Ukip are having a rough time in the national polls but the Ray of light for them is despite that they were in the lead in three of their target seats on Ashcrofts constituency polls before past weighting was applied
Relevant to vote efficiency debate I suppose, and also indicates they should win those seats if the national polling rises again
It's not that bad. UKIP support has ranged from 11-19% this week. Remember, that one can add 1-2% to the England figure for any national UKIP score.
Nothing scientific about this but I think polls all over shop because we're in midst of true crossover and they're struggling to pick this up. I expect to see sustained Tory leads from 2nd week in March.
We certainly seem to be getting more polls showing Conservative's in the lead. Is being drowned out by other polls still giving Lab 4-5% lead's, but it's something I have been aware of.
In the past week or so we've had ICM, YouGov, ComRes and Opinium all showing a Con lead.
As yet nobody has made a good argument against the 11.4%. That was what required in 2010 to win the Tory seats. The Kellner figures on incumbency bonus have not been supported. BES data shows that Tory incumbents are less trusted and there's less satisfaction with them than MPs of other parties. In any case in 15 seats the former LAB MP is standing again like Nick Palmer.
I was rather hoping somebody might have had time to look at the model I posted a couple of days ago which I have put together.
I prefer the latest Professor John Curtice model which I have featured here before. To win majority, even with current Scottish situation, LAB needs 5% lead. The Tories need 7-10% dependent on national voting performance of LDs.
The big variables for the Tories are the extent to which LAB inclined voters switch to LD in yellow defences to keep the blues out and what the 20% of 2010 LDs yet to make up their minds do.
The Ashcroft marginals polling of CON-LD battlegrounds has found an increasing propensity of LAB voters to switch.
There are two non Westminster elections which demonstrate the readiness of LAB voters to switch to the LDs - the successful Mayoral defences in Bedford and Watford. Unlike the Tories the yellows have successfully hung on to both the elected mayors they had 5 years ago.
These are highly relevant because the LD MP defences will be run like Mayoral campaigns with all the focus on the individual incumbent.
I'll post some of the detailed data
Edited 8.29
Sorry, my editing went wrong in my 8.51 comment. A combination of WiFi on the train, a lack of posting experience, and trying to use a tablet with my fat fingers! Hope this goes better.
I am not comparing my meagre skills with those of Prof Curtice. Merely saying that using my model, people can put in their own assumptions of how 2010 voters choose to vote this time, including in Scotland, LibDem seats, Con/Lab marginal etc. It is completely transparent and can hopefully be improved over time with help from PBers who are interested
Nothing scientific about this but I think polls all over shop because we're in midst of true crossover and they're struggling to pick this up. I expect to see sustained Tory leads from 2nd week in March.
We certainly seem to be getting more polls showing Conservative's in the lead.
In January we had Tory leads in seven polls. This month the number of leads is....er....seven!
According to a London-specific YouGov poll in the Times today Labour are on 42%, 8% ahead of the Tories.
34% would mean that the Tory vote has held up from 2010 in London, but there's a swing of 2.5-3% to Labour overall. In reality, it's a Lib Dem-Labour swing.
Labour exceeded UNS by the highest margin in London at the Euros and it is noticeable also in a couple of the by-elections this Parliament/
Ukip are having a rough time in the national polls but the Ray of light for them is despite that they were in the lead in three of their target seats on Ashcrofts constituency polls before past weighting was applied
Relevant to vote efficiency debate I suppose, and also indicates they should win those seats if the national polling rises again
National polling is irrelevant for UKIP in the same way it is for lib dems. UKIP are very comfortable with progress in the key target seats.
I can't speak for the libs but I'm sure they'd say the same.
Mr. Pulpstar, even if it's Con 34-35% and Lab 31%?
Also, as I've perhaps mentioned, I'm not overflowing with wealth to lump on a huge sum.
Oh errm Con 35% Lab 31% is close - Con ahead.
Taking the Scottish situation into account, I think 35/31 would put the Conservatives at least 40 seats ahead of Labour. Any anti-Conservative coalition would be a very shaky affair.
Nothing scientific about this but I think polls all over shop because we're in midst of true crossover and they're struggling to pick this up. I expect to see sustained Tory leads from 2nd week in March.
The variation around the mean doesn't seem to be anything out of the ordinary, but you will certainly notice it more when the mean is near a threshold, as at present.
If you voted Tory in 2010 the likelihood is that you will do so again in May. By and large the Tories have delivered on what they said they would do. Obviously, there will be disenchantment on the edges, but overall for Tory voters this has surely been a government to applaud. The onus really is on Labour to convince the non-Tory majority that it deserves a chance. And this is where EdM is such a liability.
Mr. Pulpstar, even if it's Con 34-35% and Lab 31%?
Also, as I've perhaps mentioned, I'm not overflowing with wealth to lump on a huge sum.
Oh errm Con 35% Lab 31% is close - Con ahead.
Taking the Scottish situation into account, I think 35/31 would put the Conservatives at least 40 seats ahead of Labour. Any anti-Conservative coalition would be a very shaky affair.
Sean, might I suggest plugging in your thoughts into my model and adjusting the percentage switching Con to Lab or vice-versa until you get 35/31 or thereabouts. See what it comes out with and decide what you think. If Ukip picks up fewer switches from Con and Lab in Con/Lab marginals, albeit still taking many more from Con than Lab, Con seems to be very close to Absolute Majority to me.
Nearing the end of my train journey so will be out of contact but if anyone has any questions on how to use the model, I'll try to answer them when I get back online either tonight or tomorrow.
Old enough to vote at 16, not old enough to know what they're doing when joining ISIS at 15
"It’s difficult to remember when a 15-year-old was last taken seriously as an adult in the national press. Why are we affording three brown Muslim girls that privilege now?"
Why even say "brown"? Reads like a 15 year old wrote it
If you voted Tory in 2010 the likelihood is that you will do so again in May. By and large the Tories have delivered on what they said they would do. Obviously, there will be disenchantment on the edges, but overall for Tory voters this has surely been a government to applaud. The onus really is on Labour to convince the non-Tory majority that it deserves a chance. And this is where EdM is such a liability.
In the February ICM the vote retention figures are: Con 63% Lab 59% Lib 16% For the February 2010 ICM/Guardian poll the figures were: Con 73% Lab 54% Lib 54% Tory voters are sticking to their side more determinedly than Labour voters were in the run-up to the last election. The Labour vote retention figures are, well, startling.
Oh God. Seriously. I didn't know everything back when I was 15 but I suspected joining the Ulster Volunteer Force could be a bad idea. After all as a young, white, christian boy....
If you voted Tory in 2010 the likelihood is that you will do so again in May. By and large the Tories have delivered on what they said they would do. Obviously, there will be disenchantment on the edges, but overall for Tory voters this has surely been a government to applaud. The onus really is on Labour to convince the non-Tory majority that it deserves a chance. And this is where EdM is such a liability.
I expect that c.80-85% of people who voted Conservative in 2010 will do so again, plus there'll be switchers from Labour and Lib Dems. 10-15% will vote UKIP, and 5% for other parties. EdM is by far the Conservatives' strongest card.
If you voted Tory in 2010 the likelihood is that you will do so again in May. By and large the Tories have delivered on what they said they would do. Obviously, there will be disenchantment on the edges, but overall for Tory voters this has surely been a government to applaud. The onus really is on Labour to convince the non-Tory majority that it deserves a chance. And this is where EdM is such a liability.
The 2015 election in the pithiest paragraph you will read anywhere!
(Although, what it does gloss over are the 2010 Tory voters who don't applaud what has been delivered, rather they run off to UKIP screaming like ADHD kids who have spent the last five years overdosing on Sunny Delight....That may require a tome of its own.)
The more I think about a comment by exmpnp the other day the more the absurdity of Labours position sticks out to me.
