This is the quandary for Tory planners. They are convinced that Ed is a loser so want to keep talking about him. Yet the new Labour media approach seems to be Ed announcing stuff. So the positives that people are taking from the Labour position are increasingly being announced by Ed.
Mike Smithson said, "I do think there’s a tendency for the Tories to over-estimate the Miliband fact and to underestimate the ongoing appeal of Labour. "
Mike - please can you define "the ongoing appeal of Labour."
It assumes they are equal weight in peoples minds. Mr Crosby's projections appear to suggest the leader matters more than the party. Also you would expect the brand ranking to track VI, so the kippers should be ahead of the LDs.
Just seen the ICM - decided to take some Con Seats, Con Votes at ~ 1.92 off the back of it. Not convinced all Betfair punters understand the electoral dynamics at play all too well.
Combining the two scores I don't think works because surely the combination is already made at least to a certain extent. If you ask about brand Labour, some element of that consideration includes its leader as with all the other parties, especially UKIP
Just seen the ICM - decided to take some Con Seats, Con Votes at ~ 1.92 off the back of it. Not convinced all Betfair punters understand the electoral dynamics at play all too well.
I think ICM sub-samples, which the Guardian have repeated, is making a lot of people think that the Tory vote to seats efficiency is going to improve a lot this election.
Even Peter Kellner has said for a while, he's convinced whomever wins the most votes, gets the most seats.
Just seen the ICM - decided to take some Con Seats, Con Votes at ~ 1.92 off the back of it. Not convinced all Betfair punters understand the electoral dynamics at play all too well.
I think ICM sub-samples, which the Guardian have repeated, is making a lot of people think that the Tory vote to seats efficiency is going to improve a lot this election.
Even Peter Kellner has said for a while, he's convinced whomever wins the most votes, gets the most seats.
The point is that I've got the other side of the Tory vote/seat switcheroo at ~ 40-1 Con most seats currently at 1.72 so buying at 1.9 is good even with the 5% comission. Will need to update the votes/seats spreadsheet at home but I'm getting nicely green on all the options.
Combining the two scores I don't think works because surely the combination is already made at least to a certain extent. If you ask about brand Labour, some element of that consideration includes its leader as with all the other parties, especially UKIP
But they come as a package. What they show is Labour should have replaced Ed when they had the chance.
Could there be a Con-Lab coalition where they get ministers for the things they are supposedly strong on like NHS and Welfare, and the tories get Chancellor + Defence? (+education IMHO) Is that sort of thing actually what quite a lot of voters want?!
Could there be a Con-Lab coalition where they get ministers for the things they are supposedly strong on like NHS and Welfare, and the tories get Chancellor + Defence? (+education IMHO) Is that sort of thing actually what quite a lot of voters want?!
Could there be a Con-Lab coalition where they get ministers for the things they are supposedly strong on like NHS and Welfare, and the tories get Chancellor + Defence? (+education IMHO) Is that sort of thing actually what quite a lot of voters want?!
Think we'd probably need a good old fashioned war for that one.
GE2015 isn't about brands, or Ed Miliband, or Cameron. Like GE2010, it's about whether the country wants to face reality, or bury its collective heads in the sand and pretend that all the difficult decisions can be fudged.
The answer in 2010 was ambiguous, but since then we seem to have gone backwards somewhat in the public's engagement with reality. In some ways this is a testament to the success of the coalition, which has pushed concerns about the economy down the priority list. In any case denial of reality is not just a UK phenomenon; all around Europe you can see a reluctance to accept that there is no alternative to policies which cause pain in the short-term.
We have been here before, of course: for a decade and a half from the mid-1960s, everyone could see what was wrong but they couldn't bring themselves to fix it. We may well be in for another decade or so of decline, if we repeat the same kind of mistake now.
On a more positive note, though, the fact that Ed Miliband's brand of incoherent, populist, anti-business nonsense is near-universally derided even by Labour supporters is quite encouraging. On the morning of May 8th we shall see whether sanity has prevailed.
Just seen the ICM - decided to take some Con Seats, Con Votes at ~ 1.92 off the back of it. Not convinced all Betfair punters understand the electoral dynamics at play all too well.
I think ICM sub-samples, which the Guardian have repeated, is making a lot of people think that the Tory vote to seats efficiency is going to improve a lot this election.
Even Peter Kellner has said for a while, he's convinced whomever wins the most votes, gets the most seats.
