Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » February’s PB Polling Average: Crossover

SystemSystem Posts: 12,215
edited March 2015 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » February’s PB Polling Average: Crossover

Two months out from the election and from the Politicalbetting Polling Average, the Tories look to be coming into form at the right time. I say ‘look to be’ because there is a little more to it than meets the eye, but first the numbers for February, which are:

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,040
    First!

    Crossover - just glorious!
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Still too close to call, still everything to play for - we're in for an exciting and unpredictable election.....

    FPT, but worth reading - excellent article from Janan Ganesh:

    The opposition Labour party can win, just as Mr Heath won in 1970, but it will not be given a mandate to do as much as it would like. Yes, Britons are grouchy about the governing Tories’ out-of-touchness, the runaway success of the rich, the misdeeds of the political class, the magnitude of immigration. But a mood of vague cussedness — otherwise known as being British — does not equal a demand to revise the national economic model from first principles, which is what Ed Miliband had in mind at the start of his Labour leadership.

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b5d3633e-c0d3-11e4-876d-00144feab7de.html#ixzz3TIMn0H9s
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited March 2015
    Interesting view from Mr Lammy about going soft on shoplifters taking from up-scale stores. On the face of it, it sounds like a stupid thing to say, but Mr Lammy is a very clever chap, a Barrister from Harvard Law no less, so how does this pronouncement work in the big game. It's difficult to see which constituency he is trying to appeal to, and how it does him any credit in his campaign to be the next Labour Mayor of London. What is next? Softer sentences for robbing big banks instead of small ones? Softer sentences for killing old people because they have less life left? Very bizarre.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2976526/Give-shoplifters-softer-sentences-steal-stores-Labour-MP-David-Lammy-says-luxury-shops-Fortnam-Mason-absorb-losses.html
  • PurseybearPurseybear Posts: 766

    Still too close to call, still everything to play for - we're in for an exciting and unpredictable election.....

    Yes to all the above tho' if either side put on a spurt now it could be all over. Tories lead y'day could be all moe. If it isn't & they keep momentum then with the Budget in a fortnight you;d kinda think they could do it. With LDs in trouble 38% for either Lab or Con looks a winning total.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,538
    There do seem to be some straws in the wind now that suggest crossover is taking place.

    Far later in the day than anticipated.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,963
    edited March 2015
    As before the owner of the keys to number 10 is Nigel Farage. Two scenarios:

    1. We have passed peak kipper and its now downhill. Despite all the polls showing that a significant portion of UKIP voters didn't vote for anyone last time and don't care about not having a Tory government, their voters do in fact "go home" when faced with a hard choice of Cameron or Milliband

    2. UKIP have been on the telly only in a negative light (all their own fault thanks to policy contradictions and the people on "Meet the Ukippers") hence their decline, but come the short campaign they are a major party and we'll get a lot of Farage coverage. Whilst Tories and the left hate him, he is a lodestone figure for anti-Cameron right leaning protest votes. As we have seen in previous non-GE election cycles when he is front and centre the UKIP vote soars.

    A re-boosted UKIP score and its all over for the Tories. Never mind the Tories losing half a dozen or so seats to UKIP, its all the seats where an improved Labour vote and a split Tory vote puts Labour in even when the right collectively have more votes.

    Its all going to come down to the maths in the Commons. Without Labour's implosion in Scotland even this crossover position would be enough for a majority. Without the LibDems implosion everywhere Con+LD would be looking at a comfortable re-election. What we do know is that the polls are ludicrously volatile and they are volatile because there are huge numbers of don't knows and not sures out there. Neither of the two big parties have really engaged properly with the electorate and that means almost anything is possible.

    Regardless of your party allegiance its going to be one of the most interesting elections in a long time.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216

    Still too close to call, still everything to play for - we're in for an exciting and unpredictable election.....

    Yes to all the above tho' if either side put on a spurt now it could be all over.
    Yes - the bit I can't work out (and this could easily be confirmation bias) is how Labour put a spurt on (other than Osborne cocking it up - there aren't any Washington trips coming up are there?) - with Ed's ratings where they are (one in six Labour voters would rather have Cameron as PM...its one in 25 for the reverse), how do they do it? Its not like his front bench is much more impressive......and you'd think after five years in opposition they'd have thought through things like the Tuition Fees.......
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216

    As before the owner of the keys to number 10 is Nigel Farage.

    It could be Nicola Sturgeon.......(yes, I know she's not standing for Westminster, but she's party leader, as she's made plain in no uncertain terms).

    Could the MODS put a link to the first (and subsequent) 'Predict the Number of seats' thread to save wading back? Ta very muchly.......

    My only quibble with Mr Ganesh' otherwise excellent article 'that this is a 'no change election in Britain' I don't think holds true in Scotland.....
  • The spurt - for either side - will come from the large number still undecided. A lot of punters out there to woo and it doesn't even have to be policy wooing. The Tories are showing their ankle on things like Europe and kicking the beggar, Labour are hoping to portray the Tories as in it for their mates.

    A lot of people who haven't woken up to the fact that there's an election in a few weeks. Once its called they will. And then its all to play for.
  • As before the owner of the keys to number 10 is Nigel Farage.

    It could be Nicola Sturgeon.......(yes, I know she's not standing for Westminster, but she's party leader, as she's made plain in no uncertain terms).
    She could be hugely important - thats true. But for her to be important is if Labour + SNP confidence and supply puts the two over the top. For that to add up you need first to collapse the LibDems and split the Tories. If Farage announces a pact with Cameron the election is all over. If Farage gets the air time he's been promised and their vote goes back up as it did in the Euros when he got air time, the election is over the other way. Sturgeon as Queen Bee only happens after Farage.

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,538

    As before the owner of the keys to number 10 is Nigel Farage.

    It could be Nicola Sturgeon.......(yes, I know she's not standing for Westminster, but she's party leader, as she's made plain in no uncertain terms).
    She could be hugely important - thats true. But for her to be important is if Labour + SNP confidence and supply puts the two over the top. For that to add up you need first to collapse the LibDems and split the Tories. If Farage announces a pact with Cameron the election is all over. If Farage gets the air time he's been promised and their vote goes back up as it did in the Euros when he got air time, the election is over the other way. Sturgeon as Queen Bee only happens after Farage.

    The striking thing is that the Conservatives can be ahead, even with UKIP polling 14-15% in today's polls.

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216

    The spurt - for either side - will come from the large number still undecided.

    In today's YouGov the lowest number of 'don't knows (9%) are in Scotland, the largest in the South of England (16%) - I'm not sure either are particularly propitious for Labour....
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,538

    Still too close to call, still everything to play for - we're in for an exciting and unpredictable election.....

    Yes to all the above tho' if either side put on a spurt now it could be all over.
    Yes - the bit I can't work out (and this could easily be confirmation bias) is how Labour put a spurt on (other than Osborne cocking it up - there aren't any Washington trips coming up are there?) - with Ed's ratings where they are (one in six Labour voters would rather have Cameron as PM...its one in 25 for the reverse), how do they do it? Its not like his front bench is much more impressive......and you'd think after five years in opposition they'd have thought through things like the Tuition Fees.......
    Labour might be able to squeeze some more votes out of the Greens, but I can't see where a spurt would come from.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216

    As before the owner of the keys to number 10 is Nigel Farage.

    It could be Nicola Sturgeon.......(yes, I know she's not standing for Westminster, but she's party leader, as she's made plain in no uncertain terms).
    If Farage announces a pact with Cameron the election is all over.
    It would certainly cause a convulsion - but with what outcome?

    The socially liberal Cameroon tendency and the Coalitionistas would revolt - and I very much doubt Cameron would touch Farage with a bargepole......

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,538

    As before the owner of the keys to number 10 is Nigel Farage.

    It could be Nicola Sturgeon.......(yes, I know she's not standing for Westminster, but she's party leader, as she's made plain in no uncertain terms).
    If Farage announces a pact with Cameron the election is all over.
    It would certainly cause a convulsion - but with what outcome?

    The socially liberal Cameroon tendency and the Coalitionistas would revolt - and I very much doubt Cameron would touch Farage with a bargepole......

    It wouldn't help either party, this side of the election.

    Post-election, centre-right voters will have a better idea of which party is best-placed to defeat Labour, in any given seat.

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Sean_F said:

    Still too close to call, still everything to play for - we're in for an exciting and unpredictable election.....

    Yes to all the above tho' if either side put on a spurt now it could be all over.
    Yes - the bit I can't work out (and this could easily be confirmation bias) is how Labour put a spurt on (other than Osborne cocking it up - there aren't any Washington trips coming up are there?) - with Ed's ratings where they are (one in six Labour voters would rather have Cameron as PM...its one in 25 for the reverse), how do they do it? Its not like his front bench is much more impressive......and you'd think after five years in opposition they'd have thought through things like the Tuition Fees.......
    Labour might be able to squeeze some more votes out of the Greens, but I can't see where a spurt would come from.
    Yes, but.....the Greens are strongest among the youngest age group (YG 18-24: 16, 60+: 3), where Labour is already strong....so they have to get them to i) switch allegiance then ii) actually vote......but there's also the 16% of 2010 Lib Dems who 'Don't Know'......
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Sean_F said:

    As before the owner of the keys to number 10 is Nigel Farage.

    It could be Nicola Sturgeon.......(yes, I know she's not standing for Westminster, but she's party leader, as she's made plain in no uncertain terms).
    If Farage announces a pact with Cameron the election is all over.
    It would certainly cause a convulsion - but with what outcome?

    The socially liberal Cameroon tendency and the Coalitionistas would revolt - and I very much doubt Cameron would touch Farage with a bargepole......

    It wouldn't help either party, this side of the election.

    Its difficult to work out who'd have more opprobrium heaped on him - Cameron or Farage........but its interesting that our friends on the left see it as a viable option.....
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,222

    Sean_F said:

    As before the owner of the keys to number 10 is Nigel Farage.

    It could be Nicola Sturgeon.......(yes, I know she's not standing for Westminster, but she's party leader, as she's made plain in no uncertain terms).
    If Farage announces a pact with Cameron the election is all over.
    It would certainly cause a convulsion - but with what outcome?