He comments that Britain is struggling to be competitive but didn't comment when asked what labour had done to address this during their 13 years in office.
We also have Labour screaming about a cost of living crisis and people need pay rises - which will not help competitiveness.
Nothing scientific about this but I think polls all over shop because we're in midst of true crossover and they're struggling to pick this up. I expect to see sustained Tory leads from 2nd week in March.
We certainly seem to be getting more polls showing Conservative's in the lead.
In January we had Tory leads in seven polls. This month the number of leads is....er....seven!
If you voted Tory in 2010 the likelihood is that you will do so again in May. By and large the Tories have delivered on what they said they would do. Obviously, there will be disenchantment on the edges, but overall for Tory voters this has surely been a government to applaud. The onus really is on Labour to convince the non-Tory majority that it deserves a chance. And this is where EdM is such a liability.
I expect that c.80-85% of people who voted Conservative in 2010 will do so again, plus there'll be switchers from Labour and Lib Dems. 10-15% will vote UKIP, and 5% for other parties. EdM is by far the Conservatives' strongest card.
Surely 80-85% of those who who voted Tory (or Labour) last time did so time before that and before that etc.
If you voted Tory in 2010 the likelihood is that you will do so again in May. By and large the Tories have delivered on what they said they would do. Obviously, there will be disenchantment on the edges, but overall for Tory voters this has surely been a government to applaud. The onus really is on Labour to convince the non-Tory majority that it deserves a chance. And this is where EdM is such a liability.
The 2015 election in the pithiest paragraph you will read anywhere!
(Although, what it does gloss over are the 2010 Tory voters who don't applaud what has been delivered, rather they run off to UKIP screaming like ADHD kids who have spent the last five years overdosing on Sunny Delight....That may require a tome of its own.)
Animal Farm sums it up most succinctly, when Squealer says "Surely, you don't want to see Jones come back."
The more I think about a comment by exmpnp the other day the more the absurdity of Labours position sticks out to me.
He comments that Britain is struggling to be competitive but didn't comment when asked what labour had done to address this during their 13 years in office.
We also have Labour screaming about a cost of living crisis and people need pay rises - which will not help competitiveness.
Go figure.
Nick is in a tricky position. He comes on here, which is to be applauded, but if he says anything remotely tendentious, it will be played back against him during the election campaign. I think he generally hits the right tone (although trying to convince us he was some kind of macho maverick who told the whips where to go when deciding whether to support legislation was not the most convincing contribution I have read on here!).
Nick's bigger problem is that it is not him, but his party, that has nothing to say on the matters of the day. Obviously he has an abnormal level of (self)interest in seeing a Labour Govt. returned. That interest is shared by very few others.
Governments get thrown out because they have caused (or at least not prevented) something for which they are rightly castigated. Or because they have run out of steam. Job done. Or the other lot have a much more interesting proposition. None of that applies in 2015.
Mr. Isam, because inserting the word 'brown' adds a racial element. That's the intention, anyway. Because winning an argument is easier if you can paint those who disagree as bigoted.
The more I think about a comment by exmpnp the other day the more the absurdity of Labours position sticks out to me.
He comments that Britain is struggling to be competitive but didn't comment when asked what labour had done to address this during their 13 years in office.
We also have Labour screaming about a cost of living crisis and people need pay rises - which will not help competitiveness.
Go figure.
I have long believed that the World Economic Forum's Global Competitiveness Index is a brilliant piece of work and countries could do ALOT worse than targeting their policies specifically to improve their score. It covers multiple areas and surgically highlights the big policy failings (and strengths) of each economy. BTW the UK is very strong on many many fronts - our huge downfall is public finance / deficits / productivity.
If you voted Tory in 2010 the likelihood is that you will do so again in May. By and large the Tories have delivered on what they said they would do. Obviously, there will be disenchantment on the edges, but overall for Tory voters this has surely been a government to applaud. The onus really is on Labour to convince the non-Tory majority that it deserves a chance. And this is where EdM is such a liability.
The 2015 election in the pithiest paragraph you will read anywhere!
(Although, what it does gloss over are the 2010 Tory voters who don't applaud what has been delivered, rather they run off to UKIP screaming like ADHD kids who have spent the last five years overdosing on Sunny Delight....That may require a tome of its own.)
Possibly, and I am just guessing here, if Cameron hadn't jettisoned the entire "social conservative" section of Conservative Party's beliefs, and hurled insults at anyone that suggested that rampant social liberalism wasn't quite in tune with an awful lot of members, such that they flirted with UKIP, and then subsequently described them as a bunch of "fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists", there might have been the slightest chance of them returning to the fold and voting Conservative.. as it is I hope Dave and George are proud of the Guardian readers they have bought into the party... both of them.
I see another mighty 5% for the SNP in the Yougov Crosstab. If you put 2010 actual results from Scotland into the Scotland tab from last night LAB-COn would be level on the headline figure. OF course that doesn't tell you much about the Labour expected seats (2 degrees of uncertainty), but it does give a good idea of Conservative expected seats (Still poorish) on a good headline for the Conservatives.
I see the Guardian is doing a SamCam diary spoof. The skits on Dennis Thatcher were a great success years ago, but the "Groaner" has missed one vital point in this remake/rip off.... Humour.
In that result it would take less than half a dozen English Labour MPs to object to torpedo a Lab/SNP pact.
And yet how do the Conservatives get a Gov't !
Con-Lib Dem-DUP-UKIP doesn't even reach 323.
Grand Coalition.
It would be one way for a PM Miliband to avoid giving Ed Balls the keys to Number 11.
That would probably suit everyone, the SNP would rule forever in Scotland at any rate.
They may rule Scotland, but their haggis would have been well and truly shot. First thing a Grand Coalition would agree to do is return to the good old days, of doing away with the Barnett formula and giving Scotland three groats each Quarter Day.
I see the Guardian is doing a SamCam diary spoof. The skits on Dennis Thatcher were a great success years ago, but the "Groaner" has missed one vital point in this remake/rip off.... Humour.
Ah, the glorious day when tim (PBUH) got overly excited when they ran a spoof Dave diary, the funniest thing being that he thought it was for real.
If you voted Tory in 2010 the likelihood is that you will do so again in May. By and large the Tories have delivered on what they said they would do. Obviously, there will be disenchantment on the edges, but overall for Tory voters this has surely been a government to applaud. The onus really is on Labour to convince the non-Tory majority that it deserves a chance. And this is where EdM is such a liability.
The 2015 election in the pithiest paragraph you will read anywhere!
(Although, what it does gloss over are the 2010 Tory voters who don't applaud what has been delivered, rather they run off to UKIP screaming like ADHD kids who have spent the last five years overdosing on Sunny Delight....That may require a tome of its own.)
Possibly, and I am just guessing here, if Cameron hadn't jettisoned the entire "social conservative" section of Conservative Party's beliefs, and hurled insults at anyone that suggested that rampant social liberalism wasn't quite in tune with an awful lot of members, such that they flirted with UKIP, and then subsequently described them as a bunch of "fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists", there might have been the slightest chance of them returning to the fold and voting Conservative.. as it is I hope Dave and George are proud of the Guardian readers they have bought into the party... both of them.
That "fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists" quote was from 4th April 2006. If it takes from 2006 to after the 2010 election (which is what we were talking about) for this wave of Kippers to take umbrage, then their neural pathways are even slower than my Broadband at home.....
Nothing scientific about this but I think polls all over shop because we're in midst of true crossover and they're struggling to pick this up. I expect to see sustained Tory leads from 2nd week in March.
I don't think we will see sustained Tory leads until the GE campaign, and then only meagre ones. I think on voting day we will end up with the Tories about 3% in front and with only the worst possible scenarios possible, like rainbow coalitions, minority governments, Tories trying deals with SNP and UKIP, Labour trying to do deals with Plaid and UKIP. Horse-trading central.