That clearly can't be true at the absolute margins where the parties are within a couple of seats of each other. Whether it's Con 281 Lab 280 or Lab 281 Con 280 the national shares will be almost identical.
Combining the two scores I don't think works because surely the combination is already made at least to a certain extent. If you ask about brand Labour, some element of that consideration includes its leader as with all the other parties, especially UKIP
But they come as a package. What they show is Labour should have replaced Ed when they had the chance.
Hur hur hur.....
They come as a package precisely and yet that package overall is still seen as positive and leading on average in polls, besides any other leader would have capitulated Blair style or have been equally savaged by the press
Just seen the ICM - decided to take some Con Seats, Con Votes at ~ 1.92 off the back of it. Not convinced all Betfair punters understand the electoral dynamics at play all too well.
I think ICM sub-samples, which the Guardian have repeated, is making a lot of people think that the Tory vote to seats efficiency is going to improve a lot this election.
Even Peter Kellner has said for a while, he's convinced whomever wins the most votes, gets the most seats.
That clearly can't be true at the absolute margins where the parties are within a couple of seats of each other. Whether it's Con 281 Lab 280 or Lab 281 Con 280 the national shares will be almost identical.
This is true.
This is what he wrote
No longer. Uniform swing is now worse than useless. It is positively misleading. In particular, Labour can no longer hope to emerge as the largest party next May, even if it trails Conservatives significantly in votes....
...All that said, the overall conclusion is clear: Britain-wide uniform swing projections won’t work this time; and, unless the total votes won by Labour and the Conservatives are extremely close, it is pretty certain that the party with the more votes will end up with the more seats. Labour can forget dreams of ending up the largest party even if it wins a million fewer votes than the Tories.
Just seen the ICM - decided to take some Con Seats, Con Votes at ~ 1.92 off the back of it. Not convinced all Betfair punters understand the electoral dynamics at play all too well.
I think ICM sub-samples, which the Guardian have repeated, is making a lot of people think that the Tory vote to seats efficiency is going to improve a lot this election.
Even Peter Kellner has said for a while, he's convinced whomever wins the most votes, gets the most seats.
That clearly can't be true at the absolute margins where the parties are within a couple of seats of each other. Whether it's Con 281 Lab 280 or Lab 281 Con 280 the national shares will be almost identical.
This is true.
This is what he wrote
No longer. Uniform swing is now worse than useless. It is positively misleading. In particular, Labour can no longer hope to emerge as the largest party next May, even if it trails Conservatives significantly in votes....
...All that said, the overall conclusion is clear: Britain-wide uniform swing projections won’t work this time; and, unless the total votes won by Labour and the Conservatives are extremely close, it is pretty certain that the party with the more votes will end up with the more seats. Labour can forget dreams of ending up the largest party even if it wins a million fewer votes than the Tories.
Having built up a big green on Conservative votes, Labour seats by backing those two options I've laid off the middle directly in the Electoral Bias market and used that market to good effect to build green elsewhere - been a bit of a gift that particular market.
Its not the Blue element thats hell. Its keeping up with the pace of posts. Some of us have (a) a job and (b) actual politics to be getting on with. I do like dipping in and out though
GE2015 isn't about brands, or Ed Miliband, or Cameron. Like GE2010, it's about whether the country wants to face reality, or bury its collective heads in the sand and pretend that all the difficult decisions can be fudged.
The answer in 2010 was ambiguous, but since then we seem to have gone backwards somewhat in the public's engagement with reality. In some ways this is a testament to the success of the coalition, which has pushed concerns about the economy down the priority list. In any case denial of reality is not just a UK phenomenon; all around Europe you can see a reluctance to accept that there is no alternative to policies which cause pain in the short-term.
We have been here before, of course: for a decade and a half from the mid-1960s, everyone could see what was wrong but they couldn't bring themselves to fix it. We may well be in for another decade or so of decline, if we repeat the same kind of mistake now.
On a more positive note, though, the fact that Ed Miliband's brand of incoherent, populist, anti-business nonsense is near-universally derided even by Labour supporters is quite encouraging. On the morning of May 8th we shall see whether sanity has prevailed.
Wrong.
GE2015 is about perception. People are exhausted listening to prattle about deficit, debt, structural this, inflation that.
GE2015 is about head vs heart, competence vs compassion.
We have established that all political parties are the same (copyright:R Brand, Church of England).