    The socially liberal Cameroon tendency and the Coalitionistas would revolt - and I very much doubt Cameron would touch Farage with a bargepole......

    It wouldn't help either party, this side of the election.

    Its difficult to work out who'd have more opprobrium heaped on him - Cameron or Farage........but its interesting that our friends on the left see it as a viable option.....
    The time for electoral pacts has long since passed. For what it's worth I think Farage would be made to do a deal with the Tories. I did like his suggestion of the Tories standing aside in Ukip's best chances though!
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Latest ARSE 2015 General Election & "JackW Dozen" Projection Countdown

    140 minutes 140 seconds
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,025
    For me the key to the election is not UKIP or even the SNP but those 1 in 6 Labour voters who prefer David Cameron as PM. If Labour poll at anything like 33.6% after imploding in Scotland then the Tories will struggle to be the largest party and simply will not be able to form a government even if they are. The SNP will provide C&S of sorts to Labour but they will not to a Tory government which makes the SLAB implosion less significant in terms of forming a government.

    The Tories need to drive Labour's support down but after a long period of falling it enjoyed a modest bounce in February. How does the Tories get at that 1 in 6? Well, they have little time and few options but as I said yesterday they must try to use the budget to set the agenda for the next Parliament, not just to boast about what they have achieved in this one.

    Yesterday there were calls for some blue meat to re-engage disaffected blues but for me the key is policies that could attract some of those 1 in 6. An increase in the NMW. A freezing of duties to reflect the low inflation environment. Possibly another increase in the personal allowance giving a wage increase in time for the election.

    Osborne has a limited pot and one of the key reasons that 1 in 6 exists is that he is seen as responsible (in contrast to the 2 Eds at least) and he must not undermine that. There will be more promises about what will be done in the future than what can be done right now but he must find ways to get the biggest bang for his limited bucks.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,932
    tlg86 said:

    Sean_F said:

    As before the owner of the keys to number 10 is Nigel Farage.

    It could be Nicola Sturgeon.......(yes, I know she's not standing for Westminster, but she's party leader, as she's made plain in no uncertain terms).
    If Farage announces a pact with Cameron the election is all over.
    It would certainly cause a convulsion - but with what outcome?

    The socially liberal Cameroon tendency and the Coalitionistas would revolt - and I very much doubt Cameron would touch Farage with a bargepole......

    It wouldn't help either party, this side of the election.

    Its difficult to work out who'd have more opprobrium heaped on him - Cameron or Farage........but its interesting that our friends on the left see it as a viable option.....
    The time for electoral pacts has long since passed. For what it's worth I think Farage would be made to do a deal with the Tories. I did like his suggestion of the Tories standing aside in Ukip's best chances though!
    Cameron would lose more than he gained if he did a deal with the Kippers, either before or after the election.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    DavidL said:

    For me the key to the election is not UKIP or even the SNP but those 1 in 6 Labour voters who prefer David Cameron as PM. If Labour poll at anything like 33.6% after imploding in Scotland then the Tories will struggle to be the largest party and simply will not be able to form a government even if they are. The SNP will provide C&S of sorts to Labour but they will not to a Tory government which makes the SLAB implosion less significant in terms of forming a government.

    The Tories need to drive Labour's support down but after a long period of falling it enjoyed a modest bounce in February. How does the Tories get at that 1 in 6? Well, they have little time and few options but as I said yesterday they must try to use the budget to set the agenda for the next Parliament, not just to boast about what they have achieved in this one.

    Yesterday there were calls for some blue meat to re-engage disaffected blues but for me the key is policies that could attract some of those 1 in 6. An increase in the NMW. A freezing of duties to reflect the low inflation environment. Possibly another increase in the personal allowance giving a wage increase in time for the election.

    Osborne has a limited pot and one of the key reasons that 1 in 6 exists is that he is seen as responsible (in contrast to the 2 Eds at least) and he must not undermine that. There will be more promises about what will be done in the future than what can be done right now but he must find ways to get the biggest bang for his limited bucks.

    The 1 in 6 are key, but they are unlikely to vote Conservative. They may, however, abstain. So the Conservatives should be aiming not to rile them. The policies you suggest would do no harm to that objective, but it's at least as important not to bang on about the EU and look crazed.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    If a week is a long time in politics.....two snapshots, a year apart (Vs 2014)

    Con: 35 (+3)
    Lab: 32 (-9)
    LibD: 7 (-1)
    UKIP: 15 (+3)
    SNP/PC: 6 (+2)
    Green: 4 (+3)

    On 'issues facing the country - Con lead vs Lab:
    NHS: -10 (+3)
    Immigration: +7 (n/c)
    Laura Norder: +15 (+4)
    Education: -1 (+5)
    Tax: +13 (+13)
    Unemployment: +3 (+7)
    Economy: +17 (+9)
    Europe: +1 (+2)
    Benefits: -1 (+1)
    Housing: -7 (not asked)
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    antifrank said:

    DavidL said:

    For me the key to the election is not UKIP or even the SNP but those 1 in 6 Labour voters who prefer David Cameron as PM. If Labour poll at anything like 33.6% after imploding in Scotland then the Tories will struggle to be the largest party and simply will not be able to form a government even if they are. The SNP will provide C&S of sorts to Labour but they will not to a Tory government which makes the SLAB implosion less significant in terms of forming a government.

    The Tories need to drive Labour's support down but after a long period of falling it enjoyed a modest bounce in February. How does the Tories get at that 1 in 6? Well, they have little time and few options but as I said yesterday they must try to use the budget to set the agenda for the next Parliament, not just to boast about what they have achieved in this one.

    Yesterday there were calls for some blue meat to re-engage disaffected blues but for me the key is policies that could attract some of those 1 in 6. An increase in the NMW. A freezing of duties to reflect the low inflation environment. Possibly another increase in the personal allowance giving a wage increase in time for the election.

    Osborne has a limited pot and one of the key reasons that 1 in 6 exists is that he is seen as responsible (in contrast to the 2 Eds at least) and he must not undermine that. There will be more promises about what will be done in the future than what can be done right now but he must find ways to get the biggest bang for his limited bucks.

    The 1 in 6 are key, but they are unlikely to vote Conservative. They may, however, abstain. So the Conservatives should be aiming not to rile them. The policies you suggest would do no harm to that objective, but it's at least as important not to bang on about the EU and look crazed.
    Agree - Thatcher (and Major) won by appealing to White Van Man of Essex, not Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells - 'we're on your side' is a powerful message - the challenge for the Tories is how to communicate it convincingly, a task not helped by Cameron's background (but Ed's doesn't help him either)
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,025
    antifrank said:

    DavidL said:

    For me the key to the election is not UKIP or even the SNP but those 1 in 6 Labour voters who prefer David Cameron as PM. If Labour poll at anything like 33.6% after imploding in Scotland then the Tories will struggle to be the largest party and simply will not be able to form a government even if they are. The SNP will provide C&S of sorts to Labour but they will not to a Tory government which makes the SLAB implosion less significant in terms of forming a government.

    The Tories need to drive Labour's support down but after a long period of falling it enjoyed a modest bounce in February. How does the Tories get at that 1 in 6? Well, they have little time and few options but as I said yesterday they must try to use the budget to set the agenda for the next Parliament, not just to boast about what they have achieved in this one.

    Yesterday there were calls for some blue meat to re-engage disaffected blues but for me the key is policies that could attract some of those 1 in 6. An increase in the NMW. A freezing of duties to reflect the low inflation environment. Possibly another increase in the personal allowance giving a wage increase in time for the election.

    Osborne has a limited pot and one of the key reasons that 1 in 6 exists is that he is seen as responsible (in contrast to the 2 Eds at least) and he must not undermine that. There will be more promises about what will be done in the future than what can be done right now but he must find ways to get the biggest bang for his limited bucks.

    The 1 in 6 are key, but they are unlikely to vote Conservative. They may, however, abstain. So the Conservatives should be aiming not to rile them. The policies you suggest would do no harm to that objective, but it's at least as important not to bang on about the EU and look crazed.
    If they think DC is the better PM then some of them can be tempted and every one is worth double.

    Tories frothing about the EU is never a good look and chasing UKIP supporters on that basis will (a) not work and (b) upset the 1 in 6.

    If DC is to be PM after the election I think he needs to get Labour sub 30. It is a big ask but it is possible.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    I guess the connection isn't a surprise - though the extent of it might be....

    Unite boss Red Len is force behind Labour
    EXCLUSIVE: Multiple connections between union and party

    NEARLY half of all Labour candidates and MPs standing in the Election have links to “Red Len” McCluskey and his Unite union.

    http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/6353235/Unite-boss-Red-Len-McCluskey-is-force-behind-Labour.html
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,025

    If a week is a long time in politics.....two snapshots, a year apart (Vs 2014)

    Con: 35 (+3)
    Lab: 32 (-9)
    LibD: 7 (-1)
    UKIP: 15 (+3)
    SNP/PC: 6 (+2)
    Green: 4 (+3)

    On 'issues facing the country - Con lead vs Lab:
    NHS: -10 (+3)
    Immigration: +7 (n/c)
    Laura Norder: +15 (+4)
    Education: -1 (+5)
    Tax: +13 (+13)
    Unemployment: +3 (+7)
    Economy: +17 (+9)
    Europe: +1 (+2)
    Benefits: -1 (+1)
    Housing: -7 (not asked)

    That blank sheet of paper hasn't really worked has it?
  • Paul_Mid_BedsPaul_Mid_Beds Posts: 1,409
    DavidL said:

    antifrank said:

    DavidL said:

    For me the key to the election is not UKIP or even the SNP but those 1 in 6 Labour voters who prefer David Cameron as PM. If Labour poll at anything like 33.6% after imploding in Scotland then the Tories will struggle to be the largest party and simply will not be able to form a government even if they are. The SNP will provide C&S of sorts to Labour but they will not to a Tory government which makes the SLAB implosion less significant in terms of forming a government.

    The Tories need to drive Labour's support down but after a long period of falling it enjoyed a modest bounce in February. How does the Tories get at that 1 in 6? Well, they have little time and few options but as I said yesterday they must try to use the budget to set the agenda for the next Parliament, not just to boast about what they have achieved in this one.