Basically I think we'll end up with a mess. And at that point the electorate will tell the parties to sort their acts out, that basically they agree on a lot, so stop behaving like children and finger-pointing at one another all the time.
If you voted Tory in 2010 the likelihood is that you will do so again in May. By and large the Tories have delivered on what they said they would do. Obviously, there will be disenchantment on the edges, but overall for Tory voters this has surely been a government to applaud. The onus really is on Labour to convince the non-Tory majority that it deserves a chance. And this is where EdM is such a liability.
The 2015 election in the pithiest paragraph you will read anywhere!
(Although, what it does gloss over are the 2010 Tory voters who don't applaud what has been delivered, rather they run off to UKIP screaming like ADHD kids who have spent the last five years overdosing on Sunny Delight....That may require a tome of its own.)
Possibly, and I am just guessing here, if Cameron hadn't jettisoned the entire "social conservative" section of Conservative Party's beliefs, and hurled insults at anyone that suggested that rampant social liberalism wasn't quite in tune with an awful lot of members, such that they flirted with UKIP, and then subsequently described them as a bunch of "fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists", there might have been the slightest chance of them returning to the fold and voting Conservative.. as it is I hope Dave and George are proud of the Guardian readers they have bought into the party... both of them.
That "fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists" quote was from 4th April 2006. If it takes from 2006 to after the 2010 election (which is what we were talking about) for this wave of Kippers to take umbrage, then their neural pathways are even slower than my Broadband at home.....
That may well be the case, although I suspect that most of the Tories in UKIP took umbrage a long time ago, but it doesn't matter, they are still people who's votes we need, irrespective of their "thickness" and the mishandling and arrogance of Davorge means we wont get them back and as a result have a fair chance of an EdM government... talk about own goal.
2. The Tory first-term incumbency boost seems not to be happening consistently. Anecdotally there seems to be an anti-incumbency vote in some places. More solidly, every constituency poll shows the marginals doing much the same as everyone else.
Non-rhetorically, have constituency polls in previous parliaments ever picked up an incumbency boost, and if so how far from an election?
If you voted Tory in 2010 the likelihood is that you will do so again in May. By and large the Tories have delivered on what they said they would do. Obviously, there will be disenchantment on the edges, but overall for Tory voters this has surely been a government to applaud. The onus really is on Labour to convince the non-Tory majority that it deserves a chance. And this is where EdM is such a liability.
The 2015 election in the pithiest paragraph you will read anywhere!
(Although, what it does gloss over are the 2010 Tory voters who don't applaud what has been delivered, rather they run off to UKIP screaming like ADHD kids who have spent the last five years overdosing on Sunny Delight....That may require a tome of its own.)
Possibly, and I am just guessing here, if Cameron hadn't jettisoned the entire "social conservative" section of Conservative Party's beliefs, and hurled insults at anyone that suggested that rampant social liberalism wasn't quite in tune with an awful lot of members, such that they flirted with UKIP, and then subsequently described them as a bunch of "fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists", there might have been the slightest chance of them returning to the fold and voting Conservative.. as it is I hope Dave and George are proud of the Guardian readers they have bought into the party... both of them.
That "fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists" quote was from 4th April 2006. If it takes from 2006 to after the 2010 election (which is what we were talking about) for this wave of Kippers to take umbrage, then their neural pathways are even slower than my Broadband at home.....
That may well be the case, although I suspect that most of the Tories in UKIP took umbrage a long time ago, but it doesn't matter, they are still people who's votes we need, irrespective of their "thickness" and the mishandling and arrogance of Davorge means we wont get them back and as a result have a fair chance of an EdM government... talk about own goal.
You are still ignoring the date quoted and the public persona of UKIP at that time. Agreed we have moved on from Mr ''sluts'' Bloom... But bearing in mind we have since had the comments of Mr ''rough diamond'' Smith, Ms ''ting tong'' Atkinson and Ms ''No Regrets'' Duncan'' (not to mention Mr ''traffic jam'' Farage himself) - then I would have thought you should be praising Cameron for his prescience.
The voters UKIP are trying to attract are not the same as the activists drawn to the UKIP flag. Activists who have to be told to say in the closet by UKIP itself.
Does Ali Campbell have another book to sell,he has even managed to get himself on Bloomberg..He really just reminds everyone what an absolute tosser he was.
I mean, it has been delivered on time AND under budget. The papers made this very clear.
Reading what they've done, I wonder how this is going to work. They wanted to be able to produce this number about 1 job center in 3 using the Universal Credit, but the computer system doesn't work yet, so what they've done is started putting people who don't fall into any of the categories the system can't handle on it, while leaving anyone with any kind of complexity or any of the cases it doesn't cover yet on the previous system.
What I'm wondering about this is, what happens when you go on the Universal Credit, but then your circumstances change so that it no longer knows what to do with you? Do you get flipped back to the old system, or are they going to process these people manually and rely on the fact that they've hardly signed anyone up for the thing?
Nothing scientific about this but I think polls all over shop because we're in midst of true crossover and they're struggling to pick this up. I expect to see sustained Tory leads from 2nd week in March.
I don't think we will see sustained Tory leads until the GE campaign, and then only meagre ones. I think on voting day we will end up with the Tories about 3% in front and with only the worst possible scenarios possible, like rainbow coalitions, minority governments, Tories trying deals with SNP and UKIP, Labour trying to do deals with Plaid and UKIP. Horse-trading central.
Basically I think we'll end up with a mess. And at that point the electorate will tell the parties to sort their acts out, that basically they agree on a lot, so stop behaving like children and finger-pointing at one another all the time.
But I may be completely wrong.
To be honest, Fenster, I wouldn't mind that very much, and not just from a betting viewpoint.
We may well get it - certainly the 'mess', though I'm less confident about the 'stop behaving like children' bit.
Nothing scientific about this but I think polls all over shop because we're in midst of true crossover and they're struggling to pick this up. I expect to see sustained Tory leads from 2nd week in March.
I don't think we will see sustained Tory leads until the GE campaign, and then only meagre ones. I think on voting day we will end up with the Tories about 3% in front and with only the worst possible scenarios possible, like rainbow coalitions, minority governments, Tories trying deals with SNP and UKIP, Labour trying to do deals with Plaid and UKIP. Horse-trading central.
Basically I think we'll end up with a mess. And at that point the electorate will tell the parties to sort their acts out, that basically they agree on a lot, so stop behaving like children and finger-pointing at one another all the time.
But I may be completely wrong.
But what is the mechanism for the electorate to tell the parties to sort their acts out?
The more I think about a comment by exmpnp the other day the more the absurdity of Labours position sticks out to me.
He comments that Britain is struggling to be competitive but didn't comment when asked what labour had done to address this during their 13 years in office.
We also have Labour screaming about a cost of living crisis and people need pay rises - which will not help competitiveness.
Go figure.
I have long believed that the World Economic Forum's Global Competitiveness Index is a brilliant piece of work and countries could do ALOT worse than targeting their policies specifically to improve their score. It covers multiple areas and surgically highlights the big policy failings (and strengths) of each economy. BTW the UK is very strong on many many fronts - our huge downfall is public finance / deficits / productivity.
I look at that every year for the intellectual property stats. If those are anything to go by, I would be extremely worried if our government ever started to target policies to improve the UK's scores.
I see the Guardian is doing a SamCam diary spoof. The skits on Dennis Thatcher were a great success years ago, but the "Groaner" has missed one vital point in this remake/rip off.... Humour.
The Labour Party people are so ridiculous that it's not necessary to make a spoof. Literally, you couldn't make it up!