So it becomes a question of whether you are willing to accept more nastiness and a continued recovery, albeit you understand it is the "wrong type of recovery"; or are happy to risk the economy stalling, and us ending up back where we started, but aiming for the "right kind of recovery".
A couple of years can make a lot of difference. WIth UKIP not in the frame it used to be the Tories that were the most toxic. The difference being that most voters knew more than enough about the Tories whereas chances are apart from the smearing propaganda that both parties have suffered they actually don't know a great deal about UKIP.:
Labour is less 'toxic' to voters than Conservatives, says poll
Boost for Miliband as 70% leave door open for party while 42% say that they would never vote for a Tory government
I have received nothing through my letterbox despite my seat changing hands in the last two 'wave elections' (became Tory last election, became Labour in 1997).
I do live in a very Conservative area, though, so maybe the parties are more sophisticated at targeting than I believe.
It looks like Davis Love III will be the US captain for the 2016 Ryder Cup in Hazeltine Minnesota. Initial reaction has been largely negative, as folks were expecting Azinger or Couples. Player reaction is more positive.
The wounds from 2012 in Medinah are still very very deep here.
Mike Smithson said, "I do think there’s a tendency for the Tories to over-estimate the Miliband fact and to underestimate the ongoing appeal of Labour. "
Mike - please can you define "the ongoing appeal of Labour."
GE2015 isn't about brands, or Ed Miliband, or Cameron. Like GE2010, it's about whether the country wants to face reality, or bury its collective heads in the sand and pretend that all the difficult decisions can be fudged.
The answer in 2010 was ambiguous, but since then we seem to have gone backwards somewhat in the public's engagement with reality. In some ways this is a testament to the success of the coalition, which has pushed concerns about the economy down the priority list. In any case denial of reality is not just a UK phenomenon; all around Europe you can see a reluctance to accept that there is no alternative to policies which cause pain in the short-term.
We have been here before, of course: for a decade and a half from the mid-1960s, everyone could see what was wrong but they couldn't bring themselves to fix it. We may well be in for another decade or so of decline, if we repeat the same kind of mistake now.
On a more positive note, though, the fact that Ed Miliband's brand of incoherent, populist, anti-business nonsense is near-universally derided even by Labour supporters is quite encouraging. On the morning of May 8th we shall see whether sanity has prevailed.
Wrong.
GE2015 is about perception. People are exhausted listening to prattle about deficit, debt, structural this, inflation that.
GE2015 is about head vs heart, competence vs compassion.
We have established that all political parties are the same (copyright:R Brand, Church of England).
So it becomes a question of whether you are willing to accept more nastiness and a continued recovery, albeit you understand it is the "wrong type of recovery"; or are happy to risk the economy stalling, and us ending up back where we started, but aiming for the "right kind of recovery".
Not sure most people have even engaged at the level you are describing. Most voters barely aware there's an election.
I have received nothing through my letterbox despite my seat changing hands in the last two 'wave elections' (became Tory last election, became Labour in 1997).
I do live in a very Conservative area, though, so maybe the parties are more sophisticated at targeting than I believe.
They are. I live in a seat, that the Lib Dems are in desperate need of Tory tactical voters, it is astonishing the levels they are going to target voters.
I have received nothing through my letterbox despite my seat changing hands in the last two 'wave elections' (became Tory last election, became Labour in 1997).
I do hope that the bishop who was in the lunchtime news on R4 protesting that nothing in what the Church of England says in its letter has any relevance to aligning with any political party (or to avoid any particular party for that matter,) understands that to speak falsely is sinful. It is absolutely clear to me that the letter is a big hint not to vote for one particular party.
Perhaps its time to investigate the Church and what it gets up to, I am sure there is a whole heap of hypocrisy to be uncovered.
Ladbrokes' 5/1 on Con minority government looks like quite a good value bet to me.
Anyone else?
Con/LD at 6/1 looks fairly tasty too. I am rather stoked up on a Lab-LD-SNP coalition which with hindsight may have been one of my rasher moves given all that Sturgeon has been saying lately.
I do hope that bishop who was in the lunchtime news on R4 protesting that nothing in what the Church of England says in its lretter has any relevance to aligninging with any political party (or to avoid any particular party for that matter,) understands that to speak falsely is sinful.
It's worth reading the (very lengthy) letter. I disagree with large tracts of it, but it's evidently received a lot of thought. You'd be hard-pushed to describe it as particularly pro- any one party though it does have a long section saying how much they like the idea of the Big Society as espoused by the Conservatives at the last election.