    Yesterday there were calls for some blue meat to re-engage disaffected blues but for me the key is policies that could attract some of those 1 in 6. An increase in the NMW. A freezing of duties to reflect the low inflation environment. Possibly another increase in the personal allowance giving a wage increase in time for the election.

    Osborne has a limited pot and one of the key reasons that 1 in 6 exists is that he is seen as responsible (in contrast to the 2 Eds at least) and he must not undermine that. There will be more promises about what will be done in the future than what can be done right now but he must find ways to get the biggest bang for his limited bucks.

    The 1 in 6 are key, but they are unlikely to vote Conservative. They may, however, abstain. So the Conservatives should be aiming not to rile them. The policies you suggest would do no harm to that objective, but it's at least as important not to bang on about the EU and look crazed.
    If they think DC is the better PM then some of them can be tempted and every one is worth double.

    Tories frothing about the EU is never a good look and chasing UKIP supporters on that basis will (a) not work and (b) upset the 1 in 6.

    If DC is to be PM after the election I think he needs to get Labour sub 30. It is a big ask but it is possible.
    Just getting the 1 in 6 to sit on their hands rather than vote Labour would be good enough for Gideon.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,538
    DavidL said:

    antifrank said:

    DavidL said:

    For me the key to the election is not UKIP or even the SNP but those 1 in 6 Labour voters who prefer David Cameron as PM. If Labour poll at anything like 33.6% after imploding in Scotland then the Tories will struggle to be the largest party and simply will not be able to form a government even if they are. The SNP will provide C&S of sorts to Labour but they will not to a Tory government which makes the SLAB implosion less significant in terms of forming a government.

    The Tories need to drive Labour's support down but after a long period of falling it enjoyed a modest bounce in February. How does the Tories get at that 1 in 6? Well, they have little time and few options but as I said yesterday they must try to use the budget to set the agenda for the next Parliament, not just to boast about what they have achieved in this one.

    Yesterday there were calls for some blue meat to re-engage disaffected blues but for me the key is policies that could attract some of those 1 in 6. An increase in the NMW. A freezing of duties to reflect the low inflation environment. Possibly another increase in the personal allowance giving a wage increase in time for the election.

    Osborne has a limited pot and one of the key reasons that 1 in 6 exists is that he is seen as responsible (in contrast to the 2 Eds at least) and he must not undermine that. There will be more promises about what will be done in the future than what can be done right now but he must find ways to get the biggest bang for his limited bucks.

    The 1 in 6 are key, but they are unlikely to vote Conservative. They may, however, abstain. So the Conservatives should be aiming not to rile them. The policies you suggest would do no harm to that objective, but it's at least as important not to bang on about the EU and look crazed.
    If they think DC is the better PM then some of them can be tempted and every one is worth double.

    Tories frothing about the EU is never a good look and chasing UKIP supporters on that basis will (a) not work and (b) upset the 1 in 6.

    If DC is to be PM after the election I think he needs to get Labour sub 30. It is a big ask but it is possible.
    A result along the lines of this morning's Yougov poll, or the Ashcroft poll, would probably be enough to keep the Conservatives in government. If Labour were to go below 30, the Conservatives would be heading for an overall majority.
  • Labour's lead has been on a very clear and very steady decline for two years. They are now behind - just. But...we've only got 2 months to go. I suspect it's a bit late and we're heading for a very hung parliament. Unless Ed gets his face on the telly during the coming weeks - then the steady decline may morph into a collapse.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Indigo said:

    Interesting view from Mr Lammy about going soft on shoplifters taking from up-scale stores. On the face of it, it sounds like a stupid thing to say, but Mr Lammy is a very clever chap, a Barrister from Harvard Law no less, so how does this pronouncement work in the big game. It's difficult to see which constituency he is trying to appeal to, and how it does him any credit in his campaign to be the next Labour Mayor of London. What is next? Softer sentences for robbing big banks instead of small ones? Softer sentences for killing old people because they have less life left? Very bizarre.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2976526/Give-shoplifters-softer-sentences-steal-stores-Labour-MP-David-Lammy-says-luxury-shops-Fortnam-Mason-absorb-losses.html

    Don't sentences for crimes against the person already take account of the status of and impact on the victim? And pace the Mail, surely it would be just as easy to put a right wing, Laura Norder spin on Lammy's proposals, since Lammy's main complaint is that the current system does not protect victims and has effectively decriminalised shoplifting and low-level theft generally.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,025
    Sean_F said:

    DavidL said:

    antifrank said:

    DavidL said:

    For me the key to the election is not UKIP or even the SNP but those 1 in 6 Labour voters who prefer David Cameron as PM. If Labour poll at anything like 33.6% after imploding in Scotland then the Tories will struggle to be the largest party and simply will not be able to form a government even if they are. The SNP will provide C&S of sorts to Labour but they will not to a Tory government which makes the SLAB implosion less significant in terms of forming a government.

    The Tories need to drive Labour's support down but after a long period of falling it enjoyed a modest bounce in February. How does the Tories get at that 1 in 6? Well, they have little time and few options but as I said yesterday they must try to use the budget to set the agenda for the next Parliament, not just to boast about what they have achieved in this one.

    Yesterday there were calls for some blue meat to re-engage disaffected blues but for me the key is policies that could attract some of those 1 in 6. An increase in the NMW. A freezing of duties to reflect the low inflation environment. Possibly another increase in the personal allowance giving a wage increase in time for the election.

    Osborne has a limited pot and one of the key reasons that 1 in 6 exists is that he is seen as responsible (in contrast to the 2 Eds at least) and he must not undermine that. There will be more promises about what will be done in the future than what can be done right now but he must find ways to get the biggest bang for his limited bucks.

    The 1 in 6 are key, but they are unlikely to vote Conservative. They may, however, abstain. So the Conservatives should be aiming not to rile them. The policies you suggest would do no harm to that objective, but it's at least as important not to bang on about the EU and look crazed.
    If they think DC is the better PM then some of them can be tempted and every one is worth double.

    Tories frothing about the EU is never a good look and chasing UKIP supporters on that basis will (a) not work and (b) upset the 1 in 6.

    If DC is to be PM after the election I think he needs to get Labour sub 30. It is a big ask but it is possible.
    A result along the lines of this morning's Yougov poll, or the Ashcroft poll, would probably be enough to keep the Conservatives in government. If Labour were to go below 30, the Conservatives would be heading for an overall majority.
    It wasn't enough to get them an overall majority the last time but it will certainly put them in a dominant position.

    That 1 in 6 is worth just over 5% and they are the key to this election.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,712

    Indigo said:

    Interesting view from Mr Lammy about going soft on shoplifters taking from up-scale stores. On the face of it, it sounds like a stupid thing to say, but Mr Lammy is a very clever chap, a Barrister from Harvard Law no less, so how does this pronouncement work in the big game. It's difficult to see which constituency he is trying to appeal to, and how it does him any credit in his campaign to be the next Labour Mayor of London. What is next? Softer sentences for robbing big banks instead of small ones? Softer sentences for killing old people because they have less life left? Very bizarre.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2976526/Give-shoplifters-softer-sentences-steal-stores-Labour-MP-David-Lammy-says-luxury-shops-Fortnam-Mason-absorb-losses.html

    Don't sentences for crimes against the person already take account of the status of and impact on the victim? And pace the Mail, surely it would be just as easy to put a right wing, Laura Norder spin on Lammy's proposals, since Lammy's main complaint is that the current system does not protect victims and has effectively decriminalised shoplifting and low-level theft generally.
    Isn’t it all of a piece with the "apparent fact" that if you evade £1k worth of tax HMRC will throw the book at you. If you evade £100k they’ll do a deal to avooid Court action.

    Apparent fact = general perception, true or not!
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    The spurt - for either side - will come from the large number still undecided. A lot of punters out there to woo and it doesn't even have to be policy wooing. The Tories are showing their ankle on things like Europe and kicking the beggar, Labour are hoping to portray the Tories as in it for their mates.

    A lot of people who haven't woken up to the fact that there's an election in a few weeks. Once its called they will. And then its all to play for.

    The spurt - for either side - will come from events. Which side will be favoured depends on what events. Russian expansionism and American warnings about defence cuts might help the Conservatives (unfairly, since it is they who decimated our armed forces, but it is their issue just as almost any NHS concerns help Labour). Europe, with Germany telling Greece what to do just before the election, might hurt Tories by boosting UKIP.

    Or a new CSA scandal, which might hurt any party depending who is involved. The government has new proposals all over the front pages. A good idea; serious proposals to end this scourge; or getting their retaliation in early because they know more revelations are coming?

    Events, dear boy, events.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,706
    DavidL said:

    antifrank said:

    DavidL said:

    For me the key to the election is not UKIP or even the SNP but those 1 in 6 Labour voters who prefer David Cameron as PM. If Labour poll at anything like 33.6% after imploding in Scotland then the Tories will struggle to be the largest party and simply will not be able to form a government even if they are. The SNP will provide C&S of sorts to Labour but they will not to a Tory government which makes the SLAB implosion less significant in terms of forming a government.

    The Tories need to drive Labour's support down but after a long period of falling it enjoyed a modest bounce in February. How does the Tories get at that 1 in 6? Well, they have little time and few options but as I said yesterday they must try to use the budget to set the agenda for the next Parliament, not just to boast about what they have achieved in this one.

    Yesterday there were calls for some blue meat to re-engage disaffected blues but for me the key is policies that could attract some of those 1 in 6. An increase in the NMW. A freezing of duties to reflect the low inflation environment. Possibly another increase in the personal allowance giving a wage increase in time for the election.

    Osborne has a limited pot and one of the key reasons that 1 in 6 exists is that he is seen as responsible (in contrast to the 2 Eds at least) and he must not undermine that. There will be more promises about what will be done in the future than what can be done right now but he must find ways to get the biggest bang for his limited bucks.