The more I think about a comment by exmpnp the other day the more the absurdity of Labours position sticks out to me.
He comments that Britain is struggling to be competitive but didn't comment when asked what labour had done to address this during their 13 years in office.
We also have Labour screaming about a cost of living crisis and people need pay rises - which will not help competitiveness.
Go figure.
Nick is in a tricky position. He comes on here, which is to be applauded, but if he says anything remotely tendentious, it will be played back against him during the election campaign. I think he generally hits the right tone (although trying to convince us he was some kind of macho maverick who told the whips where to go when deciding whether to support legislation was not the most convincing contribution I have read on here!).
Nick's bigger problem is that it is not him, but his party, that has nothing to say on the matters of the day. Obviously he has an abnormal level of (self)interest in seeing a Labour Govt. returned. That interest is shared by very few others.
Governments get thrown out because they have caused (or at least not prevented) something for which they are rightly castigated. Or because they have run out of steam. Job done. Or the other lot have a much more interesting proposition. None of that applies in 2015.
You are correct. The only drag anchor on the govt has been the LDs. But that is not as big a drag anchor on the country that a Labour govt would have been. We have had a broadly successful 5 years which has had to deal with a poisoned economic inheritance and difficult external economic circumstances. The extravagance of Labour's last 10 years where public spending increased by 50% in real terms is being corrected. But for extreme and rampant stupidity by a sadly significant group of tory backbenchers we would be fighting this election on fairer boundaries and indeed the public might have a fairer perception of what the tory party is about.
I mean, it has been delivered on time AND under budget. The papers made this very clear.
Reading what they've done, I wonder how this is going to work. They wanted to be able to produce this number about 1 job center in 3 using the Universal Credit, but the computer system doesn't work yet, so what they've done is started putting people who don't fall into any of the categories the system can't handle on it, while leaving anyone with any kind of complexity or any of the cases it doesn't cover yet on the previous system.
What I'm wondering about this is, what happens when you go on the Universal Credit, but then your circumstances change so that it no longer knows what to do with you? Do you get flipped back to the old system, or are they going to process these people manually and rely on the fact that they've hardly signed anyone up for the thing?
You seem to be labouring under the mistaken belief that they will give a fig. Bearing in mind the money I lost when the tax credit system was launched, and the hardship endured by people under the present system of sanctions, and I think a few hundred people finding themselves in a bureaucratic nightmare under Universal Credit is neither here nor there.
So they won't have people transferring to the old system, and they likely won't have the resources to deal with complex cases, relying on the fact that nobody really wants to hear bad news that they can't do anything about.
That "fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists" quote was from 4th April 2006. If it takes from 2006 to after the 2010 election (which is what we were talking about) for this wave of Kippers to take umbrage, then their neural pathways are even slower than my Broadband at home.....
That may well be the case, although I suspect that most of the Tories in UKIP took umbrage a long time ago, but it doesn't matter, they are still people who's votes we need, irrespective of their "thickness" and the mishandling and arrogance of Davorge means we wont get them back and as a result have a fair chance of an EdM government... talk about own goal.
You are still ignoring the date quoted and the public persona of UKIP at that time. Agreed we have moved on from Mr ''sluts'' Bloom... But bearing in mind we have since had the comments of Mr ''rough diamond'' Smith, Ms ''ting tong'' Atkinson and Ms ''No Regrets'' Duncan'' (not to mention Mr ''traffic jam'' Farage himself) - then I would have thought you should be praising Cameron for his prescience.
The voters UKIP are trying to attract are not the same as the activists drawn to the UKIP flag. Activists who have to be told to say in the closet by UKIP itself.
Clearly nothing to worry about then, Tories going to win by a country mile, nothing to see hear, move along...
Nothing scientific about this but I think polls all over shop because we're in midst of true crossover and they're struggling to pick this up. I expect to see sustained Tory leads from 2nd week in March.
I don't think we will see sustained Tory leads until the GE campaign, and then only meagre ones. I think on voting day we will end up with the Tories about 3% in front and with only the worst possible scenarios possible, like rainbow coalitions, minority governments, Tories trying deals with SNP and UKIP, Labour trying to do deals with Plaid and UKIP. Horse-trading central.
Basically I think we'll end up with a mess. And at that point the electorate will tell the parties to sort their acts out, that basically they agree on a lot, so stop behaving like children and finger-pointing at one another all the time.
But I may be completely wrong.
But what is the mechanism for the electorate to tell the parties to sort their acts out?
There isn't one.
I suspect - if no government can be formed - the big parties will have to go at it again at some point, espousing less homogeneous policies, trying to differentiate themselves.
I don't know what will happen really; I'm less bright than most on here. But a tie (I'm sure PtP - who knows his onions, predicted a tie) between the main parties and no opportunity for a coalition majority, would be extremely interesting.
I don't subscribe to this LibLabCon rubbish and I have no tendency towards the extremes (very liberal me) but, economically, I don't think there is much difference between the three main Westminster parties. I suspect if Balls, Cable and Osborne all laid out their honest vision for what needs to be done the similarities would be striking.
That's probably why the fringe parties are doing so well. Voters are hungering for a dynamic, left-field way out. I doubt there is one.
In that result it would take less than half a dozen English Labour MPs to object to torpedo a Lab/SNP pact.
And yet how do the Conservatives get a Gov't !
Con-Lib Dem-DUP-UKIP doesn't even reach 323.
Grand Coalition.
It would be one way for a PM Miliband to avoid giving Ed Balls the keys to Number 11.
That would probably suit everyone, the SNP would rule forever in Scotland at any rate.
Is it better or worse to have Alex Salmond as Leader of the Opposition, or able to veto any legislation that he sees fit?
Neither are particularly positive situations.
We should thank the three main parties (LDs sic obviously) for alternately waving carrots and sticks followed by their incontinent vowing for these not 'particularly positive situations'. As ye sow so shall ye reap.
They wanted to be able to produce this number about 1 job center in 3 using the Universal Credit, but the computer system doesn't work yet, so what they've done is started putting people who don't fall into any of the categories the system can't handle on it, while leaving anyone with any kind of complexity or any of the cases it doesn't cover yet on the previous system.
What I'm wondering about this is, what happens when you go on the Universal Credit, but then your circumstances change so that it no longer knows what to do with you? Do you get flipped back to the old system, or are they going to process these people manually and rely on the fact that they've hardly signed anyone up for the thing?
This migration method has been a frequently used practice for a long time. Decades.
The purpose is to avoid the whole thing crashing in a big bang type of implementation. Bit by bit the IT people build on the additional functionality.
Even with long standing systems, sometimes a bug creeps in and the paperwork goes clerical for a period before being rebuilt.
If you voted Tory in 2010 the likelihood is that you will do so again in May. By and large the Tories have delivered on what they said they would do. Obviously, there will be disenchantment on the edges, but overall for Tory voters this has surely been a government to applaud. The onus really is on Labour to convince the non-Tory majority that it deserves a chance. And this is where EdM is such a liability.
The 2015 election in the pithiest paragraph you will read anywhere!
(Although, what it does gloss over are the 2010 Tory voters who don't applaud what has been delivered, rather they run off to UKIP screaming like ADHD kids who have spent the last five years overdosing on Sunny Delight....That may require a tome of its own.)
That "fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists" quote was from 4th April 2006. If it takes from 2006 to after the 2010 election (which is what we were talking about) for this wave of Kippers to take umbrage, then their neural pathways are even slower than my Broadband at home.....
That may well be the case, although I suspect that most of the Tories in UKIP took umbrage a long time ago, but it doesn't matter, they are still people who's votes we need, irrespective of their "thickness" and the mishandling and arrogance of Davorge means we wont get them back and as a result have a fair chance of an EdM government... talk about own goal.
