Either way it doesnt make pleasant reading.
@GuidoFawkes: Margaret Hodge slams PWC before admitting her firm employs them and she receives pension from her time working there: http://t.co/X2qaILnIW3
Good old Guido; I love it when he exposes rampant hypocrisy. BTW, good day to all.
I see Tapestry makes a very err controversial post in the comments.
Has he got the right person? Say what you like about Hodge, but I don't think so.
I heard long ago how she was compliant in it, a real scumbag of the highest order.
Personally I don't read very much into this, but what else is twitter for if not for passing on speculation based on almost nothing?
Matt Chorley @MattChorley · 4m4 minutes ago Is Farage struggling in South Thanet? Ukip just sent email to supporters asking for help campaigning there on Feb 15
Looks like SPIN may be about to put up some more markets: Con and Lab 200-up, 300-up and 400-up. Currently suspended, but they are now listed.
These can be very useful for adjusting your overall position to fill any dangerous holes in the probability distribution without taking on too much risk.
“There are hundreds of thousands and I think there could be up to a million victims of exploitation nationwide, including right now. Girls in the process of being groomed,” she said.
“I have met people from all over the country.
“If you just think we know at least four big cases each with a couple of thousand each in smallest towns. It’s extraordinary."
Let that sink in. Potentially one million victims. ONE MILLION. And this from a Labour MP.
Yes, I find nothing implausible about that figure, SeanT.
I'm at a loss as to why events in Rotherham should be "above politics" when they were clearly partly facilitated by the rotten politics of the town.
Sarah Champion, on the other hand, has come in from outside of those rotten politics, and has generally being doing a very decent job in very difficult circumstances. All the more disappointing that she should make such an off-key remark.
No she has not.
It was publicly known before she became an MP that there were issues with child abuse in the constituency, although not on the scale which we now know.
I can find no mention of her being involved in any local initiatives concerning child sexual exploitation. I have searched Google between when she was elected and just before the publication of the Jay Report and she did not appear to have done anything locally to help abuse victims.
However, she was involved in a Barnados inquiry which did not focus on Rotherham. Yes, the national campaigns are important but she should not ignore constituency issues.
You are being ridiculous. "I couldnt find anything in google" = she did not appear to have done anything locally.
She has been announcing to the world everything else she has been involved in. If she can take credit for the Barnardos report and various other things she would have mentioned the local work she has done.
I would have thought now, especially with the prospect of losing her seat, she would let her constituents know what she has done to rid the area of child abusers. Maybe reopening the Risky Business outreach program which the Labour run council were so keen on? But I suppose its better to keep quiet about any good work you have done locally.
Cheap. Tacky. Tawdry. Or maybe just ignorant. Either way it doesnt make pleasant reading.
Ms Champion is - wait for it - becoming the first MP to foster a teddy bear (by the name of Mr Mistoffelees) whose bandaged limbs represent the pain suffered by victims of child abuse. She explains: "The idea is for Mistoffolees to be handed around Westminster, with each politician having pictures taken with him and writing a message in his accompanying book to show their support against child abuse."
I'm at a loss as to why events in Rotherham should be "above politics" when they were clearly partly facilitated by the rotten politics of the town.
Sarah Champion, on the other hand, has come in from outside of those rotten politics, and has generally being doing a very decent job in very difficult circumstances. All the more disappointing that she should make such an off-key remark.
No she has not.
It was publicly known before she became an MP that there were issues with child abuse in the constituency, although not on the scale which we now know.
I can find no mention of her being involved in any local initiatives concerning child sexual exploitation. I have searched Google between when she was elected and just before the publication of the Jay Report and she did not appear to have done anything locally to help abuse victims.
However, she was involved in a Barnados inquiry which did not focus on Rotherham. Yes, the national campaigns are important but she should not ignore constituency issues.
You are being ridiculous. "I couldnt find anything in google" = she did not appear to have done anything locally.
She has been announcing to the world everything else she has been involved in. If she can take credit for the Barnardos report and various other things she would have mentioned the local work she has done.
