Genuine question: if Russia invaded our NATO allies in the Baltic States on the pretext of protecting ethnic minority Russians, what would you advocate we do?
The question is to what extent we should remain militarised to the extent that we are. Why is Britain expected to do proportionately more than most countries?
Antifrank, raises a good point. Of all the countries that are members of NATO, how many of them have actually contributed in any significant way over the last 20 years? Why, proportionally, should the UK be contributing more financially and in casualties?
Matthew Goodwin (@GoodwinMJ) 10/02/2015 09:40 According to this leaked list the Cons are NOT targeting Rochester & Strood or Boston & Skegness, 2 top Ukip targets bit.ly/1zrNreP
I think that makes Cannock Chase a Labour/UKIP marginal rather than a three-way contest. Is that good or bad for UKIP?
You wod have thought that conservatives would vote Ukip to stop a labour govt, but many on here seem to prefer EICIPM or labour in charge of Rotherhams police force than voting tactically so who knows
Well, many of those voting UKIP would prefer a Labour govt to Cameron, so I guess they're supporting the deviants too.
Matthew Goodwin (@GoodwinMJ) 10/02/2015 09:40 According to this leaked list the Cons are NOT targeting Rochester & Strood or Boston & Skegness, 2 top Ukip targets bit.ly/1zrNreP
I had a look at that list, and it makes absolutely no sense at all. Some of the seats on the list are definitely targets and getting a lot of central support, and some definite non-targets are not on it.
I don't think it has any significance whatsoever, it was probably just someone cutting and pasting names into a URL without thinking.
The question is to what extent we should remain militarised to the extent that we are. Why is Britain expected to do proportionately more than most countries?
All countries have their foundation myths, the stories their people tell themselves about who they are and how they are different to other people of other countries.
For modern Britain, all our stories go back to fighting Germany in the two World Wars. Plucky Britain standing alone* against the odds.
The expectation is all self-generated, and it comes from that story that we tell ourselves, about how we are different from the French, who surrendered, the Yanks, who were late, etc
If we were to retreat from a global military role disproportionate to our population then we'd need to have new stories to tell ourselves.
* The Empire is almost completely overlooked in these stories.
Latest ARSE General Election & "JackW Dozen" Projection Countdown :
150 minutes 150 seconds
Does that mean 11am? If so GMT or Jacobite time!
And why the new time ? Is this part of the change agenda ?
As I indicated yesterday the delay have been caused by leaves on the electoral line and the wrong type of snow ....
Alternatively some have speculated that Mrs JackW has been on manoeuvres and required a HGV pickup after completing an investment opportunity (shopping spree) in Paris ....
Matthew Goodwin (@GoodwinMJ) 10/02/2015 09:40 According to this leaked list the Cons are NOT targeting Rochester & Strood or Boston & Skegness, 2 top Ukip targets bit.ly/1zrNreP
I think that makes Cannock Chase a Labour/UKIP marginal rather than a three-way contest. Is that good or bad for UKIP?
You wod have thought that conservatives would vote Ukip to stop a labour govt, but many on here seem to prefer EICIPM or labour in charge of Rotherhams police force than voting tactically so who knows
Well, many of those voting UKIP would prefer a Labour govt to Cameron, so I guess they're supporting the deviants too.
Guess again
In the one place they've had a chance to do something about it, they voted Ukip... South Yorkshire Tories got labour over the line in rotherham
Matthew Goodwin (@GoodwinMJ) 10/02/2015 09:40 According to this leaked list the Cons are NOT targeting Rochester & Strood or Boston & Skegness, 2 top Ukip targets bit.ly/1zrNreP
I had a look at that list, and it makes absolutely no sense at all. Some of the seats on the list are definitely targets and getting a lot of central support, and some definite non-targets are not on it.
I don't think it has any significance whatsoever, it was probably just someone cutting and pasting names into a URL without thinking.
I suspect it may be to do with when the candidate's picture was first uploaded - some are "prospective", some are "target" and some are "non-target". There's signal there, but also noise.
Matthew Goodwin (@GoodwinMJ) 10/02/2015 09:40 According to this leaked list the Cons are NOT targeting Rochester & Strood or Boston & Skegness, 2 top Ukip targets bit.ly/1zrNreP
I had a look at that list, and it makes absolutely no sense at all. Some of the seats on the list are definitely targets and getting a lot of central support, and some definite non-targets are not on it.
I don't think it has any significance whatsoever, it was probably just someone cutting and pasting names into a URL without thinking.
I suspect it may be to do with when the candidate's picture was first uploaded - some are "prospective", some are "target" and some are "non-target". There's signal there, but also noise.
Quite possibly.
Put it this way: Anyone who thinks Berwick-upon-Tweed is not a Conservative target hasn't been paying attention.
The question is to what extent we should remain militarised to the extent that we are. Why is Britain expected to do proportionately more than most countries?
All countries have their foundation myths, the stories their people tell themselves about who they are and how they are different to other people of other countries.
For modern Britain, all our stories go back to fighting Germany in the two World Wars. Plucky Britain standing alone* against the odds.
The expectation is all self-generated, and it comes from that story that we tell ourselves, about how we are different from the French, who surrendered, the Yanks, who were late, etc
If we were to retreat from a global military role disproportionate to our population then we'd need to have new stories to tell ourselves.
* The Empire is almost completely overlooked in these stories.
Could go back to the Navy ruling the waves, of course. But with two destroyers and a minesweeper .....
"Non target" appears to include those where Conservatives can expect a win without campaign effort as well as those they don't think they can win.
In some cases it may also refer to candidates who previously stood in no-hoper seats but are standing in a different seat this time.
I really wouldn't draw any conclusions at all from it. It's pretty obvious which seats are the prime targets or key defences, and you'd do much better to use you common-sense based on the size of the majority.
The question is to what extent we should remain militarised to the extent that we are. Why is Britain expected to do proportionately more than most countries?
All countries have their foundation myths, the stories their people tell themselves about who they are and how they are different to other people of other countries.
For modern Britain, all our stories go back to fighting Germany in the two World Wars. Plucky Britain standing alone* against the odds.
The expectation is all self-generated, and it comes from that story that we tell ourselves, about how we are different from the French, who surrendered, the Yanks, who were late, etc
If we were to retreat from a global military role disproportionate to our population then we'd need to have new stories to tell ourselves.
* The Empire is almost completely overlooked in these stories.