    The 1 in 6 are key, but they are unlikely to vote Conservative. They may, however, abstain. So the Conservatives should be aiming not to rile them. The policies you suggest would do no harm to that objective, but it's at least as important not to bang on about the EU and look crazed.
    If they think DC is the better PM then some of them can be tempted and every one is worth double.

    Tories frothing about the EU is never a good look and chasing UKIP supporters on that basis will (a) not work and (b) upset the 1 in 6.

    If DC is to be PM after the election I think he needs to get Labour sub 30. It is a big ask but it is possible.
    It's a false choice though, albeit one which the modernisers within the Conservative Party have given much credence over the years.

    Any successful political party worth it's salt can both retain its core *and* win over floating voters. It's not an either or choice. It's about building a broad coalition of support. And different policies will appeal to different groups, with leadership, a plan for the future, the economy and competence the key icing on the cake.

    If you can't ride two horses at once you shouldn't be in the circus.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    @Carlotta FPT:

    Another NHS scandal that happened largely on Labour's watch:

    http://www.itv.com/news/2015-03-02/turf-war-led-to-deaths-of-30-deaths-mothers-and-babies/

    The CQC report done in Spring of 2010 (in the dying days of the Labour government) seems to have been fairly inadequate, though recently there was a payout as compensation to one of its leaders:

    http://www.nwemail.co.uk/home/payout-for-furness-general-hospital-cover-up-row-cqc-chief-1.1180345#.VIgt9l5OW7c.twitter

    I did point out at the time of the Staffs enquiry that it was not an isolated scandal.

    If Labour are falling behind following a week of money laundering, tax evasion, second jobs and increased immigration, concentrating on the NHS may help. Or not.


  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,538

    Indigo said:

    Interesting view from Mr Lammy about going soft on shoplifters taking from up-scale stores. On the face of it, it sounds like a stupid thing to say, but Mr Lammy is a very clever chap, a Barrister from Harvard Law no less, so how does this pronouncement work in the big game. It's difficult to see which constituency he is trying to appeal to, and how it does him any credit in his campaign to be the next Labour Mayor of London. What is next? Softer sentences for robbing big banks instead of small ones? Softer sentences for killing old people because they have less life left? Very bizarre.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2976526/Give-shoplifters-softer-sentences-steal-stores-Labour-MP-David-Lammy-says-luxury-shops-Fortnam-Mason-absorb-losses.html

    Don't sentences for crimes against the person already take account of the status of and impact on the victim? And pace the Mail, surely it would be just as easy to put a right wing, Laura Norder spin on Lammy's proposals, since Lammy's main complaint is that the current system does not protect victims and has effectively decriminalised shoplifting and low-level theft generally.
    Isn’t it all of a piece with the "apparent fact" that if you evade £1k worth of tax HMRC will throw the book at you. If you evade £100k they’ll do a deal to avooid Court action.

    Apparent fact = general perception, true or not!
    Doing a deal with people who can afford good lawyers is a almost always going to e cost-effective.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    It's a false choice though, albeit one which the modernisers within the Conservative Party have given much credence over the years.

    Any successful political party worth it's salt can both retain its core *and* win over floating voters. It's not an either or choice. It's about building a broad coalition of support. And different policies will appeal to different groups, with leadership, a plan for the future, the economy and competence the key icing on the cake.

    If you can't ride two horses at once you shouldn't be in the circus.

    Perhaps surprisingly, I agree with much of that. The mistake that the current Conservative leadership made was, in my view, one of tone rather than policy (in objective terms this has been a rightwing government that has sounded centrist rather than the reverse, so it isn't about policy) . They know they're posh boys, so why did they marginalise all the rougher, gruffer voices in their party? Eric Pickles has been woefully underused.
  • GadflyGadfly Posts: 1,191
    "So is crossover a rogue-poll effect?"

    Simply focussing on the YouGov polls shows something is going on...


    Simple, Free Image and File Hosting at MediaFire
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    DavidL said:

    antifrank said:

    DavidL said:

    For me the key to the election is not UKIP or even the SNP but those 1 in 6 Labour voters who prefer David Cameron as PM. If Labour poll at anything like 33.6% after imploding in Scotland then the Tories will struggle to be the largest party and simply will not be able to form a government even if they are. The SNP will provide C&S of sorts to Labour but they will not to a Tory government which makes the SLAB implosion less significant in terms of forming a government.

    Yesterday there were calls for some blue meat to re-engage disaffected blues but for me the key is policies that could attract some of those 1 in 6. An increase in the NMW. A freezing of duties to reflect the low inflation environment. Possibly another increase in the personal allowance giving a wage increase in time for the election.

    Osborne has a limited pot and one of the key reasons that 1 in 6 exists is that he is seen as responsible (in contrast to the 2 Eds at least) and he must not undermine that. There will be more promises about what will be done in the future than what can be done right now but he must find ways to get the biggest bang for his limited bucks.

    The 1 in 6 are key, but they are unlikely to vote Conservative. They may, however, abstain. So the Conservatives should be aiming not to rile them. The policies you suggest would do no harm to that objective, but it's at least as important not to bang on about the EU and look crazed.
    If they think DC is the better PM then some of them can be tempted and every one is worth double.

    Tories frothing about the EU is never a good look and chasing UKIP supporters on that basis will (a) not work and (b) upset the 1 in 6.

    If DC is to be PM after the election I think he needs to get Labour sub 30. It is a big ask but it is possible.
    It's a false choice though, albeit one which the modernisers within the Conservative Party have given much credence over the years.

    Any successful political party worth it's salt can both retain its core *and* win over floating voters. It's not an either or choice. It's about building a broad coalition of support. And different policies will appeal to different groups, with leadership, a plan for the future, the economy and competence the key icing on the cake.

    If you can't ride two horses at once you shouldn't be in the circus.
    There is some truth in what you say, but it is impossible to ride two horses at the same time if one is biting and kicking the other!
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    On topic, the polls are hard to read right now. It may be that the Conservatives are finally getting their much-predicted swingback. But it's far from clear yet, and even believers in the phenomenon will struggle to guess how far the Conservatives might rise in the polls.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966

    DavidL said:

    antifrank said:



    The 1 in 6 are key, but they are unlikely to vote Conservative. They may, however, abstain. So the Conservatives should be aiming not to rile them. The policies you suggest would do no harm to that objective, but it's at least as important not to bang on about the EU and look crazed.

    If they think DC is the better PM then some of them can be tempted and every one is worth double.

    Tories frothing about the EU is never a good look and chasing UKIP supporters on that basis will (a) not work and (b) upset the 1 in 6.

    If DC is to be PM after the election I think he needs to get Labour sub 30. It is a big ask but it is possible.
    Just getting the 1 in 6 to sit on their hands rather than vote Labour would be good enough for Gideon.
    I am not convinced that throwing the 1-in-6 sweeties in the budget is worth much, they will have to be the sort of sweeties (increase in NMW etc) that they expect to get from Ed and Ed anyway, only the more cuddly less baby-eating version. It would have to be the kinda of aspirational "right-to-buy" sort of policy which appeals to the WVM types but crucially would a) never be offered in a million years by a Labour chancellor, and b) would be at risk of being cancelled if Labour came to power.

    It is said the Loyalty is "the expectation of favours to come", its no good giving people something which they could get from Labour anyway, it has to be something they won't get from Labour, and would probably lose if Labour win.
  • RobD said:

    First!

    Crossover - just glorious!

    Well, two months late but I'm pleased for young Sunil.

    Who knows what fate might have awaited him had this gone on much longer.
  • Please, please, please can we see ALOT more of Ed Miliband on the telly now.
  • I like Mr. Herdson's style.

    Sybil!
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670

    The spurt - for either side - will come from the large number still undecided.

    In today's YouGov the lowest number of 'don't knows (9%) are in Scotland, the largest in the South of England (16%) - I'm not sure either are particularly propitious for Labour....
    I think the Scottish don't know are more likely to vote labour than SNP. But they may be more likely still to not vote at all in a 1997 Tory kind of way.
  • JWisemannJWisemann Posts: 1,082
    Right - another crossover in all polls where conservatives are showing a lead ignoring all of those many more in which they are not. Ok folks.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,687

    antifrank said:

    DavidL said:

    For me the key to the election is not UKIP or even the SNP but those 1 in 6 Labour voters who prefer David Cameron as PM. If Labour poll at anything like 33.6% after imploding in Scotland then the Tories will struggle to be the largest party and simply will not be able to form a government even if they are. The SNP will provide C&S of sorts to Labour but they will not to a Tory government which makes the SLAB implosion less significant in terms of forming a government.

    The Tories need to drive Labour's support down but after a long period of falling it enjoyed a modest bounce in February. How does the Tories get at that 1 in 6? Well, they have little time and few options but as I said yesterday they must try to use the budget to set the agenda for the next Parliament, not just to boast about what they have achieved in this one.

    Yesterday there were calls for some blue meat to re-engage disaffected blues but for me the key is policies that could attract some of those 1 in 6. An increase in the NMW. A freezing of duties to reflect the low inflation environment. Possibly another increase in the personal allowance giving a wage increase in time for the election.

    Osborne has a limited pot and one of the key reasons that 1 in 6 exists is that he is seen as responsible (in contrast to the 2 Eds at least) and he must not undermine that. There will be more promises about what will be done in the future than what can be done right now but he must find ways to get the biggest bang for his limited bucks.

    The 1 in 6 are key, but they are unlikely to vote Conservative. They may, however, abstain. So the Conservatives should be aiming not to rile them. The policies you suggest would do no harm to that objective, but it's at least as important not to bang on about the EU and look crazed.
    Agree - Thatcher (and Major) won by appealing to White Van Man of Essex, not Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells - 'we're on your side' is a powerful message - the challenge for the Tories is how to communicate it convincingly, a task not helped by Cameron's background (but Ed's doesn't help him either)
    And yet if the picture of UKIP advances and most likely wins is anything to go by it is in those 'White Man Van' constituencies and not the 'Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells' that they are taking the most votes off the Tories.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,706
    antifrank said:

    It's a false choice though, albeit one which the modernisers within the Conservative Party have given much credence over the years.

    Any successful political party worth it's salt can both retain its core *and* win over floating voters. It's not an either or choice. It's about building a broad coalition of support. And different policies will appeal to different groups, with leadership, a plan for the future, the economy and competence the key icing on the cake.