I would have thought now, especially with the prospect of losing her seat, she would let her constituents know what she has done to rid the area of child abusers. Maybe reopening the Risky Business outreach program which the Labour run council were so keen on? But I suppose its better to keep quiet about any good work you have done locally.
Knock it off, MP. The subject's too serious for cheap political point scoring.
So if it was found that a local political party had failed their constituents and have created one of the worst scandals in modern times it cannot be discussed due to scoring cheap political points? If child abuse cannot be discussed due to scoring cheap political points, then the failings in the NHS cannot be discussed, the benefits system, the economy, and so on. Would you be able to provide a list of topics which you deem acceptable for discussion?
I have a legitimate right to question the local MP's motives, especially as she appears to be trying to deflect attention away from Rotherham.
Interesting: Telegraph reporting that one in ten Labour MPs are buy-to-let landlords.
I started to do a non-partisan trawl through the register of member's interests, and my recollection was that one-quarter of MPs received rental income, but I got bored and didn't finish it.
If it were only 1-in-10 Labour MPs - ie 26 - who were buy-to-let landlords that would astonish me. I'd expect it to be far higher.
I've just put a small wager on UKIP in Stoke on Trent. I don't expect to win... but...
When there was a flap by unnamed Shadow Cabinet members worrying about UKIP taking Labour seats with a 5,000 majority, I flagged Tristram Hunt as one of the likely bleaters. Not impossible. He lost 13.6% of the vote last time. But there is a huge LibDem vote to go for - 21.7% last time. Must give him some hope. Down to how good a local kipper he faces I guess. Wiki says Mick Harold - any background?
Greens have Jan Zablocki. Presumably not a nun (but possibly Catholic?). Wonder how toxic Hunt's comments might be with the wider Polish community generally? CCHQ need to get some leaflets in Polish out - remind them which Socialist Party hates nuns and kept the Berlin Wall up....
Jan Zablocki is a CWU trade unionist. Sort of person who would once have formed the core of Labour's grassroots.
I've just put a small wager on UKIP in Stoke on Trent. I don't expect to win... but...
When there was a flap by unnamed Shadow Cabinet members worrying about UKIP taking Labour seats with a 5,000 majority, I flagged Tristram Hunt as one of the likely bleaters. Not impossible. He lost 13.6% of the vote last time. But there is a huge LibDem vote to go for - 21.7% last time. Must give him some hope. Down to how good a local kipper he faces I guess. Wiki says Mick Harold - any background?
Greens have Jan Zablocki. Presumably not a nun (but possibly Catholic?). Wonder how toxic Hunt's comments might be with the wider Polish community generally? CCHQ need to get some leaflets in Polish out - remind them which Socialist Party hates nuns and kept the Berlin Wall up....
Jan Zablocki is a CWU trade unionist. Sort of person who would once have formed the core of Labour's grassroots.
“There are hundreds of thousands and I think there could be up to a million victims of exploitation nationwide, including right now. Girls in the process of being groomed,” she said.
“I have met people from all over the country.
“If you just think we know at least four big cases each with a couple of thousand each in smallest towns. It’s extraordinary."
Let that sink in. Potentially one million victims. ONE MILLION. And this from a Labour MP.
Yes, I find nothing implausible about that figure, SeanT.
Given that the entire female population of the UK for the age group 15-24 is about 4 million, it seems rather far-fetched.
Same with the euro elections. Labour were out in front and UKIP third until just before the result when there was a drastic and large reconfiguration.
Nope, UKIP were polling in the 20s / 30s for the Euros all of 2014 and polled in the lead months before the actual vote. I think you are misremembering what happened last year.
Labour were the pollsters favourite for the EU elections until a month before.
Really? That's a shock - with all the reasons that could potentially work in UKIP's favour I am surprised they were not favourites for a long time beforehand. Contrasting with the GE, I cannot see any factors which would work in the Tories' favour which would not already be working, but apparently are not (or not by enough). Still, point taken, shifts can happen.