I like Elizabethan and early Stuart. A proud nation that kept aloof from the quarrels of the continent, seeking out new horizons, that was the envy of Europe for its wealth.
The question is to what extent we should remain militarised to the extent that we are. Why is Britain expected to do proportionately more than most countries?
All countries have their foundation myths, the stories their people tell themselves about who they are and how they are different to other people of other countries.
For modern Britain, all our stories go back to fighting Germany in the two World Wars. Plucky Britain standing alone* against the odds.
The expectation is all self-generated, and it comes from that story that we tell ourselves, about how we are different from the French, who surrendered, the Yanks, who were late, etc
If we were to retreat from a global military role disproportionate to our population then we'd need to have new stories to tell ourselves.
* The Empire is almost completely overlooked in these stories.
We have a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. That's probably why we're expected to do more.
Funny sort of foundation myth to be based on the brief aberration of British-German enmity between 1914 and 1945. For the rest of the last 400 years we and the German-speaking countries have been most decidedly on the same side. Marlborough's armies were mainly Austrian in composition.
"Non target" appears to include those where Conservatives can expect a win without campaign effort as well as those they don't think they can win.
In some cases it may also refer to candidates who previously stood in no-hoper seats but are standing in a different seat this time.
I really wouldn't draw any conclusions at all from it. It's pretty obvious which seats are the prime targets or key defences, and you'd do much better to use you common-sense based on the size of the majority.
The Conservative party certainly seems to have a system (Like most major parties I suppose) of having to do your time by standing in a no hoper seat and then you may get a live target.
I suspect it may be to do with when the candidate's picture was first uploaded - some are "prospective", some are "target" and some are "non-target". There's signal there, but also noise.
Quite possibly.
Put it this way: Anyone who thinks Berwick-upon-Tweed is not a Conservative target hasn't been paying attention.
Russia has done best of all transition countries in the past 10 years, spectacular productivity growth. How have the Balkans faired, the Ukraine is poorer than they were in the 90s? You are making a comparison that neither exists nor is accurate.
You'll notice the incredibly similar growth from 2000 to 2013 for Russia, Venezuela, Kazhakstan, Brazil and Colombia.
Do you know what all those countries' economies have in common: a near total dependence on commodities.
Now, it's possible that Brazil, Kazakhstan, Colombia and Venezuela all showed growth because of commodities. While, for Russia, it was Putin.
But it's not very likely.
Productivity growth has been in the non commodity sector.
Interesting. Did you know that Belgium has 5x the non-commodity exports of Russia.
Belgium has no commodities so that would make sense. I would say the Russian market is more key to the UK though, bigger and faster growing.
In 50 years time the Russian people and state will both be richer and still actually exist, can one say the same about any Western country.
Given how many ethnic minorities Russia has in concentrated pockets, I would say the existence of Russia in its current incarnation is far from certain. Interfering in Ukraine threatens to open up a Pandora's box.
Genuine question: if Russia invaded our NATO allies in the Baltic States on the pretext of protecting ethnic minority Russians, what would you advocate we do?
Interviewed by Fareed Zakaria last weekend on CNN, Obama said that “Mr. Putin made this decision around Crimea and Maidan not because of some grand strategy, but essentially because he was caught off-balance by the protest in the Maidan (in February 2014) and (Ukraine’s then-president Viktor) Yanukovych fleeing after we (the U.S. and the European Union) had made a deal to broker power in Ukraine.”
Is there some plan to stir up trouble there, if so then we would have no responsibility to support the Baltic states if Russia reacted, as was the case with Cyprus and Turkey.
I suspect it may be to do with when the candidate's picture was first uploaded - some are "prospective", some are "target" and some are "non-target". There's signal there, but also noise.
Quite possibly.
Put it this way: Anyone who thinks Berwick-upon-Tweed is not a Conservative target hasn't been paying attention.
I don't get that? Its not on there is it?
Anyway, regardless of that list, I have backed UKIP in Eltham, I think 25s is a great price, and the candidate is one of UKIPs best
Dudley North Cheltenham Derby North Morley and Outwood Berwick-upon-Tweed Gower Eastbourne Brecon and Radnorshire Bolton West North Warwickshire Cardiff North Somerton and Frome St Ives Walsall North Portsmouth South Clacton Hove Harrow West Vale of Clwyd Wells Nottingham South Wirral South Solihull Torbay North East Derbyshire Telford Erewash Delyn Cheadle Mid Dorset and North Poole Chippenham Sutton and Cheam North Devon Halifax Birmingham Northfield Chorley Southampton Itchen North Cornwall Hampstead and Kilburn St Austell and Newquay Corby Newcastle-under-Lyme Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland Colchester Hazel Grove
The question is to what extent we should remain militarised to the extent that we are. Why is Britain expected to do proportionately more than most countries?
All countries have their foundation myths, the stories their people tell themselves about who they are and how they are different to other people of other countries.
For modern Britain, all our stories go back to fighting Germany in the two World Wars. Plucky Britain standing alone* against the odds.
The expectation is all self-generated, and it comes from that story that we tell ourselves, about how we are different from the French, who surrendered, the Yanks, who were late, etc
If we were to retreat from a global military role disproportionate to our population then we'd need to have new stories to tell ourselves.
* The Empire is almost completely overlooked in these stories.
We have a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. That's probably why we're expected to do more.
Funny sort of foundation myth to be based on the brief aberration of British-German enmity between 1914 and 1945. For the rest of the last 400 years we and the German-speaking countries have been most decidedly on the same side. Marlborough's armies were mainly Austrian in composition.