    If you can't ride two horses at once you shouldn't be in the circus.

    Perhaps surprisingly, I agree with much of that. The mistake that the current Conservative leadership made was, in my view, one of tone rather than policy (in objective terms this has been a rightwing government that has sounded centrist rather than the reverse, so it isn't about policy) . They know they're posh boys, so why did they marginalise all the rougher, gruffer voices in their party? Eric Pickles has been woefully underused.
    Me likewise. Normally, with respect, I think you're the last person anyone should listen to when it comes to attracting UKIP waverers back to the Conservatives. But I actually agree with most of that.

    If it had delivered on its 2010GE manifesto in areas like IHT cut, immigration reduction, married couple support, repeal the hunting ban and achieved much more in the way of EU concessions I'd probably agree with you entirely.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Indigo said:

    Interesting view from Mr Lammy about going soft on shoplifters taking from up-scale stores. On the face of it, it sounds like a stupid thing to say, but Mr Lammy is a very clever chap, a Barrister from Harvard Law no less, so how does this pronouncement work in the big game. It's difficult to see which constituency he is trying to appeal to, and how it does him any credit in his campaign to be the next Labour Mayor of London. What is next? Softer sentences for robbing big banks instead of small ones? Softer sentences for killing old people because they have less life left? Very bizarre.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2976526/Give-shoplifters-softer-sentences-steal-stores-Labour-MP-David-Lammy-says-luxury-shops-Fortnam-Mason-absorb-losses.html

    Logically it's just an extension of the multiple based system used for driving offences (i.e. you went through a red light, that's a 4 point offence. 4 points times x% of your weekly income = your fine).

    If people with high incomes should pay more for breaking the same law (so that the punishment can be deemed to have equal effect) couldn't you also argue that rich people won't notice something being stolen because it's a smaller percentage of their wealth?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,706

    DavidL said:

    antifrank said:

    DavidL said:

    For me the key to the election is not UKIP or even the SNP but those 1 in 6 Labour voters who prefer David Cameron as PM. If Labour poll at anything like 33.6% after imploding in Scotland then the Tories will struggle to be the largest party and simply will not be able to form a government even if they are. The SNP will provide C&S of sorts to Labour but they will not to a Tory government which makes the SLAB implosion less significant in terms of forming a government.

    Yesterday there were calls for some blue meat to re-engage disaffected blues but for me the key is policies that could attract some of those 1 in 6. An increase in the NMW. A freezing of duties to reflect the low inflation environment. Possibly another increase in the personal allowance giving a wage increase in time for the election.

    Osborne has a limited pot and one of the key reasons that 1 in 6 exists is that he is seen as responsible (in contrast to the 2 Eds at least) and he must not undermine that. There will be more promises about what will be done in the future than what can be done right now but he must find ways to get the biggest bang for his limited bucks.

    The 1 in 6 are key, but they are unlikely to vote Conservative. They may, however, abstain. So the Conservatives should be aiming not to rile them. The policies you suggest would do no harm to that objective, but it's at least as important not to bang on about the EU and look crazed.
    If they think DC is the better PM then some of them can be tempted and every one is worth double.

    Tories frothing about the EU is never a good look and chasing UKIP supporters on that basis will (a) not work and (b) upset the 1 in 6.

    If DC is to be PM after the election I think he needs to get Labour sub 30. It is a big ask but it is possible.
    It's a false choice though, albeit one which the modernisers within the Conservative Party have given much credence over the years.

    Any successful political party worth it's salt can both retain its core *and* win over floating voters. It's not an either or choice. It's about building a broad coalition of support. And different policies will appeal to different groups, with leadership, a plan for the future, the economy and competence the key icing on the cake.

    If you can't ride two horses at once you shouldn't be in the circus.
    There is some truth in what you say, but it is impossible to ride two horses at the same time if one is biting and kicking the other!
    It's the skill of the jockey to prevent that!
  • GadflyGadfly Posts: 1,191
    JWisemann said:

    Right - another crossover in all polls where conservatives are showing a lead ignoring all of those many more in which they are not. Ok folks.

    Crossovers come and go, but moving averages are hard to ignore...

    Simple, Free Image and File Hosting at MediaFire

  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    As has been said on this thread, events in the next two months could well decide the GE, as the quality of leadership, awareness and knowledge of global politics and the ability to lead when required could be vital and will certainly be needed between now and 2020.

    The world is a more unstable place than it was in 2010.

    There is the war with militant Islam in its many guises, in N, West and East Africa, in the Middle East and Indian sub-con, as well as rumblings from the Russian Bear.

    Economically, the EZ is still a mess (as it just had to be) and people are starting to wake up to the fact that Brussels is steering the EU car with a foot hard on the accelerator instead of the member nations. A lot of |Europe depends on Russia for energy and energy security will be a major factor in the next 5 years. China will acquire more European businesses.

    The hawks could gain power in Washington with the usual unknown but potentially disastrous consequences.

    EdM is not rated as a leader and does not have the presence or bearing of a leader whose voice would be heard globally. That weakness could cost him 2015GE.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited March 2015

    Indigo said:

    Interesting view from Mr Lammy about going soft on shoplifters taking from up-scale stores. On the face of it, it sounds like a stupid thing to say, but Mr Lammy is a very clever chap, a Barrister from Harvard Law no less, so how does this pronouncement work in the big game. It's difficult to see which constituency he is trying to appeal to, and how it does him any credit in his campaign to be the next Labour Mayor of London. What is next? Softer sentences for robbing big banks instead of small ones? Softer sentences for killing old people because they have less life left? Very bizarre.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2976526/Give-shoplifters-softer-sentences-steal-stores-Labour-MP-David-Lammy-says-luxury-shops-Fortnam-Mason-absorb-losses.html

    Don't sentences for crimes against the person already take account of the status of and impact on the victim? And pace the Mail, surely it would be just as easy to put a right wing, Laura Norder spin on Lammy's proposals, since Lammy's main complaint is that the current system does not protect victims and has effectively decriminalised shoplifting and low-level theft generally.
    The two are separate issues, the policies woeful response to shoplifting is a management issue which requires a swift kick up the appropriate senior policeman's backside.

    If we allow people to suppose different sentences will result from committing the same crime against different targets, before the crime has been committed, all it will do is drive people toward committing the crime with the lighter sentence. So in the above case more crimes will be committed against posh shops than normal shops. Allowing a criminal to select the target of his crime according to the likely sentence has always been thought to be a bad idea.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,025
    antifrank said:

    On topic, the polls are hard to read right now. It may be that the Conservatives are finally getting their much-predicted swingback. But it's far from clear yet, and even believers in the phenomenon will struggle to guess how far the Conservatives might rise in the polls.

    The picture is undoubtedly being confused by the new and mainly internet pollsters who show a different story. Populus only yesterday is a good example. I think David is right to express a note of caution in his piece.

    Swingback, if it is occurring at all, is modest and late. Only a rapid acceleration from here can get the Tories to victory. Was Yougov and Ashcroft yesterday harbingers of that? Very hard to tell.

    Tonight's Yougov will be of more interest than normal.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,538

    antifrank said:

    DavidL said:

    For me the key to the election is not UKIP or even the SNP but those 1 in 6 Labour voters who prefer David Cameron as PM. If Labour poll at anything like 33.6% after imploding in Scotland then the Tories will struggle to be the largest party and simply will not be able to form a government even if they are. The SNP will provide C&S of sorts to Labour but they will not to a Tory government which makes the SLAB implosion less significant in terms of forming a government.

    The Tories need to drive Labour's support down but after a long period of falling it enjoyed a modest bounce in February. How does the Tories get at that 1 in 6? Well, they have little time and few options but as I said yesterday they must try to use the budget to set the agenda for the next Parliament, not just to boast about what they have achieved in this one.

    Yesterday there were calls for some blue meat to re-engage disaffected blues but for me the key is policies that could attract some of those 1 in 6. An increase in the NMW. A freezing of duties to reflect the low inflation environment. Possibly another increase in the personal allowance giving a wage increase in time for the election.

    Osborne has a limited pot and one of the key reasons that 1 in 6 exists is that he is seen as responsible (in contrast to the 2 Eds at least) and he must not undermine that. There will be more promises about what will be done in the future than what can be done right now but he must find ways to get the biggest bang for his limited bucks.

    The 1 in 6 are key, but they are unlikely to vote Conservative. They may, however, abstain. So the Conservatives should be aiming not to rile them. The policies you suggest would do no harm to that objective, but it's at least as important not to bang on about the EU and look crazed.
    Agree - Thatcher (and Major) won by appealing to White Van Man of Essex, not Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells - 'we're on your side' is a powerful message - the challenge for the Tories is how to communicate it convincingly, a task not helped by Cameron's background (but Ed's doesn't help him either)
    And yet if the picture of UKIP advances and most likely wins is anything to go by it is in those 'White Man Van' constituencies and not the 'Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells' that they are taking the most votes off the Tories.
    In White Van Man seats, UKIP take votes off both Labour and Conservatives, making their challenge more potent.

    In Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells seats, they take votes off the Tories, but still finish a long way behind.

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    DavidL said:

    antifrank said:

    DavidL said:

    For me the key to the election is not UKIP or even the SNP but those 1 in 6 Labour voters who prefer David Cameron as PM. If Labour poll at anything like 33.6% after imploding in Scotland then the Tories will struggle to be the largest party and simply will not be able to form a government even if they are. The SNP will provide C&S of sorts to Labour but they will not to a Tory government which makes the SLAB implosion less significant in terms of forming a government.

    The Tories need to drive Labour's support down but after a long period of falling it enjoyed a modest bounce in February. How does the Tories get at that 1 in 6? Well, they have little time and few options but as I said yesterday they must try to use the budget to set the agenda for the next Parliament, not just to boast about what they have achieved in this one.

    Yesterday there were calls for some blue meat to re-engage disaffected blues but for me the key is policies that could attract some of those 1 in 6. An increase in the NMW. A freezing of duties to reflect the low inflation environment. Possibly another increase in the personal allowance giving a wage increase in time for the election.