“There are hundreds of thousands and I think there could be up to a million victims of exploitation nationwide, including right now. Girls in the process of being groomed,” she said.
“I have met people from all over the country.
“If you just think we know at least four big cases each with a couple of thousand each in smallest towns. It’s extraordinary."
Let that sink in. Potentially one million victims. ONE MILLION. And this from a Labour MP.
Yes, I find nothing implausible about that figure, SeanT.
Given that the entire female population of the UK for the age group 15-24 is about 4 million, it seems rather far-fetched.
Not historically it isn't. It must have been going on for generations.
Ms Champion is - wait for it - becoming the first MP to foster a teddy bear (by the name of Mr Mistoffelees) whose bandaged limbs represent the pain suffered by victims of child abuse. She explains: "The idea is for Mistoffolees to be handed around Westminster, with each politician having pictures taken with him and writing a message in his accompanying book to show their support against child abuse."
Interesting: Telegraph reporting that one in ten Labour MPs are buy-to-let landlords.
I started to do a non-partisan trawl through the register of member's interests, and my recollection was that one-quarter of MPs received rental income, but I got bored and didn't finish it.
If it were only 1-in-10 Labour MPs - ie 26 - who were buy-to-let landlords that would astonish me. I'd expect it to be far higher.
The properties are in the spouse's name is what immediately springs to mind.
"Personally I don't read very much into this, but what else is twitter for if not for passing on speculation based on almost nothing?"
Threatening bookmakers......
I made a rare foray into a Ladbrokes betting shop today and had to watch a hapless bookmaker being threatened with exposure on twitter by a smartly dressed lady if he didn't pay out on a 10/1 bet which she suggested Ladbrokes were welshing on. She said "how will it look if I put this all over twitter? I'm not one of these deadbeats who hangs around this sort of place all day"
Let that sink in. Potentially one million victims. ONE MILLION. And this from a Labour MP.
A bit of over exaggeration going on there.
How do you know? It seems to be it must be exaggeration, because the statistic beggars belief, but I cannot know. Why? Because no one is adding up the numbers, no one is trying to find the truth, there is no overarching investigation (aside from that hinted yesterday by Teresa May's Kiwi judge)
Until we get the truth we won't know - and you don't know - if ONE MILLION is way over the top, or close to the mark.
But consider this, even if she is out by a factor ten, that would mean 100,000 pedophile gang rape victims.
The scale of this scandal potentially dwarfs anything any of us have ever witnessed, in our lifetimes. Which is why arguing that it should be "depoliticised" is ridiculous and offensive. This is intensely political, it is about the fundamental nature of the country, and whether something has gone catastrophically and grotesquely wrong.
There must have been at least one million offences commited, that is for certain.
I'm at a loss as to why events in Rotherham should be "above politics" when they were clearly partly facilitated by the rotten politics of the town.
Sarah Champion, on the other hand, has come in from outside of those rotten politics, and has generally being doing a very decent job in very difficult circumstances. All the more disappointing that she should make such an off-key remark.
No she has not.
It was publicly known before she became an MP that there were issues with child abuse in the constituency, although not on the scale which we now know.
I
However, she was involved in a Barnados inquiry which did not focus on Rotherham. Yes, the national campaigns are important but she should not ignore constituency issues.
You are being ridiculous. "I couldnt find anything in google" = she did not appear to have done anything locally.
She has been announcing to the world everything else she has been involved in. If she can take credit for the Barnardos report and various other things she would have mentioned the local work she has done.
I would have thought now, especially with the prospect of losing her seat, she would let her constituents know what she has done to rid the area of child abusers. Maybe reopening the Risky Business outreach program which the Labour run council were so keen on? But I suppose its better to keep quiet about any good work you have done locally.
Knock it off, MP. The subject's too serious for cheap political point scoring.