Havant Paisley and Renfrewshire South Cynon Valley Ross, Skye & Lochaber Conservatives Dudley South Wealden Oldham East and Saddleworth Stockton North Poplar and Limehouse East Lothian Wythenshawe and Sale East Ealing Southall Luton South Birmingham Hodge Hill Edinburgh West Walthamstow West Bromwich East North East Hampshire South Ribble Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney St Helens South and Whiston Braintree Hertsmere Lewisham East York Central Stoke-on-Trent North Vauxhall Stoke-on-Trent South Central Ayrshire West Bromwich West Richmond (Yorks) Cannock Chase Derby South Plymouth Moor View Nottingham North Hayes and Harlington West Ham North Durham Coventry North East Arfon Birkenhead Clwyd South Luton North Nottingham East Bexhill and Battle Birmingham Hall Green Bury St Edmunds Stoke-on-Trent Central Brent North Chesterfield Darlington Bassetlaw Sedgefield Leeds North East Tottenham Wolverhampton South East Warley Sefton Central Birmingham Selly Oak Kingston Upon Hull North South Cambridgeshire Birmingham Ladywood Rochester and Strood Walsall South Redcar Boston and Skegness Leeds West Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford Wolverhampton North East Neath Sheffield South East Bolsover Manchester Withington Wrexham North Norfolk Lewisham Deptford Cambridge North West Durham Bristol West Exeter Bradford West South Suffolk Bolton North East Thirsk and Malton Streatham Birmingham Edgbaston Leyton and Wanstead Bethnal Green and Bow Bridgend Barking Mitcham and Morden City of Durham Dulwich and West Norwood Lewisham West and Penge Argyll and Bute North East Fife Edinburgh South Aberdeen South Holborn and St Pancras West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine South East Cambridgeshire Eltham
I suspect it may be to do with when the candidate's picture was first uploaded - some are "prospective", some are "target" and some are "non-target". There's signal there, but also noise.
Quite possibly.
Put it this way: Anyone who thinks Berwick-upon-Tweed is not a Conservative target hasn't been paying attention.
Ah, looks like I misunderstood the spreadsheet - I thought it was all meant to be a list of non-targets, given that it is titled 'Conservative Non Target Candidates'. Apologies.
Still plenty of anomalies, though. Boris, for example!
@Pulpstar If West Aberdeenshire & Kincardine is a non-target for the Conservatives, it raises the question where they are targeting in Scotland. That has to be comfortably one of their three best shots north of the border (not that they have any easy targets in Scotland, of course).
"Only SO can save these two MPs now by declaring them toast and thereby lifting the curse of Rogerdamus."
Interesting to think what the world would look like with Romney as President and Scotland five months into indepenance......At least mine lack ambition
One for @JackW Twitter Scotsman @TheScotsman 2m2 minutes ago World's biggest ever auction of Jacobite Rebellion artefacts to be staged in Edinburgh: http://bit.ly/1E1RcMb
@Pulpstar If West Aberdeenshire & Kincardine is a non-target for the Conservatives, it raises the question where they are targeting in Scotland. That has to be comfortably one of their three best shots north of the border (not that they have any easy targets in Scotland, of course).
Common sense tells you this list is pish (as with other seats)
@Pulpstar If West Aberdeenshire & Kincardine is a non-target for the Conservatives, it raises the question where they are targeting in Scotland. That has to be comfortably one of their three best shots north of the border (not that they have any easy targets in Scotland, of course).
Common sense tells you this list is pish (as with other seats)
Quite. It is obvious pish.
Anyone seriously think that North East Derbyshire is a target but Rochester & Strood isn't? Or that the Tories are targeting Hackney South, for heaven's sake?
@Pulpstar If West Aberdeenshire & Kincardine is a non-target for the Conservatives, it raises the question where they are targeting in Scotland. That has to be comfortably one of their three best shots north of the border (not that they have any easy targets in Scotland, of course).
Common sense tells you this list is pish (as with other seats)
I don't think it's 100% accurate. But it means something, and it would be unwise to think it was meaningless.
Getting excited about Rochester & Strood not being a target is probably unwise - until September 2014, it wouldn't have been and we have no way of knowing when it was labelled as such.
Ladbrokes Six Nations market hasn't really got going yet, but the next round of matches could be quite interesting. England should beat Italy, but the other two could go either way.
One for @JackW Twitter Scotsman @TheScotsman 2m2 minutes ago World's biggest ever auction of Jacobite Rebellion artefacts to be staged in Edinburgh: http://bit.ly/1E1RcMb
@Pulpstar If West Aberdeenshire & Kincardine is a non-target for the Conservatives, it raises the question where they are targeting in Scotland. That has to be comfortably one of their three best shots north of the border (not that they have any easy targets in Scotland, of course).
Common sense tells you this list is pish (as with other seats)
Quite. It is obvious pish.
Anyone seriously think that North East Derbyshire is a target but Rochester & Strood isn't? Or that the Tories are targeting Hackney South, for heaven's sake?
Apologies for the spam - Berwick & Tweed is most definitely in the "target" list though.
I think the definition of target is being misunderstood.
Targeted dedicated resources might be more apt.
I mean, you'd probably put the same effort in Sheffield South-East as you would in Richmond.
Well yes you'd put the same resources into Havant as Redcar, but you can't classify Rochester & Strood as either a Havant or a Redcar.
I think these sorts of lists are always being updated, but as I said, common sense tells you what is a Tory target seat, and what isn't. If the Tories aren't targeting some of the those seats then there's two possibilities
1) The Tories don't know their electoral elbow from their arse
2) The list is wrong/people are reading to much into the list.
@Pulpstar If West Aberdeenshire & Kincardine is a non-target for the Conservatives, it raises the question where they are targeting in Scotland. That has to be comfortably one of their three best shots north of the border (not that they have any easy targets in Scotland, of course).
Common sense tells you this list is pish (as with other seats)
Quite. It is obvious pish.
Anyone seriously think that North East Derbyshire is a target but Rochester & Strood isn't? Or that the Tories are targeting Hackney South, for heaven's sake?
As a voter in North East Derbyshire I'm utterly intrigued by the fact that the Conservatives think they can win it !
Zip chance imo, Natasha should have a decent personal vote I'd guess and UKIP will eat into the Conservative share.
Apologies for the spam - Berwick & Tweed is most definitely in the "target" list though.
I think the definition of target is being misunderstood.
Targeted dedicated resources might be more apt.
I mean, you'd probably put the same effort in Sheffield South-East as you would in Richmond.
Well yes you'd put the same resources into Havant as Redcar, but you can't classify Rochester & Strood as either a Havant or a Redcar.
I think these sorts of lists are always being updated, but as I said, common sense tells you what is a Tory target seat, and what isn't. If the Tories aren't targeting some of the those seats then there's two possibilities
1) The Tories don't know their electoral elbow from their arse
2) The list is wrong/people are reading to much into the list.
Why would you even start to classify Kelly Tolhurst as "Non target", even BEFORE the by-election.
Ladbrokes Six Nations market hasn't really got going yet, but the next round of matches could be quite interesting. England should beat Italy, but the other two could go either way.
I am sure there is a lot of fun inolved but is there sense and or profit in betting on what is a now a 3 horse race?