    Osborne has a limited pot and one of the key reasons that 1 in 6 exists is that he is seen as responsible (in contrast to the 2 Eds at least) and he must not undermine that. There will be more promises about what will be done in the future than what can be done right now but he must find ways to get the biggest bang for his limited bucks.

    The 1 in 6 are key, but they are unlikely to vote Conservative. They may, however, abstain. So the Conservatives should be aiming not to rile them. The policies you suggest would do no harm to that objective, but it's at least as important not to bang on about the EU and look crazed.
    If they think DC is the better PM then some of them can be tempted and every one is worth double.

    Tories frothing about the EU is never a good look and chasing UKIP supporters on that basis will (a) not work and (b) upset the 1 in 6.

    If DC is to be PM after the election I think he needs to get Labour sub 30. It is a big ask but it is possible.
    Just getting the 1 in 6 to sit on their hands rather than vote Labour would be good enough for Gideon.
    Can you explain to me why you still use George Osborne's birth name? I'm genuinely curious, as he went through the legal process to get it changed when he was just a teenager and, unless you knew him then, you'd have no reason not to respect his wishes.

    Genuinely curious - can you explain?
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Financier said:

    EdM is not rated as a leader and does not have the presence or bearing of a leader whose voice would be heard globally.

    He could always burst into tears
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    O/T I've just been asked to help select the next MP for Kensington. I'll give whatever updates I can, but any tips gratefully received.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    Charles said:

    Indigo said:

    Interesting view from Mr Lammy about going soft on shoplifters taking from up-scale stores. On the face of it, it sounds like a stupid thing to say, but Mr Lammy is a very clever chap, a Barrister from Harvard Law no less, so how does this pronouncement work in the big game. It's difficult to see which constituency he is trying to appeal to, and how it does him any credit in his campaign to be the next Labour Mayor of London. What is next? Softer sentences for robbing big banks instead of small ones? Softer sentences for killing old people because they have less life left? Very bizarre.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2976526/Give-shoplifters-softer-sentences-steal-stores-Labour-MP-David-Lammy-says-luxury-shops-Fortnam-Mason-absorb-losses.html

    Logically it's just an extension of the multiple based system used for driving offences (i.e. you went through a red light, that's a 4 point offence. 4 points times x% of your weekly income = your fine).

    If people with high incomes should pay more for breaking the same law (so that the punishment can be deemed to have equal effect) couldn't you also argue that rich people won't notice something being stolen because it's a smaller percentage of their wealth?
    But he isn't saying that, he is saying in effect if you rob a corner shop you should get six months in jail, but if you rob Harrods you should only get three. So the sentence is based on the means of the victim, not the means of the criminal.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Indigo said:

    Indigo said:

    Interesting view from Mr Lammy about going soft on shoplifters taking from up-scale stores. On the face of it, it sounds like a stupid thing to say, but Mr Lammy is a very clever chap, a Barrister from Harvard Law no less, so how does this pronouncement work in the big game. It's difficult to see which constituency he is trying to appeal to, and how it does him any credit in his campaign to be the next Labour Mayor of London. What is next? Softer sentences for robbing big banks instead of small ones? Softer sentences for killing old people because they have less life left? Very bizarre.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2976526/Give-shoplifters-softer-sentences-steal-stores-Labour-MP-David-Lammy-says-luxury-shops-Fortnam-Mason-absorb-losses.html

    Don't sentences for crimes against the person already take account of the status of and impact on the victim? And pace the Mail, surely it would be just as easy to put a right wing, Laura Norder spin on Lammy's proposals, since Lammy's main complaint is that the current system does not protect victims and has effectively decriminalised shoplifting and low-level theft generally.
    The two are separate issues, the policies woeful response to shoplifting is a management issue which requires a swift kick up the appropriate senior policeman's backside.

    If we allow people to suppose different sentences will result from committing the same crime against different targets, before the crime has been committed, all it will do is drive people toward committing the crime with the lighter sentence. So in the above case more crimes will be committed against posh shops than normal shops. Allowing a criminal to select the target of his crime according to the likely sentence has always been thought to be a bad idea.
    That principle has already been lost. Some murder victims are ex officio more important than others, for instance. In any case, what you fear is surely what Lammy wants: to reduce shoplifting from small shops by displacing it to larger ones.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758



    If it had delivered on its 2010GE manifesto in areas like IHT cut, immigration reduction, married couple support, repeal the hunting ban and achieved much more in the way of EU concessions I'd probably agree with you entirely.

    Shame about those pesky Liberals, eh?
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,568
    Gadfly said:

    JWisemann said:

    Right - another crossover in all polls where conservatives are showing a lead ignoring all of those many more in which they are not. Ok folks.

    Crossovers come and go, but moving averages are hard to ignore...

    Simple, Free Image and File Hosting at MediaFire

    That's correct! Hard to see much in those moving averages, though.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,128

    antifrank said:

    It's a false choice though, albeit one which the modernisers within the Conservative Party have given much credence over the years.

    Any successful political party worth it's salt can both retain its core *and* win over floating voters. It's not an either or choice. It's about building a broad coalition of support. And different policies will appeal to different groups, with leadership, a plan for the future, the economy and competence the key icing on the cake.

    If you can't ride two horses at once you shouldn't be in the circus.

    Perhaps surprisingly, I agree with much of that. The mistake that the current Conservative leadership made was, in my view, one of tone rather than policy (in objective terms this has been a rightwing government that has sounded centrist rather than the reverse, so it isn't about policy) . They know they're posh boys, so why did they marginalise all the rougher, gruffer voices in their party? Eric Pickles has been woefully underused.
    Me likewise. Normally, with respect, I think you're the last person anyone should listen to when it comes to attracting UKIP waverers back to the Conservatives. But I actually agree with most of that.

    If it had delivered on its 2010GE manifesto in areas like IHT cut, immigration reduction, married couple support, repeal the hunting ban and achieved much more in the way of EU concessions I'd probably agree with you entirely.
    Morning all,

    On IHT: I'd say watch this space - budget on 18th may well flag up a juicy inducement, but further down the road.

    On Married Couples: I thought the tax break had been introduced?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Financier said:

    people are starting to wake up to the fact that Brussels is steering the EU car with a foot hard on the accelerator instead of the member nations.

    I think the Greeks would disagree... they'd argue that Brussels has a foot hard on the member nations... ;)
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,538
    Charles said:

    Indigo said:

    Interesting view from Mr Lammy about going soft on shoplifters taking from up-scale stores. On the face of it, it sounds like a stupid thing to say, but Mr Lammy is a very clever chap, a Barrister from Harvard Law no less, so how does this pronouncement work in the big game. It's difficult to see which constituency he is trying to appeal to, and how it does him any credit in his campaign to be the next Labour Mayor of London. What is next? Softer sentences for robbing big banks instead of small ones? Softer sentences for killing old people because they have less life left? Very bizarre.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2976526/Give-shoplifters-softer-sentences-steal-stores-Labour-MP-David-Lammy-says-luxury-shops-Fortnam-Mason-absorb-losses.html

    Logically it's just an extension of the multiple based system used for driving offences (i.e. you went through a red light, that's a 4 point offence. 4 points times x% of your weekly income = your fine).

    If people with high incomes should pay more for breaking the same law (so that the punishment can be deemed to have equal effect) couldn't you also argue that rich people won't notice something being stolen because it's a smaller percentage of their wealth?
    If someone steals, due to shortage of money, that may be a mitigating factor in terms of punishment. Conversely, if a rich person steals, that may be an aggravating factor. But, the financial status of the victim should not be a mitigating factor.

  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited March 2015
    antifrank said:

    It's a false choice though, albeit one which the modernisers within the Conservative Party have given much credence over the years.

    Any successful political party worth it's salt can both retain its core *and* win over floating voters. It's not an either or choice. It's about building a broad coalition of support. And different policies will appeal to different groups, with leadership, a plan for the future, the economy and competence the key icing on the cake.

    If you can't ride two horses at once you shouldn't be in the circus.

    Perhaps surprisingly, I agree with much of that. The mistake that the current Conservative leadership made was, in my view, one of tone rather than policy (in objective terms this has been a rightwing government that has sounded centrist rather than the reverse, so it isn't about policy) . They know they're posh boys, so why did they marginalise all the rougher, gruffer voices in their party? Eric Pickles has been woefully underused.
    Partly tone, and partly unnecessary showboating for little effect with bills that were bound to be controversial with some of his more traditional core voters.

    He had the option to quietly ease in Gay Marriage without a big song and dance, to sell it as some "tidying up", and deprecate it as "not a big deal because most of it was in civil partnerships"

    Instead he rubbed his social conservative core's face in it, and show-boated it for all he was worth, and insulted anyone on the right of his party who expressed even qualified reservation to the policy. One assumes this was to impress the Guardian and try and attract some of their voters, always a futile idea because Guardian readers can get their social liberalism from Labour with added "cuddly austerity".
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,025
    Indigo said:

    Charles said:

    Indigo said:

    Interesting view from Mr Lammy about going soft on shoplifters taking from up-scale stores. On the face of it, it sounds like a stupid thing to say, but Mr Lammy is a very clever chap, a Barrister from Harvard Law no less, so how does this pronouncement work in the big game. It's difficult to see which constituency he is trying to appeal to, and how it does him any credit in his campaign to be the next Labour Mayor of London. What is next? Softer sentences for robbing big banks instead of small ones? Softer sentences for killing old people because they have less life left? Very bizarre.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2976526/Give-shoplifters-softer-sentences-steal-stores-Labour-MP-David-Lammy-says-luxury-shops-Fortnam-Mason-absorb-losses.html

    Logically it's just an extension of the multiple based system used for driving offences (i.e. you went through a red light, that's a 4 point offence. 4 points times x% of your weekly income = your fine).