It is fair to say that the style of politics as practised by UKIP would not fit very well with the ambitions of the bishops as expressed in that letter.
This is the quandary for Tory planners. They are convinced that Ed is a loser so want to keep talking about him. Yet the new Labour media approach seems to be Ed announcing stuff. So the positives that people are taking from the Labour position are increasingly being announced by Ed.
You're assuming that the warm glow about Labour is related to their policies.
I could believe in the idea of a popular leader having the ability to drag his or her party up to success but not a "less unpopular" one like Cameron.
Don't forget Cameron's satisfaction numbers always include the universal support he has amongst current Conservative voters. In the last Ipsos Mori Cameron's net satisfaction numbers for non Conservative voters was -53, that is only slightly better than Miliband's non Labour total of -58.
It's a same story for the party brands, Labour may be "less unpopular" than the Conservatives but if they're still both in negative territory, then it isn't going to be much of an asset. People aren't going to come out in numbers to vote for a party that they dislike a bit less.
Just seen the ICM - decided to take some Con Seats, Con Votes at ~ 1.92 off the back of it. Not convinced all Betfair punters understand the electoral dynamics at play all too well.
I think ICM sub-samples, which the Guardian have repeated, is making a lot of people think that the Tory vote to seats efficiency is going to improve a lot this election.
Even Peter Kellner has said for a while, he's convinced whomever wins the most votes, gets the most seats.
That clearly can't be true at the absolute margins where the parties are within a couple of seats of each other. Whether it's Con 281 Lab 280 or Lab 281 Con 280 the national shares will be almost identical.
This is true.
This is what he wrote
No longer. Uniform swing is now worse than useless. It is positively misleading. In particular, Labour can no longer hope to emerge as the largest party next May, even if it trails Conservatives significantly in votes....
...All that said, the overall conclusion is clear: Britain-wide uniform swing projections won’t work this time; and, unless the total votes won by Labour and the Conservatives are extremely close, it is pretty certain that the party with the more votes will end up with the more seats. Labour can forget dreams of ending up the largest party even if it wins a million fewer votes than the Tories.
You only have to look at the way so many Tories on here react to Mike's statement about the on-going appeal of labour to understand why so many people in this country could never vote Tory.
I do hope that bishop who was in the lunchtime news on R4 protesting that nothing in what the Church of England says in its lretter has any relevance to aligninging with any political party (or to avoid any particular party for that matter,) understands that to speak falsely is sinful.
It's worth reading the (very lengthy) letter. I disagree with large tracts of it, but it's evidently received a lot of thought. You'd be hard-pushed to describe it as particularly pro- any one party though it does have a long section saying how much they like the idea of the Big Society as espoused by the Conservatives at the last election.
It is fair to say that the style of politics as practised by UKIP would not fit very well with the ambitions of the bishops as expressed in that letter.
I have only read the BBC take and assume its a fair reflection of the whole. Frankly the bishops should butt out of politics, time for them to lose their seats in the Lords and then they can say what they like. They have made me very angry and that's not good considering I have only just started to go to church again on a infrequent basis.
This is the quandary for Tory planners. They are convinced that Ed is a loser so want to keep talking about him. Yet the new Labour media approach seems to be Ed announcing stuff. So the positives that people are taking from the Labour position are increasingly being announced by Ed.
You're assuming that the warm glow about Labour is related to their policies.
I don't think it is particularly.
Nope, it's a reflection on what people think about the Tories.
I do hope that bishop who was in the lunchtime news on R4 protesting that nothing in what the Church of England says in its lretter has any relevance to aligninging with any political party (or to avoid any particular party for that matter,) understands that to speak falsely is sinful.
It's worth reading the (very lengthy) letter. I disagree with large tracts of it, but it's evidently received a lot of thought. You'd be hard-pushed to describe it as particularly pro- any one party though it does have a long section saying how much they like the idea of the Big Society as espoused by the Conservatives at the last election.
It is fair to say that the style of politics as practised by UKIP would not fit very well with the ambitions of the bishops as expressed in that letter.
I have only read the BBC take and assume its a fair reflection of the whole. Frankly the bishops should but out of politics, time for them to lose their seats in the Lords and then they can say what they like. They have made me very angry and that's not good considering I have only just started to go to church again on a infrequent basis.