The worst possible thing the Tories could do this election is actively go chase the "lost" UKIP voters with policies tailor-made to suit them. There is always the crass point raised that the Tories have lost kippers by chasing Guardianistas (both of them). Absolute crap. The people who have been aimed at have been the uncommitted, unengaged mass of voters in the middle. And, having lost so many to UKIP but being not too far off 2010 polling levels, it seems to have worked. These are the very people who would leave in droves if Cameron tried to do UKIP-lite.
We also hear a huge amount about Tory "entitlement" to votes. Again, absolute crap. The people who seem to have the biggest entitlement issue are Kippers. They seem to think they have an entitlement to the Tory party bending to their will. If they were members inside the party making their views known, maybe they would have a point. But they aren't. They are a competitor party. So they can feck right off. We'll do them as many favours as we do Labour.
Kippers are grown up. Mostly, very grown up. If they want to set upon a course that will deliver the polar opposite of what they claim to hold dearest, then they need to address that with their own conscience.
Morning all and on thread, dear old Survation, going in the opposite direction to most pollsters. I was interested to see the London poll. Is this good news for the Tories in the capital?
Saw various comments alleging Anna Soubry had called Ed Bland a naughty word. If she did, she is quite right. He is a s............. c......... . It is time we imposed a requirement that politicians have to work in the real world for at least 10 years before being allowed to serve as MPs, starting with the unemployable LOTO.
Nothing scientific about this but I think polls all over shop because we're in midst of true crossover and they're struggling to pick this up. I expect to see sustained Tory leads from 2nd week in March.
I don't think we will see sustained Tory leads until the GE campaign, and then only meagre ones. I think on voting day we will end up with the Tories about 3% in front and with only the worst possible scenarios possible, like rainbow coalitions, minority governments, Tories trying deals with SNP and UKIP, Labour trying to do deals with Plaid and UKIP. Horse-trading central.
Basically I think we'll end up with a mess. And at that point the electorate will tell the parties to sort their acts out, that basically they agree on a lot, so stop behaving like children and finger-pointing at one another all the time.
But I may be completely wrong.
But what is the mechanism for the electorate to tell the parties to sort their acts out?
Exactly.
Enthusiasm for coalitions/I agree with Nick didn't even last until the first Coalition compromise (ok it was a biggie).
It is very difficult for the electorate to tell the parties how they would like the government to be structured.
I think if there was a check-box: "exactly the same again please" (Cons in power so economically responsible, LDs mitigating the worst of the nastiness and Lab on the outside popping up with their conscience), it might have a decent shot at getting chosen.
Morning all and on thread, dear old Survation, going in the opposite direction to most pollsters. I was interested to see the London poll. Is this good news for the Tories in the capital?
Saw various comments alleging Anna Soubry had called Ed Bland a naughty word. If she did, she is quite right. He is a s............. c......... . It is time we imposed a requirement that politicians have to work in the real world for at least 10 years before being allowed to serve as MPs, starting with the unemployable LOTO.
So we are going to need a new PM, deputy PM, chancellor, LOTO and shadow chancellor for starters. Should be fun.
The BBC headline from polling Muslims is "Muslims oppose cartoon reprisals" which is true, but within the figures is "I know Muslims who feel strongly sympathetic towards people fighting for IS and al-Qaeda - 8% agree"
That is worrying, and if it's true it means that over 200,000 British Muslims know someone with that view. And "a fifth of those polled said they thought Western liberal society could never be compatible with Islam." - that's around half a million.
27% of the 1,000 Muslims polled by ComRes said they had some sympathy for the motives behind the Paris attacks.
24% disagreed with the statement, "acts of violence against those who publish images of the Prophet Muhammad can "never be justified"
Overall that survey is not really like the BBC headline. A significant percentage have views that are at odds with what the majority of society and at the same time they feel discrimination / predjuice against them, not exactly happy families.
If you voted Tory in 2010 the likelihood is that you will do so again in May. By and large the Tories have delivered on what they said they would do. Obviously, there will be disenchantment on the edges, but overall for Tory voters this has surely been a government to applaud. The onus really is on Labour to convince the non-Tory majority that it deserves a chance. And this is where EdM is such a liability.
The 2015 election in the pithiest paragraph you will read anywhere!
That may well be the case, although I suspect that most of the Tories in UKIP took umbrage a long time ago, but it doesn't matter, they are still people who's votes we need, irrespective of their "thickness" and the mishandling and arrogance of Davorge means we wont get them back and as a result have a fair chance of an EdM government... talk about own goal.
The worst possible thing the Tories could do this election is actively go chase the "lost" UKIP voters with policies tailor-made to suit them. There is always the crass point raised that the Tories have lost kippers by chasing Guardianistas (both of them). Absolute crap. The people who have been aimed at have been the uncommitted, unengaged mass of voters in the middle. And, having lost so many to UKIP but being not too far off 2010 polling levels, it seems to have worked. These are the very people who would leave in droves if Cameron tried to do UKIP-lite.
We also hear a huge amount about Tory "entitlement" to votes. Again, absolute crap. The people who seem to have the biggest entitlement issue are Kippers. They seem to think they have an entitlement to the Tory party bending to their will. If they were members inside the party making their views known, maybe they would have a point. But they aren't. They are a competitor party. So they can feck right off. We'll do them as many favours as we do Labour.
Kippers are grown up. Mostly, very grown up. If they want to set upon a course that will deliver the polar opposite of what they claim to hold dearest, then they need to address that with their own conscience.
But, paragraphs one and two of your post demonstrate that Kippers will get almost the polar opposite of what they want under the Conservatives.
All you can offer them is that Labour would be worse, from their point of view.
Morning all and on thread, dear old Survation, going in the opposite direction to most pollsters. I was interested to see the London poll. Is this good news for the Tories in the capital?
Saw various comments alleging Anna Soubry had called Ed Bland a naughty word. If she did, she is quite right. He is a s............. c......... . It is time we imposed a requirement that politicians have to work in the real world for at least 10 years before being allowed to serve as MPs, starting with the unemployable LOTO.
I didn't follow this story but what's wrong with calling someone a smashing chap? Is this one of those obscure traditional parliamentary language things?
"The chance of 2 people in a group having the same birthday is obviously much higher than 2 people in the same group having the same day (and year) of birth"
Yes but there are still 366 possible birthdays
But that's the point, in a way. It's not as if it matters WHICH day of the year it is. And If you have n people in the party, you have n tries at matching them up.
So for party member 1, if you have 10 other folk, you have ten goes - very roughly 1/36 odds (it gets more complex as n becomes higher obviously).
But then if you don't win you have another go, for party member 2, with 9 tries (9 because you have already compared member 1 with member 2, and not got a hit).
And so on ... so something like 1/36 x 10 x 1/2 (the 1/2 because of the last effect) - which gives something of the order of 1/7 just for 11 people.
This is far too simple and ignores the overlap effect of double hits as n becomes higher. But you get the idea. You need to deal with factorials and summed series to do it properly. But that's O level/GCSE maths.
Morning all and on thread, dear old Survation, going in the opposite direction to most pollsters. I was interested to see the London poll. Is this good news for the Tories in the capital?
Saw various comments alleging Anna Soubry had called Ed Bland a naughty word. If she did, she is quite right. He is a s............. c......... . It is time we imposed a requirement that politicians have to work in the real world for at least 10 years before being allowed to serve as MPs, starting with the unemployable LOTO.
I didn't follow this story but what's wrong with calling someone a smashing chap? Is this one of those obscure traditional parliamentary language things?
We'll wait to see what it says on the t-shirt she wears to the Commons next time.
@ Charles -- ''The worst possible thing the Tories could do this election is actively go chase the "lost" UKIP voters with policies tailor-made to suit them. ...etc...''