    If people with high incomes should pay more for breaking the same law (so that the punishment can be deemed to have equal effect) couldn't you also argue that rich people won't notice something being stolen because it's a smaller percentage of their wealth?
    But he isn't saying that, he is saying in effect if you rob a corner shop you should get six months in jail, but if you rob Harrods you should only get three. So the sentence is based on the means of the victim, not the means of the criminal.
    The idea that some shops are richer than others because they sell more expensive things is so economically illiterate as to make you weep. A party that thinks like that is potentially only 9 weeks away from being in charge of our economy. It is frightening.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Indigo said:

    Charles said:

    Indigo said:

    Interesting view from Mr Lammy about going soft on shoplifters taking from up-scale stores. On the face of it, it sounds like a stupid thing to say, but Mr Lammy is a very clever chap, a Barrister from Harvard Law no less, so how does this pronouncement work in the big game. It's difficult to see which constituency he is trying to appeal to, and how it does him any credit in his campaign to be the next Labour Mayor of London. What is next? Softer sentences for robbing big banks instead of small ones? Softer sentences for killing old people because they have less life left? Very bizarre.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2976526/Give-shoplifters-softer-sentences-steal-stores-Labour-MP-David-Lammy-says-luxury-shops-Fortnam-Mason-absorb-losses.html

    Logically it's just an extension of the multiple based system used for driving offences (i.e. you went through a red light, that's a 4 point offence. 4 points times x% of your weekly income = your fine).

    If people with high incomes should pay more for breaking the same law (so that the punishment can be deemed to have equal effect) couldn't you also argue that rich people won't notice something being stolen because it's a smaller percentage of their wealth?
    But he isn't saying that, he is saying in effect if you rob a corner shop you should get six months in jail, but if you rob Harrods you should only get three. So the sentence is based on the means of the victim, not the means of the criminal.
    May be I wasn't clear? The sentence is proportional to the damage caused to the victim:

    Steal £100 of goods from F&M and they won't notice.

    Steal £100 from Ye Olde Corner Shop and that's a big chunk of their daily profits.

    Hence shorter sentence for the F&M scenario because they have suffered less damage from the crime.
  • JWisemannJWisemann Posts: 1,082
    Ah - just noticed this is a tabloid Herdson thread. Explains a lot.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    Charles said:



    If it had delivered on its 2010GE manifesto in areas like IHT cut, immigration reduction, married couple support, repeal the hunting ban and achieved much more in the way of EU concessions I'd probably agree with you entirely.

    Shame about those pesky Liberals, eh?
    It gets really boring Charles listening to Cameroons hiding behind the LDs.

    The LDs forced the most popular policy for white van man by raising low paid tax thresholds while Osborne was pointlessly pushing the least popular in the 50p rate.

    The Conservatives won't get core voters back on board until they recognise where they screwed up and correct it.

    Blaimng the LDs for their own failures just says Cameroons are spineless about recognising their mistakes.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,025
    Charles said:

    Financier said:

    people are starting to wake up to the fact that Brussels is steering the EU car with a foot hard on the accelerator instead of the member nations.

    I think the Greeks would disagree... they'd argue that Brussels has a foot hard on the member nations... ;)
    Or even the nations members.

    Greece is apparently stealing the last of their pension funds to pay the IMF this week.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    antifrank said:

    It's a false choice though, albeit one which the modernisers within the Conservative Party have given much credence over the years.

    Any successful political party worth it's salt can both retain its core *and* win over floating voters. It's not an either or choice. It's about building a broad coalition of support. And different policies will appeal to different groups, with leadership, a plan for the future, the economy and competence the key icing on the cake.

    If you can't ride two horses at once you shouldn't be in the circus.

    Perhaps surprisingly, I agree with much of that. The mistake that the current Conservative leadership made was, in my view, one of tone rather than policy (in objective terms this has been a rightwing government that has sounded centrist rather than the reverse, so it isn't about policy) . They know they're posh boys, so why did they marginalise all the rougher, gruffer voices in their party? Eric Pickles has been woefully underused.
    Me likewise. Normally, with respect, I think you're the last person anyone should listen to when it comes to attracting UKIP waverers back to the Conservatives. But I actually agree with most of that.

    If it had delivered on its 2010GE manifesto in areas like IHT cut, immigration reduction, married couple support, repeal the hunting ban and achieved much more in the way of EU concessions I'd probably agree with you entirely.
    Precisely because the current Conservative leadership is so well-fed, it is unable to tell UKIP-waverers to get a grip and not to throw their lot in with monomaniac hysteriacs. It needs some grammar school alumni to do that, but David Cameron has failed to nurture them. He has been too busy making the coalition with the Lib Dems work to notice that he had to look after other bits of the coalition more carefully.

    The contrast with the way that Tony Blair pushed forward John Prescott to talk to Labour's traditional base is telling.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Gadfly said:

    JWisemann said:

    Right - another crossover in all polls where conservatives are showing a lead ignoring all of those many more in which they are not. Ok folks.

    Crossovers come and go, but moving averages are hard to ignore...

    Simple, Free Image and File Hosting at MediaFire

    That's correct! Hard to see much in those moving averages, though.
    If you look closely, Nick, you'll see the bit where the blue line crosses the red line.

    I appreciate you've been busy lately, but the idea behind FPTP is to get the most votes...

    ;)
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Sean_F said:

    Charles said:

    Indigo said:

    Interesting view from Mr Lammy about going soft on shoplifters taking from up-scale stores. On the face of it, it sounds like a stupid thing to say, but Mr Lammy is a very clever chap, a Barrister from Harvard Law no less, so how does this pronouncement work in the big game. It's difficult to see which constituency he is trying to appeal to, and how it does him any credit in his campaign to be the next Labour Mayor of London. What is next? Softer sentences for robbing big banks instead of small ones? Softer sentences for killing old people because they have less life left? Very bizarre.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2976526/Give-shoplifters-softer-sentences-steal-stores-Labour-MP-David-Lammy-says-luxury-shops-Fortnam-Mason-absorb-losses.html

    Logically it's just an extension of the multiple based system used for driving offences (i.e. you went through a red light, that's a 4 point offence. 4 points times x% of your weekly income = your fine).

    If people with high incomes should pay more for breaking the same law (so that the punishment can be deemed to have equal effect) couldn't you also argue that rich people won't notice something being stolen because it's a smaller percentage of their wealth?
    If someone steals, due to shortage of money, that may be a mitigating factor in terms of punishment. Conversely, if a rich person steals, that may be an aggravating factor. But, the financial status of the victim should not be a mitigating factor.

    Just to be clear, I'm not agreeing with Lammy! Just trying to understand his logic.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Indigo said:

    antifrank said:

    It's a false choice though, albeit one which the modernisers within the Conservative Party have given much credence over the years.

    Any successful political party worth it's salt can both retain its core *and* win over floating voters. It's not an either or choice. It's about building a broad coalition of support. And different policies will appeal to different groups, with leadership, a plan for the future, the economy and competence the key icing on the cake.

    If you can't ride two horses at once you shouldn't be in the circus.

    Perhaps surprisingly, I agree with much of that. The mistake that the current Conservative leadership made was, in my view, one of tone rather than policy (in objective terms this has been a rightwing government that has sounded centrist rather than the reverse, so it isn't about policy) . They know they're posh boys, so why did they marginalise all the rougher, gruffer voices in their party? Eric Pickles has been woefully underused.
    Partly tone, and partly unnecessary showboating for little effect with bills that were bound to be controversial with some of his more traditional core voters.

    He had the option to quietly ease in Gay Marriage without a big song and dance, to sell it as some "tidying up", and deprecate it as "not a big deal because most of it was in civil partnerships"

    Instead he rubbed his social conservative core's face in it, and show-boated it for all he was worth, and insulted anyone on the right of his party who expressed even qualified reservation to the policy. One assumes this was to impress the Guardian and try and attract some of their voters, always a futile idea because Guardian readers can get their social liberalism from Labour with added "cuddly austerity".
    He did that because, in particular, the pink community has some very wealthy elements who - based on economics - would vote Tory but didn't in any meaningful way.

    Gay marriage was an important part of repositioning the Tories as a modern, inclusive party. It was necessary to buy them the "right to be heard" by significant parts of the electorate.

    Societies change. Gay marriage's time had come.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    DavidL said:

    Indigo said:

    Charles said:

    Indigo said:

    Interesting view from Mr Lammy about going soft on shoplifters taking from up-scale stores. On the face of it, it sounds like a stupid thing to say, but Mr Lammy is a very clever chap, a Barrister from Harvard Law no less, so how does this pronouncement work in the big game. It's difficult to see which constituency he is trying to appeal to, and how it does him any credit in his campaign to be the next Labour Mayor of London. What is next? Softer sentences for robbing big banks instead of small ones? Softer sentences for killing old people because they have less life left? Very bizarre.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2976526/Give-shoplifters-softer-sentences-steal-stores-Labour-MP-David-Lammy-says-luxury-shops-Fortnam-Mason-absorb-losses.html

    Logically it's just an extension of the multiple based system used for driving offences (i.e. you went through a red light, that's a 4 point offence. 4 points times x% of your weekly income = your fine).

    If people with high incomes should pay more for breaking the same law (so that the punishment can be deemed to have equal effect) couldn't you also argue that rich people won't notice something being stolen because it's a smaller percentage of their wealth?
    But he isn't saying that, he is saying in effect if you rob a corner shop you should get six months in jail, but if you rob Harrods you should only get three. So the sentence is based on the means of the victim, not the means of the criminal.
    The idea that some shops are richer than others because they sell more expensive things is so economically illiterate as to make you weep. A party that thinks like that is potentially only 9 weeks away from being in charge of our economy. It is frightening.
    To be fair, the Westons *are* quite well off.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,963
    Good morning, everyone.

    Overall the blue standing has changed too much, but the reds have gone down. Not sure how much further Labour will fall, though. Whilst they do have Miliband, they also face a coalition and so benefit greatly from that.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,025
    antifrank said:

    antifrank said:

    It's a false choice though, albeit one which the modernisers within the Conservative Party have given much credence over the years.

    Any successful political party worth it's salt can both retain its core *and* win over floating voters. It's not an either or choice. It's about building a broad coalition of support. And different policies will appeal to different groups, with leadership, a plan for the future, the economy and competence the key icing on the cake.

    If you can't ride two horses at once you shouldn't be in the circus.