Ladbrokes' 5/1 on Con minority government looks like quite a good value bet to me.
Anyone else?
I don't like it. There are 3 ways that happens:
1. The Tories win 324 seats, or a similar number so close to 326 they govern alone but as a minority. 2. The Tories win 318 seats, or a similar number not close enough to govern alone but they form a government with the DUP or another non-LD party. 3. The Tories win 310 seats, or a similar number requiring LD support for a government AND the LDs don't demand another full coalition. 4. Another non-LD party wins a surprising number of seats and agrees to assist the Tories without a formal coalition. Presumably a 'non-aggression pact' with the SNP in return for stuff.
The first two cases are, in my view, very unlikely. The third is also pretty unlikely since the LDs probably won't go for it. I think you are therefore betting on too narrow a band of seats for the Tories to win. The wildcard is the SNP, but I think they know their supporters wouldn't forgive them for 'propping up' a Tory government however good the deal.
Anything below 310ish seats the Tories need the LDs, which likely means a coalition. Anything above 325 seats isn't a Tory minority. I think it's too tight to bet on for my liking.
Personally I'm on Lab Minority at 13/2, though I might nab some Tory/LD too if 6/1 is still available.
I do hope that bishop who was in the lunchtime news on R4 protesting that nothing in what the Church of England says in its lretter has any relevance to aligninging with any political party (or to avoid any particular party for that matter,) understands that to speak falsely is sinful.
It's worth reading the (very lengthy) letter. I disagree with large tracts of it, but it's evidently received a lot of thought. You'd be hard-pushed to describe it as particularly pro- any one party though it does have a long section saying how much they like the idea of the Big Society as espoused by the Conservatives at the last election.
It is fair to say that the style of politics as practised by UKIP would not fit very well with the ambitions of the bishops as expressed in that letter.
I have only read the BBC take and assume its a fair reflection of the whole. Frankly the bishops should but out of politics, time for them to lose their seats in the Lords and then they can say what they like. They have made me very angry and that's not good considering I have only just started to go to church again on a infrequent basis.
You only have to look at the way so many Tories on here react to Mike's statement about the on-going appeal of labour to understand why so many people in this country could never vote Tory.
Can you present some examples about the "so many Tories"?
The posts I've seem suggest it is brand/reputation rather than specific policies that drive that advantage. I don't think that's particularly unreasonable.
Given the Queen is the head of the Church Of England haven't the bishops now compromised her constitutionally?i do hope they consulted their monarch or we may have a rerun of 'Who will rid me of these turbulent priests'.
If you're going to do something like that, perhaps more worthwhile to look at the figures for "swing" voters, who might be more likely to be swayed by such considerations:
It's interesting that, with the exception of UKIP/Farage the figures for the swing voters are more positive for all of the combinations of parties and leaders. Perhaps the centre ground of British politics is not as bitter, cynical and negative as we tend to think?
If Tory + Lib Dem are in a coalition, but its a minority Gov't what the hell happens to bookie payouts ?
That (and still more so Lab+LD) is a distinct possibility. I think that they should pay out as coalitions between those parties rather than Con Min or Lab Min, but the scope for argument is considerable.
If you're going to do something like that, perhaps more worthwhile to look at the figures for "swing" voters, who might be more likely to be swayed by such considerations:
It's interesting that, with the exception of UKIP/Farage the figures for the swing voters are more positive for all of the combinations of parties and leaders. Perhaps the centre ground of British politics is not as bitter, cynical and negative as we tend to think?
You need to be a bit careful, Ashcroft's definition of 'swing' voters is rather eccentric - it is not the centre ground (i.e the old sense of Con/Lab swing voters), but anyone who says they might change their vote. That lumps together (for example) Labour voters tempted by the Greens with Con voters tempted by UKIP, and it's not obvious to me that that is a very useful classification.
Given the Queen is the head of the Church Of England haven't the bishops now compromised her constitutionally?i do hope they consulted their monarch or we may have a rerun of 'Who will rid me of these turbulent priests'.
That couldn't happen today - parking near Canterbury Cathedral is impossible
If Tory + Lib Dem are in a coalition, but its a minority Gov't what the hell happens to bookie payouts ?
That (and still more so Lab+LD) is a distinct possibility. I think that they should pay out as coalitions between those parties rather than Con Min or Lab Min, but the scope for argument is considerable.
They should pay out. The bet says nothing about coalitions commanding an absolute majority of the HoC, just that that type of coalition forms the next government.