The breaking news is that WIND is reporting to the JNN the contents of the latest ARSE 2015 General Election and "JackW Dozen" Projections. (Changes From 27th January Projection) :
Con 298 (-2) .. Lab 262 (-4) .. LibDem 38 (+4) .. SNP 26 (+4) .. PC 2 .. NI 18 .. UKIP 3 (-2) .. Respect 1 .. Green 1 .. Ind 0 .. Speaker 1
Conservatives 28 seats short of a majority ......................................................................................
"JackW Dozen" - 13 seats that will shape the General Election result :
Bury North - Likely Con Hold Pudsey - Likely Con Hold Broxtowe - Likely Lab Gain Warwickshire North - Likely Lab Gain Cambridge - LibDem Hold Ipswich - TCTC Watford - Likely LibDem Gain Croydon Central - Likely Con Hold Enfield - Likely Lab Gain Cornwall North - Likely LibDem Hold from TCTC Great Yarmouth - Con Hold Vale of Glamorgan - Con Hold Ochil and South Perthshire - Likely SNP Gain
Changes From 27 Jan - Cornwall North moves from TCTC to Likely LibDem Hold.
TCTC - Too Close To Call - Less than 500 votes Likely Hold/Gain - 500 - 2500 votes Gain/Hold - Over 2500 .......................................................................................
WIND - Whimsical Independent News Division JNN - Jacobite News Network ARSE - Anonymous Random Selection of Electors
@Pulpstar If West Aberdeenshire & Kincardine is a non-target for the Conservatives, it raises the question where they are targeting in Scotland. That has to be comfortably one of their three best shots north of the border (not that they have any easy targets in Scotland, of course).
Common sense tells you this list is pish (as with other seats)
I don't think it's 100% accurate. But it means something, and it would be unwise to think it was meaningless.
Getting excited about Rochester & Strood not being a target is probably unwise - until September 2014, it wouldn't have been and we have no way of knowing when it was labelled as such.
Is Pudsey on that list? Because I know that's one of the seats the Tories will be sending the likes of me to campaign.
Looking at Mark Pack's caveat
Note: this isn’t the full list of all non-target seats for the Tories, but rather the full list of those that have been leaked. “Non-target” means either ‘we’re not going to win’ or ‘we think this is super-safe’.
Apologies for the spam - Berwick & Tweed is most definitely in the "target" list though.
I think the definition of target is being misunderstood.
Targeted dedicated resources might be more apt.
I mean, you'd probably put the same effort in Sheffield South-East as you would in Richmond.
Well yes you'd put the same resources into Havant as Redcar, but you can't classify Rochester & Strood as either a Havant or a Redcar.
I think these sorts of lists are always being updated, but as I said, common sense tells you what is a Tory target seat, and what isn't. If the Tories aren't targeting some of the those seats then there's two possibilities
1) The Tories don't know their electoral elbow from their arse
2) The list is wrong/people are reading to much into the list.
Why would you even start to classify Kelly Tolhurst as "Non target", even BEFORE the by-election.
I suspect Lord Ashcroft wasn't the only pollster to find Reckless would win in November and lose in May.
I suspect it may be to do with when the candidate's picture was first uploaded - some are "prospective", some are "target" and some are "non-target". There's signal there, but also noise.
Quite possibly.
Put it this way: Anyone who thinks Berwick-upon-Tweed is not a Conservative target hasn't been paying attention.
I don't get that? Its not on there is it?
Anyway, regardless of that list, I have backed UKIP in Eltham, I think 25s is a great price, and the candidate is one of UKIPs best
I think UKIP would have to be doing very well nationally to have a chance in Eltham.
Lab got 42% last time so UKIP would need to be making significant gains from them. At the same time UKIP would need to eat up most of the Conservative vote, which may be quite hard as some of the Con voting areas are reasonably prosperous.
At the last locals UKIP got 21% which is nowhere near enough. Getting a good 2nd place might but more realistic
As a voter in North East Derbyshire I'm utterly intrigued by the fact that the Conservatives think they can win it !
Zip chance imo, Natasha should have a decent personal vote I'd guess and UKIP will eat into the Conservative share.
I don't expect that they do think they can win it. Lee Rowley is doing a great job and is working hard, and to be fair Huw Merriman did astonishingly well there last time, but I don't think it's a realistic win. Natasha with an increased majority.
Inasmuch as they are putting effort in, it's probably a longer-term thing of trying gradually to build up support.
Apologies for the spam - Berwick & Tweed is most definitely in the "target" list though.
I think the definition of target is being misunderstood.
Targeted dedicated resources might be more apt.
I mean, you'd probably put the same effort in Sheffield South-East as you would in Richmond.
Well yes you'd put the same resources into Havant as Redcar, but you can't classify Rochester & Strood as either a Havant or a Redcar.
I think these sorts of lists are always being updated, but as I said, common sense tells you what is a Tory target seat, and what isn't. If the Tories aren't targeting some of the those seats then there's two possibilities
1) The Tories don't know their electoral elbow from their arse
2) The list is wrong/people are reading to much into the list.
Why would you even start to classify Kelly Tolhurst as "Non target", even BEFORE the by-election.
I suspect Lord Ashcroft wasn't the only pollster to find Reckless would win in November and lose in May.
Err to have it classified as "Non target" is ludicrous though with Reckless as incumbent, I don't care what private polling anyone has on the issue. I say this being odds against the Tories here and reasonably confident he'll lose the seat.
I suspect it may be to do with when the candidate's picture was first uploaded - some are "prospective", some are "target" and some are "non-target". There's signal there, but also noise.
Quite possibly.
Put it this way: Anyone who thinks Berwick-upon-Tweed is not a Conservative target hasn't been paying attention.
I don't get that? Its not on there is it?
Anyway, regardless of that list, I have backed UKIP in Eltham, I think 25s is a great price, and the candidate is one of UKIPs best
I think UKIP would have to be doing very well nationally to have a chance in Eltham.
Lab got 42% last time so UKIP would need to be making significant gains from them. At the same time UKIP would need to eat up most of the Conservative vote, which may be quite hard as some of the Con voting areas are reasonably prosperous.
At the last locals UKIP got 21% which is nowhere near enough. Getting a good 2nd place might but more realistic
Saw the Labour candidate out trudging a safe Labour area delivering his leaflets on Saturday - by himself. Not knocking - just posting through letterboxes.
The question is to what extent we should remain militarised to the extent that we are. Why is Britain expected to do proportionately more than most countries?
All countries have their foundation myths, the stories their people tell themselves about who they are and how they are different to other people of other countries.