So if it was found that a local political party had failed their constituents and have created one of the worst scandals in modern times it cannot be discussed due to scoring cheap political points? If child abuse cannot be discussed due to scoring cheap political points, then the failings in the NHS cannot be discussed, the benefits system, the economy, and so on. Would you be able to provide a list of topics which you deem acceptable for discussion?
I have a legitimate right to question the local MP's motives, especially as she appears to be trying to deflect attention away from Rotherham.
But you are not discussing it.
You are trying to score cheap points at the expense of somebody who is manifestly trying to come to grips with a huge, difficult and dangerous problem. By all means crap[ on the crappy Labour Council that presided over the scandal. They deserve everything they get. But spare those who are trying to tackle the issue.
There aren't enough of them. They deserve our support. Petty point scoring undermines them, and assists the culprits, not the inquiry.
I agree it seems implausible (see my comment downthread), but 1. remember she is probably talking about abuse over decades (in Rotherham it was 1400 victims in 13 years). and 2. she maybe knows more than us (read the article in toto).
Conservatively - CONSERVATIVELY - it seems inevitable to me that we are now talking about a crime involving tens of thousands of victims. Of racist underage gangrape. In the last 20-30 years.
“There are hundreds of thousands and I think there could be up to a million victims of exploitation nationwide, including right now. Girls in the process of being groomed,” she said.
“I have met people from all over the country.
“If you just think we know at least four big cases each with a couple of thousand each in smallest towns. It’s extraordinary."
Let that sink in. Potentially one million victims. ONE MILLION. And this from a Labour MP.
Yes, I find nothing implausible about that figure, SeanT.
Given that the entire female population of the UK for the age group 15-24 is about 4 million, it seems rather far-fetched.
I agree it seems implausible (see my comment downthread), but 1. remember she is probably talking about abuse over decades (in Rotherham it was 1400 victims in 13 years). and 2. she maybe knows more than us (read the article in toto).
Conservatively - CONSERVATIVELY - it seems inevitable to me that we are now talking about a crime involving tens of thousands of victims. Of racist underage gangrape. In the last 20-30 years.
Anyone who isn't stupefied, and horrified, is a fool.
It's the classic psychological issue though: when people can do something for victims they act to relieve their suffering. When they cannot, especially if it is overwhelming, many people subconsciously blame the victim as part of their rationalisation. It is a known phenomenon.
“There are hundreds of thousands and I think there could be up to a million victims of exploitation nationwide, including right now. Girls in the process of being groomed,” she said.
“I have met people from all over the country.
“If you just think we know at least four big cases each with a couple of thousand each in smallest towns. It’s extraordinary."
Let that sink in. Potentially one million victims. ONE MILLION. And this from a Labour MP.
Yes, I find nothing implausible about that figure, SeanT.
“There are hundreds of thousands and I think there could be up to a million victims of exploitation nationwide, including right now. Girls in the process of being groomed,” she said.
“I have met people from all over the country.
“If you just think we know at least four big cases each with a couple of thousand each in smallest towns. It’s extraordinary."
Let that sink in. Potentially one million victims. ONE MILLION. And this from a Labour MP.
Yes, I find nothing implausible about that figure, SeanT.
So, go on then, mister Punter, give us a ballpark figure of the potential victims, if you think 1,000,000 is "implausible".
What number would be "plausible"?
Sincere question. If you're going to rule out one million, you must have some more "plausible" figure in mind. What is it?
I think PtP was agreeing with you Sean. 1 million may seem on the high side, but that's only a 4% incidence amongst the adult female population [and, of course, boys have been exploited too in the past]. What do I know as to whether or not 4% is realistic - but it isn't wildly implausible.
Knock it off, MP. The subject's too serious for cheap political point scoring. So if it was found that a local political party had failed their constituents and have created one of the worst scandals in modern times it cannot be discussed due to scoring cheap political points? If child abuse cannot be discussed due to scoring cheap political points, then the failings in the NHS cannot be discussed, the benefits system, the economy, and so on. Would you be able to provide a list of topics which you deem acceptable for discussion?
