Waiting to see how Mike put's an anti-Con spin on this one before I go out...
"They need a 11% lead in England to win an overall blah blah blah..
They actually only need a 11% lead in England not to make Michael Gove look a prat when he said the Tories wouldn't lose any seats. And even then...
If there were only 2 and a bit parties then I would agree with you - but there are more. If the Tories lose votes where it doesn't matter then a much lower overall lead is required e.g. if all those ex-tory UKIPS down in leafy suburbia only result in the Tories winning by a few instead of tens of thousands of votes then it doesn't matter. If Labour pile on votes in their client areas - due to changing demographics - then again the 11% led is irrelevant. If Labour lose thousands of votes to UKIP as well, where it doesn't matter, then the lead has to go back up again.
The trouble is that this is a 6-dimensional graph of results (CON, LAB, UKIP, LD, GREEN, SNP) rather than the traditional 2-dimensional one - much harder to model.
Waiting to see how Mike put's an anti-Con spin on this one before I go out...
"They need a 11% lead in England to win an overall blah blah blah..
They actually only need a 11% lead in England not to make Michael Gove look a prat when he said the Tories wouldn't lose any seats. And even then...
Less than that and it would look very difficult to last for 5 years.
From where we stand today it looks very likely that no conceivable government will last the full 5 years. Minority Dave or minority Ed or rainbow coalition versions A, B or C all look to have a shelf life about the same as an opened bottle of milk. Throw in a ScotNat wobbly and the UK is looking less and less like a politically stable place going forwards.
The Tories do seem to be ticking up ever so slightly - they've now tested 35%+ with 5 separate pollsters this year. On the other hand, their most recent polls from TNS & Survation (28% each) point the other way.
Ashcroft's pollster is up and down more than a tart's drawers! In fact thats what I will refer to Ashcroft's polls as. 'The Tart's Drawers'.
The bees knees of tarts drawers. I see the UKIP 14% strategy is holding up well.
I should have guessed you'd be attracted to a post which mentioned a tart's drawers. 14%? Two points better than last year before the manifesto is announced and major party status kicks in for a much maligned party that polled 2% in 2010. I'd have thought the response should be "its not doing badly at all".......
Also, Dave needs to move on defence spending. Recommit to Trident, commit to the 2% target for the next Parliament and begin increasing the size of our conventional and unified forces. The equipment budget has grown too much at the expense of conventional forces. What's the use of having all of this fancy equipment without the means to project it. Our military is becoming a glorified police force under the current government and it hasn't gone unnoticed amongst our partners in NATO.
Your characterisation is incoherent. We have been spending money already on the Trident replacement... so what is there to 'recommit'? We have been spending money on aircraft carriers and multirole fighters (ie projecting bombs) We have been spending money on 22 A400M Atlas transport aircraft (ie projecting troops and stores). But along with that the BBC reports we are spending ''£226m on a specialist training school at RAF Brize Norton, where the aircraft will be based, while £80m will be used on the development, manufacture and installation of systems needed when the planes operate in hostile environments.'' And how do you project anything anywhere without some of these...? http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13125047 ''Voyager, biggest plane in RAF history, arrives in UK ... can refuel another aircraft in the air with 100,000 litres of fuel ... can carry 291 troops for more than 6,000 miles''
The notion that the equipment budget is too large is risible. Troops with no equipment inadequate equipment outdated equipment? Transport planes without defences? Are you trying to say we do not need the up to date AFVs we have just ordered? The huge cost of supporting troops is what limits their numbers. Who would think of sending 20,000 troops into action without adequate body armour? Oh...
Ashcroft's pollster is up and down more than a tart's drawers! In fact thats what I will refer to Ashcroft's polls as. 'The Tart's Drawers'.
The bees knees of tarts drawers. I see the UKIP 14% strategy is holding up well.
I should have guessed you'd be attracted to a post which mentioned a tart's drawers. 14%? Two points better than last year before the manifesto is announced and major party status kicks in for a much maligned party that polled 2% in 2010. I'd have thought the response should be "its not doing badly at all".......
It never fails - see you've done it again. 14% is great for UKIP especially if as its vote goes up Labour's goes down.
Comments
I see the UKIP 14% strategy is holding up well.
The trouble is that this is a 6-dimensional graph of results (CON, LAB, UKIP, LD, GREEN, SNP) rather than the traditional 2-dimensional one - much harder to model.
I don't know about the Thames but you are most definitely in Seine.
Random rants by you, when you don't have an answer are amusing though.
We have been spending money already on the Trident replacement... so what is there to 'recommit'?
We have been spending money on aircraft carriers and multirole fighters (ie projecting bombs)
We have been spending money on 22 A400M Atlas transport aircraft (ie projecting troops and stores). But along with that the BBC reports we are spending ''£226m on a specialist training school at RAF Brize Norton, where the aircraft will be based, while £80m will be used on the development, manufacture and installation of systems needed when the planes operate in hostile environments.''
And how do you project anything anywhere without some of these...?
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13125047
''Voyager, biggest plane in RAF history, arrives in UK ... can refuel another aircraft in the air with 100,000 litres of fuel ... can carry 291 troops for more than 6,000 miles''
The notion that the equipment budget is too large is risible. Troops with no equipment inadequate equipment outdated equipment? Transport planes without defences? Are you trying to say we do not need the up to date AFVs we have just ordered?
The huge cost of supporting troops is what limits their numbers. Who would think of sending 20,000 troops into action without adequate body armour? Oh...