For modern Britain, all our stories go back to fighting Germany in the two World Wars. Plucky Britain standing alone* against the odds.
The expectation is all self-generated, and it comes from that story that we tell ourselves, about how we are different from the French, who surrendered, the Yanks, who were late, etc
If we were to retreat from a global military role disproportionate to our population then we'd need to have new stories to tell ourselves.
* The Empire is almost completely overlooked in these stories.
We have a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. That's probably why we're expected to do more.
Funny sort of foundation myth to be based on the brief aberration of British-German enmity between 1914 and 1945. For the rest of the last 400 years we and the German-speaking countries have been most decidedly on the same side. Marlborough's armies were mainly Austrian in composition.
Agree. It's a silly notion. We celebrate 1066 where arguably 'we' lost. Civil wars mark the birth of nations.
Saw the Labour candidate out trudging a safe Labour area delivering his leaflets on Saturday - by himself. Not knocking - just posting through letterboxes.
Saw the Labour candidate out trudging a safe Labour area delivering his leaflets on Saturday - by himself. Not knocking - just posting through letterboxes.
If that list is half right then over 4.5 seats for UKIP w Coral is a great bet at Even money
I honestly can't not see the Conservatives putting an effort in in Rochester & Strood.
That would be odd..
Mind you shrewdies on here are only excited about it because of one poll from a pollster that makes huge rickets, and look how badly they read the by election!
Apologies for the spam - Berwick & Tweed is most definitely in the "target" list though.
I think the definition of target is being misunderstood.
Targeted dedicated resources might be more apt.
I mean, you'd probably put the same effort in Sheffield South-East as you would in Richmond.
Well yes you'd put the same resources into Havant as Redcar, but you can't classify Rochester & Strood as either a Havant or a Redcar.
I think these sorts of lists are always being updated, but as I said, common sense tells you what is a Tory target seat, and what isn't. If the Tories aren't targeting some of the those seats then there's two possibilities
1) The Tories don't know their electoral elbow from their arse
2) The list is wrong/people are reading to much into the list.
Why would you even start to classify Kelly Tolhurst as "Non target", even BEFORE the by-election.
I suspect Lord Ashcroft wasn't the only pollster to find Reckless would win in November and lose in May.
Err to have it classified as "Non target" is ludicrous though with Reckless as incumbent, I don't care what private polling anyone has on the issue. I say this being odds against the Tories here and reasonably confident he'll lose the seat.
Hence me saying the list is pish.
The only way the Tories win the seat is through hard work (or targeting)
@Pulpstar If West Aberdeenshire & Kincardine is a non-target for the Conservatives, it raises the question where they are targeting in Scotland. That has to be comfortably one of their three best shots north of the border (not that they have any easy targets in Scotland, of course).
Common sense tells you this list is pish (as with other seats)
I don't think it's 100% accurate. But it means something, and it would be unwise to think it was meaningless.
Getting excited about Rochester & Strood not being a target is probably unwise - until September 2014, it wouldn't have been and we have no way of knowing when it was labelled as such.
I cant believe it isn't a target seat either, but I disagree with your reasoning... whether Reckless had stayed or defected this was going to be a close run thing that he Tories should have targeted way before September 2014
The breaking news is that WIND is reporting to the JNN the contents of the latest ARSE 2015 General Election and "JackW Dozen" Projections. (Changes From 27th January Projection) :
Con 298 (-2) .. Lab 262 (-4) .. LibDem 38 (+4) .. SNP 26 (+4) .. PC 2 .. NI 18 .. UKIP 3 (-2) .. Respect 1 .. Green 1 .. Ind 0 .. Speaker 1
Conservatives 28 seats short of a majority ......................................................................................
"JackW Dozen" - 13 seats that will shape the General Election result :
Bury North - Likely Con Hold Pudsey - Likely Con Hold Broxtowe - Likely Lab Gain Warwickshire North - Likely Lab Gain Cambridge - LibDem Hold Ipswich - TCTC Watford - Likely LibDem Gain Croydon Central - Likely Con Hold Enfield - Likely Lab Gain Cornwall North - Likely LibDem Hold from TCTC Great Yarmouth - Con Hold Vale of Glamorgan - Con Hold Ochil and South Perthshire - Likely SNP Gain
Changes From 27 Jan - Cornwall North moves from TCTC to Likely LibDem Hold.
TCTC - Too Close To Call - Less than 500 votes Likely Hold/Gain - 500 - 2500 votes Gain/Hold - Over 2500 .......................................................................................
WIND - Whimsical Independent News Division JNN - Jacobite News Network ARSE - Anonymous Random Selection of Electors
If Labour can't take Bury North, then they're in for a very rotten night indeed.
If JackW is right we could see some CiF posters going into orbit, without benefit of rockets! Because, even allowing for Antifrank’s blog on who the LD “survivors” will be, that looks like a continuation of the Coalition as the only viable Government.
Apologies for the spam - Berwick & Tweed is most definitely in the "target" list though.
I think the definition of target is being misunderstood.
Targeted dedicated resources might be more apt.
I mean, you'd probably put the same effort in Sheffield South-East as you would in Richmond.
Well yes you'd put the same resources into Havant as Redcar, but you can't classify Rochester & Strood as either a Havant or a Redcar.
I think these sorts of lists are always being updated, but as I said, common sense tells you what is a Tory target seat, and what isn't. If the Tories aren't targeting some of the those seats then there's two possibilities
1) The Tories don't know their electoral elbow from their arse
2) The list is wrong/people are reading to much into the list.
Why would you even start to classify Kelly Tolhurst as "Non target", even BEFORE the by-election.
I suspect Lord Ashcroft wasn't the only pollster to find Reckless would win in November and lose in May.
Err to have it classified as "Non target" is ludicrous though with Reckless as incumbent, I don't care what private polling anyone has on the issue. I say this being odds against the Tories here and reasonably confident he'll lose the seat.
Hence me saying the list is pish.
The only way the Tories win the seat is through hard work (or targeting)
Why even bother to classify it as non target, "target" is less characters.
No wonder they didn't take Solihull last time round !
Saw the Labour candidate out trudging a safe Labour area delivering his leaflets on Saturday - by himself. Not knocking - just posting through letterboxes.
Oh dear ....The sadness of the lonely candidate.
Mind you Nick Palmer hears good things for Labour in the seat .... perhaps he means they'll comfortably keep their deposit.