I have a legitimate right to question the local MP's motives, especially as she appears to be trying to deflect attention away from Rotherham.
But you are not discussing it.
You are trying to score cheap points at the expense of somebody who is manifestly trying to come to grips with a huge, difficult and dangerous problem. By all means crap[ on the crappy Labour Council that presided over the scandal. They deserve everything they get. But spare those who are trying to tackle the issue.
There aren't enough of them. They deserve our support. Petty point scoring undermines them, and assists the culprits, not the inquiry.
Rubbish.
What has she done, other than the ridiculous teddy bear, which if I was a victim I would be deeply resentful of, all it does it provide photo opportunities for MPs. And what right does she have to laugh at a political opponent campaigning in her town, the leader of the party whose supporters had children taken from them when all they did was offer a foster home.
She should be apologising to him, not laughing at him.
“There are hundreds of thousands and I think there could be up to a million victims of exploitation nationwide, including right now. Girls in the process of being groomed,” she said.
“I have met people from all over the country.
“If you just think we know at least four big cases each with a couple of thousand each in smallest towns. It’s extraordinary."
Let that sink in. Potentially one million victims. ONE MILLION. And this from a Labour MP.
Yes, I find nothing implausible about that figure, SeanT.
“There are hundreds of thousands and I think there could be up to a million victims of exploitation nationwide, including right now. Girls in the process of being groomed,” she said.
“I have met people from all over the country.
“If you just think we know at least four big cases each with a couple of thousand each in smallest towns. It’s extraordinary."
Let that sink in. Potentially one million victims. ONE MILLION. And this from a Labour MP.
Yes, I find nothing implausible about that figure, SeanT.
So, go on then, mister Punter, give us a ballpark figure of the potential victims, if you think 1,000,000 is "implausible".
What number would be "plausible"?
Sincere question. If you're going to rule out one million, you must have some more "plausible" figure in mind. What is it?
No bloody idea, mate.
As I said, nothing implausible about the idea of a million victims.
Comments
http://show.nojam.com/a2sm
I'll also add it as a new tab on the ge2015 portal.
The country's number one expert Peter Kellner has predicted Con + LD = 323 seats, enough to carry on governing provided Sinn Fein continue not to take their seats.
Kellner correctly forecast the Euro election result about a year before it happened, so I think he knows what he's talking about.
BBC News says, "A force spokeswoman said Mr Ali was on foot (and off-duty) when he was struck by a blue Vauxhall Corsa travelling towards Greenland Road, Darnall. The driver was not injured.
No-one has been arrested in connection with the crash.
Police have appealed for witnesses to the collision to come forward."
Somehow the erstwhile Al Capone may have called that a convenient accident.
"part-ELBOW":
Lab lead over Tories 1.4% (was 0.8% last week)
UKIP 14.9% (was 15.7% last week)
LibDem lead over Greens 1.4% (was 0.5% last week)
(full ELBOW results on Sunday!)
"Conservative."
"Yeah, but seriously. What about UKIP?"
"No, still voting Consevative."
"Shall I put you down as undecided?"
http://www.populus.co.uk/Our-Methodology/Polling/
@politicshome
"Labour's @DAlexanderMP on Ukraine deal push: “The British Prime Minister has gone awol when he should have gone to Moscow.” @BBCNews"
WHO CARES?
Businesses can now use Twitter to target individual postcodes
The social media giant also said the tool could be used by political parties to promote individual candidates to the electorate in specific areas.
With 80% of Twitter’s 15 million UK users accessing the platform via mobiles, smartphones are expected to play a bigger role in the upcoming election than ever before.
http://startups.co.uk/businesses-can-now-use-twitter-to-target-individual-postcodes/
They must have got round to reading it.
Polling vs PB Tory anecdote:
Latest poll:
Lab 34
Con 31
90 days to go.
"If there was a General Election held tomorrow, who do you think you would vote for?