The worst possible thing the Tories could do this election is actively go chase the "lost" UKIP voters with policies tailor-made to suit them. There is always the crass point raised that the Tories have lost kippers by chasing Guardianistas (both of them). Absolute crap. The people who have been aimed at have been the uncommitted, unengaged mass of voters in the middle. And, having lost so many to UKIP but being not too far off 2010 polling levels, it seems to have worked. These are the very people who would leave in droves if Cameron tried to do UKIP-lite.
Oh come off it. In 2010 it was vs Gordon Brown, not Ed the Gimp, you can't compare the two. Its not about chasing kipper votes, its about being a broad church, as the party managed to be for over a century before Dave and George and their metro elite friends decided to throw the social conservative part of the party, which incidentally includes all those "Blue Labour" white van men that voted for Thatcher's landslide under the bus.
We also hear a huge amount about Tory "entitlement" to votes. Again, absolute crap. The people who seem to have the biggest entitlement issue are Kippers. They seem to think they have an entitlement to the Tory party bending to their will. If they were members inside the party making their views known, maybe they would have a point. But they aren't. They are a competitor party. So they can feck right off. We'll do them as many favours as we do Labour.
Even more ridiculous. Political parties set out their stalls and voters decide who to vote for. The kippers don't want the Tories to bend to their will, they are quite happy as kippers. If the Tories want to remain a broad church party and win elections without being in coalitions they are going to have to make an offer that appeals to some of those voters. The parties make the offer, the voters decide, democracy.
Kippers are grown up. Mostly, very grown up. If they want to set upon a course that will deliver the polar opposite of what they claim to hold dearest, then they need to address that with their own conscience.
That is as may be, but as their conscience isn't the business of the Conservative Party, winning elections is, and we about not to have an absolute majority against possibly the worst leader of the opposition ever put forward, if he was remotely competent or even personable we would be miles behind in the polls, god help us if there is a second election and labour put someone like Yvette Cooper up.
Morning all and on thread, dear old Survation, going in the opposite direction to most pollsters. I was interested to see the London poll. Is this good news for the Tories in the capital?
Saw various comments alleging Anna Soubry had called Ed Bland a naughty word. If she did, she is quite right. He is a s............. c......... . It is time we imposed a requirement that politicians have to work in the real world for at least 10 years before being allowed to serve as MPs, starting with the unemployable LOTO.
I don't follow. Are you saying that AS' real world career has taught her the proper use of the expression "sanctimonious c*nt", or that if EM had had a real world career he would be less likely to be a sanctimonious c*nt?
I am inherently sus picious of this "real world career" stuff anyway. Supporters of David Davis frinstance like to claim he had one, but I don't terribly see how climbing the greasy pole at Big Sugar for 20 years of, I imagine, office politics and Powerpoint presentations, equips you for government.
27% of the 1,000 Muslims polled by ComRes said they had some sympathy for the motives behind the Paris attacks.
24% disagreed with the statement, "acts of violence against those who publish images of the Prophet Muhammad can "never be justified"
Overall that survey is not really like the BBC headline. A significant percentage have views that are at odds with what the majority of society and at the same time they feel discrimination / predjuice against them, not exactly happy families.
Yes, the apparent level of support for, or at least sympathy with, violence is staggeringly high - the exact opposite of the spin the Beeb were trying to put on the figures. With that level of extremism apparently rife, we seem to have a very major problem indeed.
The worst possible thing the Tories could do this election is actively go chase the "lost" UKIP voters with policies tailor-made to suit them. There is always the crass point raised that the Tories have lost kippers by chasing Guardianistas (both of them). Absolute crap. The people who have been aimed at have been the uncommitted, unengaged mass of voters in the middle. And, having lost so many to UKIP but being not too far off 2010 polling levels, it seems to have worked. These are the very people who would leave in droves if Cameron tried to do UKIP-lite.
Oh come off it. In 2010 it was vs Gordon Brown, not Ed the Gimp, you can't compare the two. Its not about chasing kipper votes, its about being a broad church, as the party managed to be for over a century before Dave and George and their metro elite friends decided to throw the social conservative part of the party, which incidentally includes all those "Blue Labour" white van men that voted for Thatcher's landslide under the bus.
We also hear a huge amount about Tory "entitlement" to votes. Again, absolute crap. The people who seem to have the biggest entitlement issue are Kippers. They seem to think they have an entitlement to the Tory party bending to their will. If they were members inside the party making their views known, maybe they would have a point. But they aren't. They are a competitor party. So they can feck right off. We'll do them as many favours as we do Labour.
Even more ridiculous. Political parties set out their stalls and voters decide who to vote for. The kippers don't want the Tories to bend to their will, they are quite happy as kippers. If the Tories want to remain a broad church party and win elections without being in coalitions they are going to have to make an offer that appeals to some of those voters. The parties make the offer, the voters decide, democracy.
Kippers are grown up. Mostly, very grown up. If they want to set upon a course that will deliver the polar opposite of what they claim to hold dearest, then they need to address that with their own conscience.
That is as may be, but as their conscience isn't the business of the Conservative Party, winning elections is, and we about not to have an absolute majority against possibly the worst leader of the opposition ever put forward, if he was remotely competent or even personable we would be miles behind in the polls, god help us if there is a second election and labour put someone like Yvette Cooper up.
I still think that after 5 years of deep cuts, following 13 years of the magic money tree, level pegging is quite remarkable.
The worst possible thing the Tories could do this election is actively go chase the "lost" UKIP voters with policies tailor-made to suit them. There is always the crass point raised that the Tories have lost kippers by chasing Guardianistas (both of them). Absolute crap. The people who have been aimed at have been the uncommitted, unengaged mass of voters in the middle. And, having lost so many to UKIP but being not too far off 2010 polling levels, it seems to have worked. These are the very people who would leave in droves if Cameron tried to do UKIP-lite.
Oh come off it. In 2010 it was vs Gordon Brown, not Ed the Gimp, you can't compare the two. Its not about chasing kipper votes, its about being a broad church, as the party managed to be for over a century before Dave and George and their metro elite friends decided to throw the social conservative part of the party, which incidentally includes all those "Blue Labour" white van men that voted for Thatcher's landslide under the bus.
We also hear a huge amount about Tory "entitlement" to votes. Again, absolute crap. The people who seem to have the biggest entitlement issue are Kippers. They seem to think they have an entitlement to the Tory party bending to their will. If they were members inside the party making their views known, maybe they would have a point. But they aren't. They are a competitor party. So they can feck right off. We'll do them as many favours as we do Labour.
Even more ridiculous. Political parties set out their stalls and voters decide who to vote for. The kippers don't want the Tories to bend to their will, they are quite happy as kippers. If the Tories want to remain a broad church party and win elections without being in coalitions they are going to have to make an offer that appeals to some of those voters. The parties make the offer, the voters decide, democracy.
Kippers are grown up. Mostly, very grown up. If they want to set upon a course that will deliver the polar opposite of what they claim to hold dearest, then they need to address that with their own conscience.
That is as may be, but as their conscience isn't the business of the Conservative Party, winning elections is, and we about not to have an absolute majority against possibly the worst leader of the opposition ever put forward, if he was remotely competent or even personable we would be miles behind in the polls, god help us if there is a second election and labour put someone like Yvette Cooper up.
Cameron/Osborne have, however, set their course. Moving to the Right at five minutes to midnight would now convince nobody.
"The chance of 2 people in a group having the same birthday is obviously much higher than 2 people in the same group having the same day (and year) of birth"
Yes but there are still 366 possible birthdays
But that's the point, in a way. It's not as if it matters WHICH day of the year it is. And If you have n people in the party, you have n tries at matching them up.
So for party member 1, if you have 10 other folk, you have ten goes - very roughly 1/36 odds (it gets more complex as n becomes higher obviously).