If JackW is right we could see some CiF posters going into orbit, without benefit of rockets! Because, even allowing for Antifrank’s blog on who the LD “survivors” will be, that looks like a continuation of the Coalition as the only viable Government.
Continuity coalition has always been my wager. No new downside for the LDs but stay in government.
Clegg asks for Lords reform, new council tax bands, some schools fa la la and in return agrees to EU referendum and 5 more years of the same with 650 MPs under new boundaries.
I think the Cons would agree to 2-3 council bands as it could mean a reduction in bills for low - middle sized properties in their areas.
Apologies for the spam - Berwick & Tweed is most definitely in the "target" list though.
I think the definition of target is being misunderstood.
Targeted dedicated resources might be more apt.
I mean, you'd probably put the same effort in Sheffield South-East as you would in Richmond.
Well yes you'd put the same resources into Havant as Redcar, but you can't classify Rochester & Strood as either a Havant or a Redcar.
I think these sorts of lists are always being updated, but as I said, common sense tells you what is a Tory target seat, and what isn't. If the Tories aren't targeting some of the those seats then there's two possibilities
1) The Tories don't know their electoral elbow from their arse
2) The list is wrong/people are reading to much into the list.
Why would you even start to classify Kelly Tolhurst as "Non target", even BEFORE the by-election.
I suspect Lord Ashcroft wasn't the only pollster to find Reckless would win in November and lose in May.
Err to have it classified as "Non target" is ludicrous though with Reckless as incumbent, I don't care what private polling anyone has on the issue. I say this being odds against the Tories here and reasonably confident he'll lose the seat.
Hence me saying the list is pish.
The only way the Tories win the seat is through hard work (or targeting)
Why even bother to classify it as non target, "target" is less characters.
No wonder they didn't take Solihull last time round !
I keep on telling you Lorely Burt is a great campaigner.
Why do you think they managed to take seats with larger majorities than Solihull?
The breaking news is that WIND is reporting to the JNN the contents of the latest ARSE 2015 General Election and "JackW Dozen" Projections. (Changes From 27th January Projection) :
Con 298 (-2) .. Lab 262 (-4) .. LibDem 38 (+4) .. SNP 26 (+4) .. PC 2 .. NI 18 .. UKIP 3 (-2) .. Respect 1 .. Green 1 .. Ind 0 .. Speaker 1
Conservatives 28 seats short of a majority ......................................................................................
"JackW Dozen" - 13 seats that will shape the General Election result :
Bury North - Likely Con Hold Pudsey - Likely Con Hold Broxtowe - Likely Lab Gain Warwickshire North - Likely Lab Gain Cambridge - LibDem Hold Ipswich - TCTC Watford - Likely LibDem Gain Croydon Central - Likely Con Hold Enfield - Likely Lab Gain Cornwall North - Likely LibDem Hold from TCTC Great Yarmouth - Con Hold Vale of Glamorgan - Con Hold Ochil and South Perthshire - Likely SNP Gain
Changes From 27 Jan - Cornwall North moves from TCTC to Likely LibDem Hold.
TCTC - Too Close To Call - Less than 500 votes Likely Hold/Gain - 500 - 2500 votes Gain/Hold - Over 2500 .......................................................................................
WIND - Whimsical Independent News Division JNN - Jacobite News Network ARSE - Anonymous Random Selection of Electors
If Labour can't take Bury North, then they're in for a very rotten night indeed.
@Pulpstar If West Aberdeenshire & Kincardine is a non-target for the Conservatives, it raises the question where they are targeting in Scotland. That has to be comfortably one of their three best shots north of the border (not that they have any easy targets in Scotland, of course).
Common sense tells you this list is pish (as with other seats)
Quite. It is obvious pish.
Anyone seriously think that North East Derbyshire is a target but Rochester & Strood isn't? Or that the Tories are targeting Hackney South, for heaven's sake?
Pish or no it is amusing to see CCO make such an error, and I'm sure you would be most amused had someone at Labour HQ done something similar.
Everyone knows that in FPTP one has to target resources to the marginal seats where those resources will have a greater chance of affecting the outcome, but equally one is never supposed to actually tell the voters that they are in a seat that you aren't targeting.
On Sunday, Tsipras stood before the Greek parliament to give an update on what he wanted, and where he thought the negotiations were. Having spent most of last week seeing investors and assuring them "we know that we're not going to be able to deliver on all our promises to the electorate, and it is our plan to run a permanent primary budget surplus," he seemed to spin 180 degrees, and to declare that he would meet all his promises, and to make threats about collecting second world war reparations from Germany. The temperature was raised again yesterday, when the finance minister announced that, should Greece leave the Euro, then the Euro would fall apart.
It is fair to say that at the IMF in New York, and in the corridors of Europe, SYRIZA's tactics are being met with exasperation. There was a general feeling last week that a deal was broadly in reach: with maturity extensions, a moratorium on some interest payments, coupon cuts, a reduction in the required primary surplus, and the IMF taking on the role of supervising Greece. The price for all this was - of course - continued reform. (By the way, this would be a cracking deal, reducing the effective value of Greece's outstanding debt from 170% of GDP to probably just less than 100%, in real terms.)
However, I think the latest Tsipras u-turn (which was probably made to shore up his fractious coalition - many of whom are not prepared to accept supervision under any circumstances), may well have the opposite of what he was hoping. A number countries seem to be coming to the view that the Greek government will probably just renege on its promises anyway, so why give it the deal of the century? And a number of German economists have made pointed comments along the lines of (and I'm paraphrasing here) "Greece says that the Euro would fall apart if they left. We think it will fall apart if they stay."
It is still slightly more likely Greece stays in the Euro, than it goes. The Americans are putting a lot of pressure on the Athens government behind the scenes (although I think the Russians are pulling in the opposite direction). But the probability of Grexit has increased significantly since last week.
I wonder what Grexit would require procedurally on the Greek side. The conventional (?) story is that you call a bank holiday, convene parliament and vote through whatever you need. But could Tsipras get a majority for Grexit? He's leading a shaky coalition with a smallish majority that just got elected promising to stay in the Euro. It's not as if there's no alternative - they could just abide by the previous conditions and the creditors turn the taps back on.
If my assumption is right and he can't actually win a parliamentary vote on this, can he somehow do what he needs without one?