Weirdo Ed Miliband's Labour Party, David Cameron's Tory Party that is brilliantly fixing the mess that Labour left them, Nick Clegg's Lib Dems and LOLZ, sorry I have to ask about UKIP, 'cause no one will vote for them in a general election because it isn't the Euros or localm this matters"
@politicshome: Ukip disowns South Yorkshire police death tweet http://t.co/CsL67FbDo2 http://t.co/Fn5l0V5B1U
On the flip side, in 1979 the Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland lost his seat as his party won the election.
So there's precedent for Labour.
It's almost like there should be saying.
I don't know, perhaps along the lines of Too many tweets make a ....
A point that might be more than pedantic, the SNP candidate up against Danny Alexander is Drew Hendry, leader of Highland Council. A while since he saw 20!
I do think think he would be safe if he stands, and he might have his eyes on a Labour leadership election were Ed not to become PM in May.
Devon North 11/10
Pudsey 11/10
Cheadle 6/5
Chester 6/5
Ipswich 6/5
St Ives 6/5
Cornwall North 5/4
Croydon Central 5/4
Keighley 5/4
Northampton North 5/4
Stockton South 5/4
And another excellent tipster here has tipped it too.
For those of us restricted by the bookies, it also gives you a chance to get a more reasonable sum on.
Me crazily saying someone will.
Will check back at 6pm for any takers / best odds.
http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21642154-conservative-election-campaign-disciplined-convincing-and-unexciting-sure-hand
"GIVEN the importance of Fountains Road to his job prospects, Ben Gummer MP seems oddly relaxed about the rather ambivalent views he samples along it. They are not hostile; most residents of the 1970s-built semi-detached houses that line the road, in south-west Ipswich, receive the hardworking Tory uncomplainingly, with often a glint of recognition. To have any hope of defending his slender majority in Ipswich in May, however, this is the sort of hard-up, middle-class terrain Mr Gummer must win—and a chill afternoon’s canvassing provides no promise of that.
In a soft Suffolk burr, most people say they have not decided how they’ll vote; almost none shows enthusiasm for the Tory-led coalition government and its toff leader, David Cameron. Yet Ipswich is enjoying its lowest rate of youth unemployment on record, so neither do they complain much. And even Labour Party voters say they have a poor impression of Mr Cameron’s main rival, Ed Miliband: “He doesn’t seem right,” one says. Having long expected a tough fight, Mr Gummer and his team of eager activists find this adequately encouraging."
I think it even more absurd for her to take a high and mighty position about companies not paying more tax than they are legally obliged to pay when she herself is the beneficiary of similar arrangements.
Also struggling to imagine your lifestyle. Either you are a professional pollster or you go to the same dinner parties as audreyanne.
An excellent description of the voter mood in my view. ie Bl88dy tories....but ed?? no thanks
For me, January's budget data is important. Big month for tax receipts. apparently.
It was publicly known before she became an MP that there were issues with child abuse in the constituency, although not on the scale which we now know.
I can find no mention of her being involved in any local initiatives concerning child sexual exploitation. I have searched Google between when she was elected and just before the publication of the Jay Report and she did not appear to have done anything locally to help abuse victims.
However, she was involved in a Barnados inquiry which did not focus on Rotherham. Yes, the national campaigns are important but she should not ignore constituency issues.
Greens have Jan Zablocki. Presumably not a nun (but possibly Catholic?). Wonder how toxic Hunt's comments might be with the wider Polish community generally? CCHQ need to get some leaflets in Polish out - remind them which Socialist Party hates nuns and kept the Berlin Wall up....
She definitely has been doing something. IIRC prior to her intervention, the groomer needed to make contact twice, for the groomer to be charged.
She got the law changed, so it only needed contact once, for the groomer to be charged.
This was well before the Jay Report came out.
Matt Chorley @MattChorley · 4m4 minutes ago
Is Farage struggling in South Thanet? Ukip just sent email to supporters asking for help campaigning there on Feb 15
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B9LUA_pIMAAzF2S.jpg
So, yes, it is a big month.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/google-investigates-spurs-stadium-s-hole-maps-tag-10029711.html
Google has been hacked.