But then if you don't win you have another go, for party member 2, with 9 tries (9 because you have already compared member 1 with member 2, and not got a hit).
And so on ... so something like 1/36 x 10 x 1/2 (the 1/2 because of the last effect) - which gives something of the order of 1/7 just for 11 people.
This is far too simple and ignores the overlap effect of double hits as n becomes higher. But you get the idea. You need to deal with factorials and summed series to do it properly. But that's O level/GCSE maths.
Eh, no you don't. You simply need to realise that P(something happens) = 1 - P(something doesn't happen) and it's trivially easy to work out the probability that everyone in a room has a different birthday.
There appear to be a overwhelming majority of delusional Tories on this site even more so than on rags like the HSBC sponsored Telegraph or the Speccy
A few facts for the simple minded Blues who appear oblivious to the state of the polls or maybe cannot add up/think/read (delete as appropriate)
Labour are still ahead on the average poll of polls when they trailed by 8 pts in 2010 Labour have been ahead in 20 of the last 30 polls Labour can afford to be probably around 5 points behind and still probably scrape in on the night with enough seats combined with others The Tories only possible coalition partners are the Lib Dems who wont even have a leader or many other cabinet members by May and will be a bedraggled rump of around 15 or so members or UKIP who may have three or four maximum.Libs and the Kippers wont work together so it has to be one or the other and the figures say nowhere near enough seats will be gained between them The Coalition is the Government not the Tories and the Coalition is even on the most favourable polls running at about 42% whereas it had 61% in 2010 and just managed to cobble together a majority UKIPs recent slump has benefited the Tories but once Nigel gets back on the publicity bandwagon and back in the pub they will continue to hurt Flashmans men all over the South and Midlands helping Labour pick up seats Ed Miliband will finally get the chance to come across as himself to the wider public and given the current very low popularity ratings he has due to the farcical media coverage of him he is bound to improve on those which will help his party The Greens have been taking votes from Labour but may fall back a little and seeing as Caroline is their only realistic hope then tactical voting by people saying Green at present to pollsters will help Ed also This wont happen with Kippers as many of their hardcore support hate Cameron more than Miliband including the leader himself
Taking all this into account there are three possibilities at the GE..A Labour majority (great value) Labour most seats (good value) Tory most seats but way short of a majority and unable to stay in office....All three mean its definitely going to be Red Ed as our PM basking in the adulation of the masses on Downing Street in May
@ Charles -- ''The worst possible thing the Tories could do this election is actively go chase the "lost" UKIP voters with policies tailor-made to suit them. ...etc...''
I still think that after 5 years of deep cuts, following 13 years of the magic money tree, level pegging is quite remarkable.
Deep cuts my ass. They haven't cut anything, reduced the rate of increase in spending might be a more realistic description. Healey cut double in one year in 1974 what Osborne has cut this whole parliament.
27% of the 1,000 Muslims polled by ComRes said they had some sympathy for the motives behind the Paris attacks.
24% disagreed with the statement, "acts of violence against those who publish images of the Prophet Muhammad can "never be justified"
Overall that survey is not really like the BBC headline. A significant percentage have views that are at odds with what the majority of society and at the same time they feel discrimination / predjuice against them, not exactly happy families.
Yes, the apparent level of support for, or at least sympathy with, violence is staggeringly high - the exact opposite of the spin the Beeb were trying to put on the figures. With that level of extremism apparently rife, we seem to have a very major problem indeed.
The BBC this morning were definitely protesting too much.
In previous GEs it would have not made much of a change in terms of final result. In current SLAB situation, well
Thanks Andrea. I was on the SNP here already but I've topped up after reading that.
But IS Labour SO broken backed in Scotland? Will it be as bad on the night as is suggested? Of course it deserves to be - it may be that its support has relied too much on the extreme leftism tendency in Scotland which now feels betrayed. But is that enough to see it perform so badly so suddenly in Scotland? And more importantly - are we really going to see Labour collapse so spectacularly in Scotland yet at the same time perform wonderfully in England where the result would inevitably mean them ceding influence over English only matters to SNP MPs??
Morning all and on thread, dear old Survation, going in the opposite direction to most pollsters. I was interested to see the London poll. Is this good news for the Tories in the capital?
Saw various comments alleging Anna Soubry had called Ed Bland a naughty word. If she did, she is quite right. He is a s............. c......... . It is time we imposed a requirement that politicians have to work in the real world for at least 10 years before being allowed to serve as MPs, starting with the unemployable LOTO.
I didn't follow this story but what's wrong with calling someone a smashing chap? Is this one of those obscure traditional parliamentary language things?
We'll wait to see what it says on the t-shirt she wears to the Commons next time.
If I was her I'd have one made up saying "Splendid Chap" and a picture of his face.
Comments
34/33, 33/32 Con would probably see Labour take office.
In the past week or so we've had ICM, YouGov, ComRes and Opinium all showing a Con lead.
I am not comparing my meagre skills with those of Prof Curtice. Merely saying that using my model, people can put in their own assumptions of how 2010 voters choose to vote this time, including in Scotland, LibDem seats, Con/Lab marginal etc. It is completely transparent and can hopefully be improved over time with help from PBers who are interested
"Mr. Roger, please don't take this amiss, but I'm not sure you're jihadi wife material anyway."
I think I'd get away with it
http://cdn.bearingarms.com/uploads/2014/06/325198-burqa.jpg
http://www.barenakedislam.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/burqa3.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2015_United_Kingdom_general_election
Three days to go mind.
Labour exceeded UNS by the highest margin in London at the Euros and it is noticeable also in a couple of the by-elections this Parliament/
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/spezbm473o/TheTimes_BorisJohnson_London_150223_website.pdf
I can't speak for the libs but I'm sure they'd say the same.
Joining ISIS is like being in the 90s when Boyzone fans became fans of Blur. No really
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/24/syria-bound-schoolgirls-arent-jihadi-devil-women-theyre-vulnerable-children
Nearing the end of my train journey so will be out of contact but if anyone has any questions on how to use the model, I'll try to answer them when I get back online either tonight or tomorrow.
"It’s difficult to remember when a 15-year-old was last taken seriously as an adult in the national press. Why are we affording three brown Muslim girls that privilege now?"
Why even say "brown"? Reads like a 15 year old wrote it
Con 63%
Lab 59%
Lib 16%
For the February 2010 ICM/Guardian poll the figures were:
Con 73%
Lab 54%
Lib 54%
Tory voters are sticking to their side more determinedly than Labour voters were in the run-up to the last election. The Labour vote retention figures are, well, startling.
(Although, what it does gloss over are the 2010 Tory voters who don't applaud what has been delivered, rather they run off to UKIP screaming like ADHD kids who have spent the last five years overdosing on Sunny Delight....That may require a tome of its own.)
He comments that Britain is struggling to be competitive but didn't comment when asked what labour had done to address this during their 13 years in office.
We also have Labour screaming about a cost of living crisis and people need pay rises - which will not help competitiveness.
Go figure.
Kay Burley (@KayBurley)
24/02/2015 15:24
... And when Natalie Bennett was asked about her crash interview, this happened pic.twitter.com/VXuNE1sIYS
http://labourlist.org/2015/02/has-labours-bradford-west-candidate-stepped-down-after-just-72-hours/
Smacks of racial broad brushing tbh.
Con-Lib Dem-DUP-UKIP doesn't even reach 323.
What a pity we don't get her views on Nick...
Nick's bigger problem is that it is not him, but his party, that has nothing to say on the matters of the day. Obviously he has an abnormal level of (self)interest in seeing a Labour Govt. returned. That interest is shared by very few others.
Governments get thrown out because they have caused (or at least not prevented) something for which they are rightly castigated. Or because they have run out of steam. Job done. Or the other lot have a much more interesting proposition. None of that applies in 2015.