One for @JackW Twitter Scotsman @TheScotsman 2m2 minutes ago World's biggest ever auction of Jacobite Rebellion artefacts to be staged in Edinburgh: http://bit.ly/1E1RcMb
Lady Jack's shoe fetish finally takes its toll on JackW's finances, as he to thin out some of the stuff in the loft....
One for @JackW Twitter Scotsman @TheScotsman 2m2 minutes ago World's biggest ever auction of Jacobite Rebellion artefacts to be staged in Edinburgh: http://bit.ly/1E1RcMb
Lady Jack's shoe fetish finally takes its toll on JackW's finances, as he to thin out some of the stuff in the loft....
A bare loft .... a rather apt portrayal of some PBers ....
Lance Dyer @Lance63 10m10 minutes ago Albert Einstein described insanity as - 'Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result each time' Applies to Tories!
I agree with that, though the same could be said of the L/Dems and Labour.
On Topic. Mike S once again "re-arranging" data to boost Labour. At first glance I took the graph of Scots results to be placed in date order, showing a clear trend. Looking more carefully I see no such movement, just the usual random jumble giving an average SNP lead of 18% with 3 results above that & 2 below. Theres no clear evidence of the picture changing.
Rights of over one thousand prisoners breached when they were stopped from voting, says European court of clowns: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31356895
Edited extra bit: it's breaking, so there's little detail as yet.
They should emigrate to somewhere more liberal.
On topic - why has Jack's ARSE changed time schedule ?
On topic - Labour still getting thrashed - hardly a cause for celebration.
The big Tory bash last night, too busy as a top donor to contemplate his ARSE
Let me repeat the obvious point about this poll which Mike's summary of the dates of polling does not fully reflect.
It was sampled according to The Herald between 14 JANUARY and 2 February. This is a contrast with the YouGov record lead of 21 per cent for the SNP which was sampled between 29 JANUARY and 2 February. Alternatively it could be compared with some of the more recent Ashcroft constituency polling for example Dundee West showing extraordinary swings and sampled between 23-30th January. Therefore it is impossible to suggest that this TNS poll represents anything other than a different means of sampling. An earlier poll than the exisiting evidence cannot be sited as a trend not more than it can in the absence of any TNS comparison.
The anxiety to play down the extent of the political earthquake taking place in Scotland or pounce on any scrap of evidence to try and deny it is one of the more puzzling things about this site. The last time was the Panelbase survey of early January also showing an SNP lead of "only" 10 per cent. That did not turn out well for those hoping to see the green shoots of a Labour revivial!
It is far from puzzling , it is full of Tories who are deluded and cannot see beyond the M25
Genuine question: if Russia invaded our NATO allies in the Baltic States on the pretext of protecting ethnic minority Russians, what would you advocate we do?
The question is to what extent we should remain militarised to the extent that we are. Why is Britain expected to do proportionately more than most countries?
Antifrank, raises a good point. Of all the countries that are members of NATO, how many of them have actually contributed in any significant way over the last 20 years? Why, proportionally, should the UK be contributing more financially and in casualties?
London politicians love willy waving and pretending they are big shots
Comments
Clue: You won't find one, because I didn't!
Obsessed.
I don't think it has any significance whatsoever, it was probably just someone cutting and pasting names into a URL without thinking.
For modern Britain, all our stories go back to fighting Germany in the two World Wars. Plucky Britain standing alone* against the odds.
The expectation is all self-generated, and it comes from that story that we tell ourselves, about how we are different from the French, who surrendered, the Yanks, who were late, etc
If we were to retreat from a global military role disproportionate to our population then we'd need to have new stories to tell ourselves.
* The Empire is almost completely overlooked in these stories.
Alternatively some have speculated that Mrs JackW has been on manoeuvres and required a HGV pickup after completing an investment opportunity (shopping spree) in Paris ....
One of the above answers has some merit ....
In the one place they've had a chance to do something about it, they voted Ukip... South Yorkshire Tories got labour over the line in rotherham
'Why not just post the bloody (made up) numbers rather than spamming the thread with vainglorious countdowns?'
JackW called 2010 spot on,you didn't get over it.
Put it this way: Anyone who thinks Berwick-upon-Tweed is not a Conservative target hasn't been paying attention.
10.2.15 LAB 295 (313) CON 268(267) LD 29(29) UKIP 2(2) Others 56(39) (Ed is crap is PM)
I really wouldn't draw any conclusions at all from it. It's pretty obvious which seats are the prime targets or key defences, and you'd do much better to use you common-sense based on the size of the majority.
Funny sort of foundation myth to be based on the brief aberration of British-German enmity between 1914 and 1945. For the rest of the last 400 years we and the German-speaking countries have been most decidedly on the same side. Marlborough's armies were mainly Austrian in composition.
Re what we were talking about last night
Confirmed: Spider-Man heading to Marvel cinematic universe
http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/spider-man/34028/confirmed-spider-man-heading-to-marvel-cinematic-universe
Which means
Marvel changes release dates to accommodate Spider-Man
http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/marvel-cinematic-universe/34029/marvel-changes-release-dates-to-accommodate-spider-man
Is there some plan to stir up trouble there, if so then we would have no responsibility to support the Baltic states if Russia reacted, as was the case with Cyprus and Turkey.