I'm struggling to think of any tbh. Paul Blomfield possibly?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_2014_(United_Kingdom)#2014
I would have thought now, especially with the prospect of losing her seat, she would let her constituents know what she has done to rid the area of child abusers. Maybe reopening the Risky Business outreach program which the Labour run council were so keen on? But I suppose its better to keep quiet about any good work you have done locally.
I will give credit where its due, Simon Danczuk has been doing a great job and I hope he retains his seat.
Like shooting f in a b.
Though it was interesting seeing so many English actors play the key roles with distinction ultimately, through an uneven script and probably a shortage of money it wasn't an unqualified success.
Having said that how extraordinary that those events could have taken place during some of our lifetimes.
Could be a big Conservative Majority in the offing come 2016/17.
http://www.ukip.org/campaign_kicks_off_in_thanet_south
These can be very useful for adjusting your overall position to fill any dangerous holes in the probability distribution without taking on too much risk.
Edit: Oops, they've disappeared, so maybe not.
http://conservativewoman.co.uk/jill-kirby-hypocritical-gesture-politics-rotherham-labour-mp-sarah-champion-takes-biscuit-tea/
How cheap, tacky, tawdry is that?
I have a legitimate right to question the local MP's motives, especially as she appears to be trying to deflect attention away from Rotherham.
If it were only 1-in-10 Labour MPs - ie 26 - who were buy-to-let landlords that would astonish me. I'd expect it to be far higher.
Better to throw around insults than actually respond. I can't get over the rediculous name. The properties are in the spouse's name is what immediately springs to mind.
"Personally I don't read very much into this, but what else is twitter for if not for passing on speculation based on almost nothing?"
Threatening bookmakers......
I made a rare foray into a Ladbrokes betting shop today and had to watch a hapless bookmaker being threatened with exposure on twitter by a smartly dressed lady if he didn't pay out on a 10/1 bet which she suggested Ladbrokes were welshing on. She said "how will it look if I put this all over twitter? I'm not one of these deadbeats who hangs around this sort of place all day"
I spluttered!!
You are trying to score cheap points at the expense of somebody who is manifestly trying to come to grips with a huge, difficult and dangerous problem. By all means crap[ on the crappy Labour Council that presided over the scandal. They deserve everything they get. But spare those who are trying to tackle the issue.
There aren't enough of them. They deserve our support. Petty point scoring undermines them, and assists the culprits, not the inquiry.
It's the classic psychological issue though: when people can do something for victims they act to relieve their suffering. When they cannot, especially if it is overwhelming, many people subconsciously blame the victim as part of their rationalisation. It is a known phenomenon.
I
Knock it off, MP. The subject's too serious for cheap political point scoring.
So if it was found that a local political party had failed their constituents and have created one of the worst scandals in modern times it cannot be discussed due to scoring cheap political points? If child abuse cannot be discussed due to scoring cheap political points, then the failings in the NHS cannot be discussed, the benefits system, the economy, and so on. Would you be able to provide a list of topics which you deem acceptable for discussion?
I have a legitimate right to question the local MP's motives, especially as she appears to be trying to deflect attention away from Rotherham.
But you are not discussing it.
You are trying to score cheap points at the expense of somebody who is manifestly trying to come to grips with a huge, difficult and dangerous problem. By all means crap[ on the crappy Labour Council that presided over the scandal. They deserve everything they get. But spare those who are trying to tackle the issue.
There aren't enough of them. They deserve our support. Petty point scoring undermines them, and assists the culprits, not the inquiry.
Rubbish.
What has she done, other than the ridiculous teddy bear, which if I was a victim I would be deeply resentful of, all it does it provide photo opportunities for MPs. And what right does she have to laugh at a political opponent campaigning in her town, the leader of the party whose supporters had children taken from them when all they did was offer a foster home.
She should be apologising to him, not laughing at him.
As I said, nothing implausible about the idea of a million victims.
(Did you misread my post? Serious question.)