Mr. Mark, indeed.
It would be one way for a PM Miliband to avoid giving Ed Balls the keys to Number 11.
The skits on Dennis Thatcher were a great success years ago, but the "Groaner" has missed one vital point in this remake/rip off....
Humour.
http://may2015.com/category/seat-calculator/ VERY interesting.
Flag Quote
They're predicting a 28% SNP victory in both Aberdeen South and Edinburgh South. It seems pretty unlikely
http://www.electionforecast.co.uk/tables/SNP_seat_gains.html
Reckons you're fine Rog - if this ended up being the actual result in Scotland we'd both make money
Basically I think we'll end up with a mess. And at that point the electorate will tell the parties to sort their acts out, that basically they agree on a lot, so stop behaving like children and finger-pointing at one another all the time.
But I may be completely wrong.
'Very little progress' on universal credit, say MPs
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31610232.
I mean, it has been delivered on time AND under budget.
The papers made this very clear.
Neither are particularly positive situations.
IE not 'spending' but 'investment'.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/labour-mps-campaign-in-disarray-as-local-councillors-refuse-to-campaign-f.119022122
In previous GEs it would have not made much of a change in terms of final result. In current SLAB situation, well
The voters UKIP are trying to attract are not the same as the activists drawn to the UKIP flag. Activists who have to be told to say in the closet by UKIP itself.
What I'm wondering about this is, what happens when you go on the Universal Credit, but then your circumstances change so that it no longer knows what to do with you? Do you get flipped back to the old system, or are they going to process these people manually and rely on the fact that they've hardly signed anyone up for the thing?
We may well get it - certainly the 'mess', though I'm less confident about the 'stop behaving like children' bit.
We have had a broadly successful 5 years which has had to deal with a poisoned economic inheritance and difficult external economic circumstances. The extravagance of Labour's last 10 years where public spending increased by 50% in real terms is being corrected.
But for extreme and rampant stupidity by a sadly significant group of tory backbenchers we would be fighting this election on fairer boundaries and indeed the public might have a fairer perception of what the tory party is about.
So they won't have people transferring to the old system, and they likely won't have the resources to deal with complex cases, relying on the fact that nobody really wants to hear bad news that they can't do anything about.
I suspect - if no government can be formed - the big parties will have to go at it again at some point, espousing less homogeneous policies, trying to differentiate themselves.
I don't know what will happen really; I'm less bright than most on here. But a tie (I'm sure PtP - who knows his onions, predicted a tie) between the main parties and no opportunity for a coalition majority, would be extremely interesting.
I don't subscribe to this LibLabCon rubbish and I have no tendency towards the extremes (very liberal me) but, economically, I don't think there is much difference between the three main Westminster parties. I suspect if Balls, Cable and Osborne all laid out their honest vision for what needs to be done the similarities would be striking.
That's probably why the fringe parties are doing so well. Voters are hungering for a dynamic, left-field way out. I doubt there is one.
The purpose is to avoid the whole thing crashing in a big bang type of implementation. Bit by bit the IT people build on the additional functionality.
Even with long standing systems, sometimes a bug creeps in and the paperwork goes clerical for a period before being rebuilt.
We also hear a huge amount about Tory "entitlement" to votes. Again, absolute crap. The people who seem to have the biggest entitlement issue are Kippers. They seem to think they have an entitlement to the Tory party bending to their will. If they were members inside the party making their views known, maybe they would have a point. But they aren't. They are a competitor party. So they can feck right off. We'll do them as many favours as we do Labour.
Kippers are grown up. Mostly, very grown up. If they want to set upon a course that will deliver the polar opposite of what they claim to hold dearest, then they need to address that with their own conscience.
Saw various comments alleging Anna Soubry had called Ed Bland a naughty word. If she did, she is quite right. He is a s............. c......... . It is time we imposed a requirement that politicians have to work in the real world for at least 10 years before being allowed to serve as MPs, starting with the unemployable LOTO.
Enthusiasm for coalitions/I agree with Nick didn't even last until the first Coalition compromise (ok it was a biggie).
It is very difficult for the electorate to tell the parties how they would like the government to be structured.
I think if there was a check-box: "exactly the same again please" (Cons in power so economically responsible, LDs mitigating the worst of the nastiness and Lab on the outside popping up with their conscience), it might have a decent shot at getting chosen.
Losing O'Brien was a massive blow.
Ooooo another out. 7 down. 3 overs. 20 runs required. Nail-biting.
Let's hope the Polish authorities see sense and decide to extradite Polanski to the US.
24% disagreed with the statement, "acts of violence against those who publish images of the Prophet Muhammad can "never be justified"
Overall that survey is not really like the BBC headline. A significant percentage have views that are at odds with what the majority of society and at the same time they feel discrimination / predjuice against them, not exactly happy families.
So for party member 1, if you have 10 other folk, you have ten goes - very roughly 1/36 odds (it gets more complex as n becomes higher obviously).
But then if you don't win you have another go, for party member 2, with 9 tries (9 because you have already compared member 1 with member 2, and not got a hit).
And so on ... so something like 1/36 x 10 x 1/2 (the 1/2 because of the last effect) - which gives something of the order of 1/7 just for 11 people.
This is far too simple and ignores the overlap effect of double hits as n becomes higher. But you get the idea. You need to deal with factorials and summed series to do it properly. But that's O level/GCSE maths.
All totally correct.
I am inherently sus picious of this "real world career" stuff anyway. Supporters of David Davis frinstance like to claim he had one, but I don't terribly see how climbing the greasy pole at Big Sugar for 20 years of, I imagine, office politics and Powerpoint presentations, equips you for government.
Like crucifixion?
SPIN is the official sponsor of PB general election coverage
than on rags like the HSBC sponsored Telegraph or the Speccy
A few facts for the simple minded Blues who appear oblivious to the state of the polls or maybe cannot add up/think/read (delete as appropriate)
Labour are still ahead on the average poll of polls when they trailed by 8 pts in 2010
Labour have been ahead in 20 of the last 30 polls
Labour can afford to be probably around 5 points behind and still probably scrape in on the night with enough seats combined with others
The Tories only possible coalition partners are the Lib Dems who wont even have a leader or many other cabinet members by May and will be a bedraggled rump of around 15 or so members or UKIP who may have three or four maximum.Libs and the Kippers wont work together so it has to be one or the other and the figures say nowhere near enough seats will be gained between them
The Coalition is the Government not the Tories and the Coalition is even on the most favourable polls running at about 42% whereas it had 61% in 2010 and just managed to cobble together a majority
UKIPs recent slump has benefited the Tories but once Nigel gets back on the publicity bandwagon and back in the pub they will continue to hurt Flashmans men all over the South and Midlands helping Labour pick up seats
Ed Miliband will finally get the chance to come across as himself to the wider public and given the current very low popularity ratings he has due to the farcical media coverage of him he is bound to improve on those which will help his party
The Greens have been taking votes from Labour but may fall back a little and seeing as Caroline is their only realistic hope then tactical voting by people saying Green at present to pollsters will help Ed also
This wont happen with Kippers as many of their hardcore support hate Cameron more than Miliband including the leader himself
Taking all this into account there are three possibilities at the GE..A Labour majority (great value) Labour most seats (good value) Tory most seats but way short of a majority and unable to stay in office....All three mean its definitely going to be Red Ed as our PM basking in the adulation of the masses on Downing Street in May
But it wasn't: it was @MarqueeMark, I believe
Almost comically so, were it not so tragic.
And more importantly - are we really going to see Labour collapse so spectacularly in Scotland yet at the same time perform wonderfully in England where the result would inevitably mean them ceding influence over English only matters to SNP MPs??
http://order-order.com/2015/02/25/bradford-labour-chaos-as-galloway-deal-rumour-blows-up/