Anyway, regardless of that list, I have backed UKIP in Eltham, I think 25s is a great price, and the candidate is one of UKIPs best
Dudley North
Cheltenham
Derby North
Morley and Outwood
Berwick-upon-Tweed
Gower
Eastbourne
Brecon and Radnorshire
Bolton West
North Warwickshire
Cardiff North
Somerton and Frome
St Ives
Walsall North
Portsmouth South
Clacton
Hove
Harrow West
Vale of Clwyd
Wells
Nottingham South
Wirral South
Solihull
Torbay
North East Derbyshire
Telford
Erewash
Delyn
Cheadle
Mid Dorset and North Poole
Chippenham
Sutton and Cheam
North Devon
Halifax
Birmingham Northfield
Chorley
Southampton Itchen
North Cornwall
Hampstead and Kilburn
St Austell and Newquay
Corby
Newcastle-under-Lyme
Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland
Colchester
Hazel Grove
Havant
Paisley and Renfrewshire South
Cynon Valley
Ross, Skye & Lochaber Conservatives
Dudley South
Wealden
Oldham East and Saddleworth
Stockton North
Poplar and Limehouse
East Lothian
Wythenshawe and Sale East
Ealing Southall
Luton South
Birmingham Hodge Hill
Edinburgh West
Walthamstow
West Bromwich East
North East Hampshire
South Ribble
Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney
St Helens South and Whiston
Braintree
Hertsmere
Lewisham East
York Central
Stoke-on-Trent North
Vauxhall
Stoke-on-Trent South
Central Ayrshire
West Bromwich West
Richmond (Yorks)
Cannock Chase
Derby South
Plymouth Moor View
Nottingham North
Hayes and Harlington
West Ham
North Durham
Coventry North East
Arfon
Birkenhead
Clwyd South
Luton North
Nottingham East
Bexhill and Battle
Birmingham Hall Green
Bury St Edmunds
Stoke-on-Trent Central
Brent North
Chesterfield
Darlington
Bassetlaw
Sedgefield
Leeds North East
Tottenham
Wolverhampton South East
Warley
Sefton Central
Birmingham Selly Oak
Kingston Upon Hull North
South Cambridgeshire
Birmingham Ladywood
Rochester and Strood
Walsall South
Redcar
Boston and Skegness
Leeds West
Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford
Wolverhampton North East
Neath
Sheffield South East
Bolsover
Manchester Withington
Wrexham
North Norfolk
Lewisham Deptford
Cambridge
North West Durham
Bristol West
Exeter
Bradford West
South Suffolk
Bolton North East
Thirsk and Malton
Streatham
Birmingham Edgbaston
Leyton and Wanstead
Bethnal Green and Bow
Bridgend
Barking
Mitcham and Morden
City of Durham
Dulwich and West Norwood
Lewisham West and Penge
Argyll and Bute
North East Fife
Edinburgh South
Aberdeen South
Holborn and St Pancras
West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine
South East Cambridgeshire
Eltham
Alot of other seats are "Prospective"
Still plenty of anomalies, though. Boris, for example!
Looks like good news for my 150/1 tip, and the lay of Kelly in Rochester
Targeted dedicated resources might be more apt.
I mean, you'd probably put the same effort in Sheffield South-East as you would in Richmond.
"Only SO can save these two MPs now by declaring them toast and thereby lifting the curse of Rogerdamus."
Interesting to think what the world would look like with Romney as President and Scotland five months into indepenance......At least mine lack ambition
Twitter
Scotsman @TheScotsman 2m2 minutes ago
World's biggest ever auction of Jacobite Rebellion artefacts to be staged in Edinburgh: http://bit.ly/1E1RcMb
I think we're safe in assuming that Havant is safe for instance but R&S...
"You've backed Anne Begg and Ian Murray ?"
You're worrying me now. That reads like you should have ended the question with an exclamation mark.
Anyone seriously think that North East Derbyshire is a target but Rochester & Strood isn't? Or that the Tories are targeting Hackney South, for heaven's sake?
Getting excited about Rochester & Strood not being a target is probably unwise - until September 2014, it wouldn't have been and we have no way of knowing when it was labelled as such.
1) The Tories don't know their electoral elbow from their arse
2) The list is wrong/people are reading to much into the list.
Zip chance imo, Natasha should have a decent personal vote I'd guess and UKIP will eat into the Conservative share.
The breaking news is that WIND is reporting to the JNN the contents of the latest ARSE 2015 General Election and "JackW Dozen" Projections. (Changes From 27th January Projection) :
Con 298 (-2) .. Lab 262 (-4) .. LibDem 38 (+4) .. SNP 26 (+4) .. PC 2 .. NI 18 .. UKIP 3 (-2) .. Respect 1 .. Green 1 .. Ind 0 .. Speaker 1
Conservatives 28 seats short of a majority
......................................................................................
"JackW Dozen" - 13 seats that will shape the General Election result :
Bury North - Likely Con Hold
Pudsey - Likely Con Hold
Broxtowe - Likely Lab Gain
Warwickshire North - Likely Lab Gain
Cambridge - LibDem Hold
Ipswich - TCTC
Watford - Likely LibDem Gain
Croydon Central - Likely Con Hold
Enfield - Likely Lab Gain
Cornwall North - Likely LibDem Hold from TCTC
Great Yarmouth - Con Hold
Vale of Glamorgan - Con Hold
Ochil and South Perthshire - Likely SNP Gain
Changes From 27 Jan - Cornwall North moves from TCTC to Likely LibDem Hold.
TCTC - Too Close To Call - Less than 500 votes
Likely Hold/Gain - 500 - 2500 votes
Gain/Hold - Over 2500
.......................................................................................
WIND - Whimsical Independent News Division
JNN - Jacobite News Network
ARSE - Anonymous Random Selection of Electors
Looking at Mark Pack's caveat
Note: this isn’t the full list of all non-target seats for the Tories, but rather the full list of those that have been leaked. “Non-target” means either ‘we’re not going to win’ or ‘we think this is super-safe’.
Lab got 42% last time so UKIP would need to be making significant gains from them. At the same time UKIP would need to eat up most of the Conservative vote, which may be quite hard as some of the Con voting areas are reasonably prosperous.
At the last locals UKIP got 21% which is nowhere near enough. Getting a good 2nd place might but more realistic
Inasmuch as they are putting effort in, it's probably a longer-term thing of trying gradually to build up support.
Mind you shrewdies on here are only excited about it because of one poll from a pollster that makes huge rickets, and look how badly they read the by election!
The only way the Tories win the seat is through hard work (or targeting)
NCiCiDPM
No wonder they didn't take Solihull last time round !
Mind you Nick Palmer hears good things for Labour in the seat .... perhaps he means they'll comfortably keep their deposit.
Clegg asks for Lords reform, new council tax bands, some schools fa la la and in return agrees to EU referendum and 5 more years of the same with 650 MPs under new boundaries.
I think the Cons would agree to 2-3 council bands as it could mean a reduction in bills for low - middle sized properties in their areas.
Why do you think they managed to take seats with larger majorities than Solihull?
I'll be "Kinnock 92" with knobs on.
More Brighton than Primrose hill.
Two of the four LibDem new holds were majorities of 3 votes and 57 votes and one of the new SNP gains was 12 votes.
Everyone knows that in FPTP one has to target resources to the marginal seats where those resources will have a greater chance of affecting the outcome, but equally one is never supposed to actually tell the voters that they are in a seat that you aren't targeting.
That would be frightfully rude.
If my assumption is right and he can't actually win a parliamentary vote on this, can he somehow do what he needs without one?
Albert Einstein described insanity as -
'Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result each time' Applies to Tories!
I agree with that, though the same could be said of the L/Dems and Labour.