If no government can be formed, I assume the Conservatives would run a minority government until the second election. (fixed parliament willing)
Otherwise I agree that I can't see many other scenarios where the Conservatives would end up running a minority government. They wouldn't have enough allies in the House of Commons to pass pretty much any of their manifesto.
On topic. If we are listing parties according to their relative levels of distaste to voters, we now have the LDs more disliked than Labour AND the Conservatives. Ironic or a game changer?
You only have to look at the way so many Tories on here react to Mike's statement about the on-going appeal of labour to understand why so many people in this country could never vote Tory.
There is something cynical and sinister about priests who hide behind and manipulate 'the wishes' of an invisible god to further their political goals. The Church's intervention today is wrong and they should be severely castigated by HRM. They have seriously overstepped their bounds.
If no government can be formed, I assume the Conservatives would run a minority government until the second election. (fixed parliament willing)
Otherwise I agree that I can't see many other scenarios where the Conservatives would end up running a minority government. They wouldn't have enough allies in the House of Commons to pass pretty much any of their manifesto.
This. It seems likely that whats left of the LibDems will be politically some way to the left of their current intake. Which makes an ongoing Con-LD coalition unlikely and I'd be surprised if it got to a majority in seats even if by some miracle Clegg gets reelected stays leader and carries the party back to Shapps knocking shop.
I can see Cameron trying to carry on alone with sub-300 (or even sub-290 seats) if Labour have been mauled by the SNP and there isn't an obvious alternative government. But I don't think it would last long into the new parliament even if it passes the inevitable confidence vote on day 1.
If you're going to do something like that, perhaps more worthwhile to look at the figures for "swing" voters, who might be more likely to be swayed by such considerations:
It's interesting that, with the exception of UKIP/Farage the figures for the swing voters are more positive for all of the combinations of parties and leaders. Perhaps the centre ground of British politics is not as bitter, cynical and negative as we tend to think?
Given the Queen is the head of the Church Of England haven't the bishops now compromised her constitutionally?i do hope they consulted their monarch or we may have a rerun of 'Who will rid me of these turbulent priests'.
That couldn't happen today - parking near Canterbury Cathedral is impossible
They can walk from Canterbury West (less than an hour from London now on a good connection)! It will limber themselves up before the main event!
Mr. B, surely the knights could be dropped off outside the Cathedral?
Mr. B [part 2], indeed, the modern day 'caliphate' is far less civilised than perhaps every previous iteration.
I got a fine for opening my car door, while in a queue of traffic at the lights, to let my wife out. I happened to (partially) be In one of those dotted yellow boxes at the bus stop. The contention was that I must have been 'parked' to let my wife out, and parking in a bus stop is an offence. The door to the car was open for maybe 5 seconds but they had a lovely image from the nearby camera.
The worst thing is I couldn't find either the time or energy to fight it (other than an email objection which I'm sure was rejected by robot), so I was just left with seething resentment at my local authority.
I wish I was that young. Well that's livened the election up. I wonder if you can put his words to the Lily Allen song? Interesting to see if it goes viral too!
Mr. Anorak, the tyranny of jobsworths is a horrid thing indeed.
Incidentally, if we had a space cannon it would be able to destroy Canterbury from hundreds of miles away. I bet the Coalition's regretting not funding my important work now.
There is something cynical and sinister about priests who hide behind and manipulate 'the wishes' of an invisible god to further their political goals. The Church's intervention today is wrong and they should be severely castigated by HRM. They have seriously overstepped their bounds.
Mr. B, surely the knights could be dropped off outside the Cathedral?.
I believe there's a Park-n-Ride scheme.
"Will no one rid me of these turbulent priests?"
"Only if they validate parking and drop us off right at the door, have enough space for sword storage and will wait to take us back to our car afterwards."
Mr. Anorak, the tyranny of jobsworths is a horrid thing indeed.
Incidentally, if we had a space cannon it would be able to destroy Canterbury from hundreds of miles away. I bet the Coalition's regretting not funding my important work now.
If you do that Dave will be another seat down. Perhaps not a good idea in the circumstances?
I wish I was that young. Well that's livened the election up. I wonder if you can put his words to the Lily Allen song? Interesting to see if it goes viral too!
Redo a certain Pink Floyd song: "Hey! TV! Leave UKIP alone"
Mr. P, Ant and Dec host: Vote Silly, Get Mili - ITV's ground-breaking new reality TV show as fifty million people take part in deciding who gets to govern Britain.
Comments
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/09/22/explaining-the-ed-miliband-polling-paradox/
Ed on the NHS (don't mention Wales)
Ed on business (don't mention real business people)
Ed on tax (don't mentions Ed's tax)
Con & Cameron -15.44
Lab & Miliband -18.12
Lib Dems & Clegg -35.57
UKIP & Farage -54.12
Labour plus Ed brand = -18.12
LibDems plus Clegg = -35.57
UKIP plus Farage = -54.12
What people least dislike is the Tories led by Cameron, as a package.
Mike - please can you define "the ongoing appeal of Labour."
Just seen the ICM - decided to take some Con Seats, Con Votes at ~ 1.92 off the back of it. Not convinced all Betfair punters understand the electoral dynamics at play all too well.
Even Peter Kellner has said for a while, he's convinced whomever wins the most votes, gets the most seats.
Hur hur hur.....
Could there be a Con-Lab coalition where they get ministers for the things they are supposedly strong on like NHS and Welfare, and the tories get Chancellor + Defence? (+education IMHO) Is that sort of thing actually what quite a lot of voters want?!
Can't remember if i'd said hello but thought i'd introduce myself just in case. Red supporter usually found ranting on LL about subjects various.
The answer in 2010 was ambiguous, but since then we seem to have gone backwards somewhat in the public's engagement with reality. In some ways this is a testament to the success of the coalition, which has pushed concerns about the economy down the priority list. In any case denial of reality is not just a UK phenomenon; all around Europe you can see a reluctance to accept that there is no alternative to policies which cause pain in the short-term.
We have been here before, of course: for a decade and a half from the mid-1960s, everyone could see what was wrong but they couldn't bring themselves to fix it. We may well be in for another decade or so of decline, if we repeat the same kind of mistake now.
On a more positive note, though, the fact that Ed Miliband's brand of incoherent, populist, anti-business nonsense is near-universally derided even by Labour supporters is quite encouraging. On the morning of May 8th we shall see whether sanity has prevailed.
Con 37% Lab 30% Lib-Dem 20%
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-2/icm
Welcome to blue hell..
First time in "Nam" kid?
This is what he wrote
No longer. Uniform swing is now worse than useless. It is positively misleading. In particular, Labour can no longer hope to emerge as the largest party next May, even if it trails Conservatives significantly in votes....
...All that said, the overall conclusion is clear: Britain-wide uniform swing projections won’t work this time; and, unless the total votes won by Labour and the Conservatives are extremely close, it is pretty certain that the party with the more votes will end up with the more seats. Labour can forget dreams of ending up the largest party even if it wins a million fewer votes than the Tories.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/12/01/uniform-swing-rip/
GE2015 is about perception. People are exhausted listening to prattle about deficit, debt, structural this, inflation that.
GE2015 is about head vs heart, competence vs compassion.
We have established that all political parties are the same (copyright:R Brand, Church of England).
So it becomes a question of whether you are willing to accept more nastiness and a continued recovery, albeit you understand it is the "wrong type of recovery"; or are happy to risk the economy stalling, and us ending up back where we started, but aiming for the "right kind of recovery".
Labour is less 'toxic' to voters than Conservatives, says poll
Boost for Miliband as 70% leave door open for party while 42% say that they would never vote for a Tory government
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/sep/24/labour-toxic-voters-conservatives-poll
In those days the Libdems were less toxic than the Tories. Now look whats happened to them!
As for UKIP was last night one smear too far?
‘Ukip: The First 100 Days’ shows the media prefers to laugh at than understand the party
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/culturehousedaily/2015/02/ukip-the-first-100-days-shows-the-media-finds-it-easier-to-laugh-at-than-understand-the-party/
Quite a lot of general rejection of the C4 smearfest.
I do live in a very Conservative area, though, so maybe the parties are more sophisticated at targeting than I believe.
The wounds from 2012 in Medinah are still very very deep here.
I work Love's tournament every fall.
Rumor is Darren Clarke will be the euros captain
Also, where are the ratings for Green / Bennett and Respect / Galloway???
It is absolutely clear to me that the letter is a big hint not to vote for one particular party.
Perhaps its time to investigate the Church and what it gets up to, I am sure there is a whole heap of hypocrisy to be uncovered.
The ongoing appeal of labour = 'I'm nice'
Anyone else?
It is fair to say that the style of politics as practised by UKIP would not fit very well with the ambitions of the bishops as expressed in that letter.
I don't think it is particularly.
Mr. Root, priests interfering in politics is backward and belongs in the 12th century, not the modern era. Mitre-clad morons.
Don't forget Cameron's satisfaction numbers always include the universal support he has amongst current Conservative voters. In the last Ipsos Mori Cameron's net satisfaction numbers for non Conservative voters was -53, that is only slightly better than Miliband's non Labour total of -58.
It's a same story for the party brands, Labour may be "less unpopular" than the Conservatives but if they're still both in negative territory, then it isn't going to be much of an asset. People aren't going to come out in numbers to vote for a party that they dislike a bit less.
https://www.churchofengland.org/media/2170230/whoismyneighbour-pages.pdf
1. The Tories win 324 seats, or a similar number so close to 326 they govern alone but as a minority.
2. The Tories win 318 seats, or a similar number not close enough to govern alone but they form a government with the DUP or another non-LD party.
3. The Tories win 310 seats, or a similar number requiring LD support for a government AND the LDs don't demand another full coalition.
4. Another non-LD party wins a surprising number of seats and agrees to assist the Tories without a formal coalition. Presumably a 'non-aggression pact' with the SNP in return for stuff.
The first two cases are, in my view, very unlikely. The third is also pretty unlikely since the LDs probably won't go for it. I think you are therefore betting on too narrow a band of seats for the Tories to win. The wildcard is the SNP, but I think they know their supporters wouldn't forgive them for 'propping up' a Tory government however good the deal.
Anything below 310ish seats the Tories need the LDs, which likely means a coalition. Anything above 325 seats isn't a Tory minority. I think it's too tight to bet on for my liking.
Personally I'm on Lab Minority at 13/2, though I might nab some Tory/LD too if 6/1 is still available.
The posts I've seem suggest it is brand/reputation rather than specific policies that drive that advantage. I don't think that's particularly unreasonable.
Lab & Miliband -3.96
Con & Cameron -12.68
Lib Dems & Clegg -17.10
UKIP & Farage -55.01
It's interesting that, with the exception of UKIP/Farage the figures for the swing voters are more positive for all of the combinations of parties and leaders. Perhaps the centre ground of British politics is not as bitter, cynical and negative as we tend to think?
Otherwise I agree that I can't see many other scenarios where the Conservatives would end up running a minority government. They wouldn't have enough allies in the House of Commons to pass pretty much any of their manifesto.
Mr. B [part 2], indeed, the modern day 'caliphate' is far less civilised than perhaps every previous iteration.
I'm underwhelmed.
The Church of England weighing in for electoral reform!
(Edit: dear God (!) please don't let that be reason for a thread on the subject.)
I can see Cameron trying to carry on alone with sub-300 (or even sub-290 seats) if Labour have been mauled by the SNP and there isn't an obvious alternative government. But I don't think it would last long into the new parliament even if it passes the inevitable confidence vote on day 1.
http://order-order.com/2015/02/17/leave-ukip-alone/
The worst thing is I couldn't find either the time or energy to fight it (other than an email objection which I'm sure was rejected by robot), so I was just left with seething resentment at my local authority.
In summary, the Conservatives' problem is that people think they're heartless; Labour's problem is that people think they're incompetent.
Incidentally, if we had a space cannon it would be able to destroy Canterbury from hundreds of miles away. I bet the Coalition's regretting not funding my important work now.
Scottish Labour leader deletes YouTube video after getting NHS stats wrong
Jim Murphy deletes video and tweet after making false claims about cancelled hospital operations in Scotland based on misread figures
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/feb/17/scottish-labour-leader-deletes-youtube-video-nhs-stats-wrong?CMP=share_btn_tw
Who will rid us of these turbulent priests?
@steve_hawkes: Ed Miliband: "I've got 78 days to persuade Ant and Dec back on board, and I'm sure we can."
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/mMAnCgjeZ4Q/maxresdefault.jpg
"Only if they validate parking and drop us off right at the door, have enough space for sword storage and will wait to take us back to our car afterwards."
It loses something somehow.....
"It is good that unemployment has not risen as high as was predicted, or as high as past experience suggested it would"
Wouldn't "it is good that unemployment has fallen, after predictions that it would significantly rise" be a more honest way to put it?
Hilarious - outside the vested interest group of public sector workers there is no appeal.