    Perhaps surprisingly, I agree with much of that. The mistake that the current Conservative leadership made was, in my view, one of tone rather than policy (in objective terms this has been a rightwing government that has sounded centrist rather than the reverse, so it isn't about policy) . They know they're posh boys, so why did they marginalise all the rougher, gruffer voices in their party? Eric Pickles has been woefully underused.
    Me likewise. Normally, with respect, I think you're the last person anyone should listen to when it comes to attracting UKIP waverers back to the Conservatives. But I actually agree with most of that.

    If it had delivered on its 2010GE manifesto in areas like IHT cut, immigration reduction, married couple support, repeal the hunting ban and achieved much more in the way of EU concessions I'd probably agree with you entirely.
    Precisely because the current Conservative leadership is so well-fed, it is unable to tell UKIP-waverers to get a grip and not to throw their lot in with monomaniac hysteriacs. It needs some grammar school alumni to do that, but David Cameron has failed to nurture them. He has been too busy making the coalition with the Lib Dems work to notice that he had to look after other bits of the coalition more carefully.

    The contrast with the way that Tony Blair pushed forward John Prescott to talk to Labour's traditional base is telling.
    Prescott was always Boxer in the Court of Tone but the idea of bringing him back after he has been sent to the knackers yard is quite bizarre.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    Charles said:

    Indigo said:

    Charles said:

    Indigo said:

    Interesting view from Mr Lammy about going soft on shoplifters taking from up-scale stores. On the face of it, it sounds like a stupid thing to say, but Mr Lammy is a very clever chap, a Barrister from Harvard Law no less, so how does this pronouncement work in the big game. It's difficult to see which constituency he is trying to appeal to, and how it does him any credit in his campaign to be the next Labour Mayor of London. What is next? Softer sentences for robbing big banks instead of small ones? Softer sentences for killing old people because they have less life left? Very bizarre.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2976526/Give-shoplifters-softer-sentences-steal-stores-Labour-MP-David-Lammy-says-luxury-shops-Fortnam-Mason-absorb-losses.html

    Logically it's just an extension of the multiple based system used for driving offences (i.e. you went through a red light, that's a 4 point offence. 4 points times x% of your weekly income = your fine).

    If people with high incomes should pay more for breaking the same law (so that the punishment can be deemed to have equal effect) couldn't you also argue that rich people won't notice something being stolen because it's a smaller percentage of their wealth?
    But he isn't saying that, he is saying in effect if you rob a corner shop you should get six months in jail, but if you rob Harrods you should only get three. So the sentence is based on the means of the victim, not the means of the criminal.
    May be I wasn't clear? The sentence is proportional to the damage caused to the victim:

    Steal £100 of goods from F&M and they won't notice.

    Steal £100 from Ye Olde Corner Shop and that's a big chunk of their daily profits.

    Hence shorter sentence for the F&M scenario because they have suffered less damage from the crime.
    Which is iniquitous, every shoplifter in existence makes a bee-line for F&M because they can a) potentially steal more and b) will get a smaller sentence if caught.

    Not only that it suggests that the size of an establishment, or the price of their goods in any way reflects their profitability, which is at best an assumption, and having seen some quite large names go bust over the last decade, quite a dubious one compared to some well run smaller chains etc.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,128
    Charles said:

    Gadfly said:

    JWisemann said:

    Right - another crossover in all polls where conservatives are showing a lead ignoring all of those many more in which they are not. Ok folks.

    Crossovers come and go, but moving averages are hard to ignore...

    Simple, Free Image and File Hosting at MediaFire

    That's correct! Hard to see much in those moving averages, though.
    If you look closely, Nick, you'll see the bit where the blue line crosses the red line.

    I appreciate you've been busy lately, but the idea behind FPTP is to get the most votes...

    ;)
    Is a simple cross-over that relevant in GE2015? Don't Tories need to be several points ahead for a even a draw on seats ( at least 4) and 11 or more for a majority?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:



    If it had delivered on its 2010GE manifesto in areas like IHT cut, immigration reduction, married couple support, repeal the hunting ban and achieved much more in the way of EU concessions I'd probably agree with you entirely.

    Shame about those pesky Liberals, eh?
    It gets really boring Charles listening to Cameroons hiding behind the LDs.

    The LDs forced the most popular policy for white van man by raising low paid tax thresholds while Osborne was pointlessly pushing the least popular in the 50p rate.

    The Conservatives won't get core voters back on board until they recognise where they screwed up and correct it.

    Blaimng the LDs for their own failures just says Cameroons are spineless about recognising their mistakes.
    I agree. But I was just pointing out that the Tories didn't win a majority at the last election, so a lot of the things that were on @Casino_Royale's list of broken promises weren't deliverable from day 1 of the government.
  • JWisemannJWisemann Posts: 1,082
    Charles said:

    Gadfly said:

    JWisemann said:

    Right - another crossover in all polls where conservatives are showing a lead ignoring all of those many more in which they are not. Ok folks.

    Crossovers come and go, but moving averages are hard to ignore...

    Simple, Free Image and File Hosting at MediaFire

    That's correct! Hard to see much in those moving averages, though.
    If you look closely, Nick, you'll see the bit where the blue line crosses the red line.

    I appreciate you've been busy lately, but the idea behind FPTP is to get the most votes...

    ;)
    The blue line crosses the red line a few times in that chart.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    Charles said:

    Indigo said:

    antifrank said:

    It's a false choice though, albeit one which the modernisers within the Conservative Party have given much credence over the years.

    Any successful political party worth it's salt can both retain its core *and* win over floating voters. It's not an either or choice. It's about building a broad coalition of support. And different policies will appeal to different groups, with leadership, a plan for the future, the economy and competence the key icing on the cake.

    If you can't ride two horses at once you shouldn't be in the circus.

    Perhaps surprisingly, I agree with much of that. The mistake that the current Conservative leadership made was, in my view, one of tone rather than policy (in objective terms this has been a rightwing government that has sounded centrist rather than the reverse, so it isn't about policy) . They know they're posh boys, so why did they marginalise all the rougher, gruffer voices in their party? Eric Pickles has been woefully underused.
    Partly tone, and partly unnecessary showboating for little effect with bills that were bound to be controversial with some of his more traditional core voters.

    He had the option to quietly ease in Gay Marriage without a big song and dance, to sell it as some "tidying up", and deprecate it as "not a big deal because most of it was in civil partnerships"

    Instead he rubbed his social conservative core's face in it, and show-boated it for all he was worth, and insulted anyone on the right of his party who expressed even qualified reservation to the policy. One assumes this was to impress the Guardian and try and attract some of their voters, always a futile idea because Guardian readers can get their social liberalism from Labour with added "cuddly austerity".
    He did that because, in particular, the pink community has some very wealthy elements who - based on economics - would vote Tory but didn't in any meaningful way.

    Gay marriage was an important part of repositioning the Tories as a modern, inclusive party. It was necessary to buy them the "right to be heard" by significant parts of the electorate.

    Societies change. Gay marriage's time had come.
    LOL

    so if you are gay, well off, socially liberal and metropolitan the Tories are the party for you.

    ask antifrank how he's voting.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    PBers will be thrilled that I can today confirm after extensive representations, rather than vulgar paid lobbying, a further two enhancements to my ARSE.

    Firstly in addition to the now twice weekly ARSE & "JackW Dozen" projections on Tuesday and Saturday there will an eve of poll Super ARSE at 10pm on Thursday 6th May.

    Secondly ARSE will now be sponsored by Auchentennach Fine Pies (Est 1745) with the introduction of APLOMB - (Auchentennach Pies Leading Outsales Mainland Britain) to my ARSE. Here leading outlets will purvey party (political) pies to the electorate and sales recorded.

    We at ARSE hope these further enhancements will add to the general enjoyment and financial wellbeing of Mike Smithson's mighty organ.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    edited March 2015

    Gadfly said:

    JWisemann said:

    Right - another crossover in all polls where conservatives are showing a lead ignoring all of those many more in which they are not. Ok folks.

    Crossovers come and go, but moving averages are hard to ignore...

    Simple, Free Image and File Hosting at MediaFire

    That's correct! Hard to see much in those moving averages, though.
    You've been too busy looking at your "lead" in Broxtowe.. Last time I seem to recall you said it was about 7%.... but I don't recall you mentioning since, but I have not been on PB much of late. Wonder where it is now?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,025
    Charles said:

    Indigo said:

    antifrank said:

    It's a false choice though, albeit one which the modernisers within the Conservative Party have given much credence over the years.

    Any successful political party worth it's salt can both retain its core *and* win over floating voters. It's not an either or choice. It's about building a broad coalition of support. And different policies will appeal to different groups, with leadership, a plan for the future, the economy and competence the key icing on the cake.

    If you can't ride two horses at once you shouldn't be in the circus.

    Perhaps surprisingly, I agree with much of that. The mistake that the current Conservative leadership made was, in my view, one of tone rather than policy (in objective terms this has been a rightwing government that has sounded centrist rather than the reverse, so it isn't about policy) . They know they're posh boys, so why did they marginalise all the rougher, gruffer voices in their party? Eric Pickles has been woefully underused.
    Partly tone, and partly unnecessary showboating for little effect with bills that were bound to be controversial with some of his more traditional core voters.

    He had the option to quietly ease in Gay Marriage without a big song and dance, to sell it as some "tidying up", and deprecate it as "not a big deal because most of it was in civil partnerships"

    Instead he rubbed his social conservative core's face in it, and show-boated it for all he was worth, and insulted anyone on the right of his party who expressed even qualified reservation to the policy. One assumes this was to impress the Guardian and try and attract some of their voters, always a futile idea because Guardian readers can get their social liberalism from Labour with added "cuddly austerity".
    He did that because, in particular, the pink community has some very wealthy elements who - based on economics - would vote Tory but didn't in any meaningful way.

    Gay marriage was an important part of repositioning the Tories as a modern, inclusive party. It was necessary to buy them the "right to be heard" by significant parts of the electorate.

    Societies change. Gay marriage's time had come.
    And the Tories had suffered from s28 for a very long time. It was essential that a modern Tory party led from the front on this one.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Indigo said:

    Charles said:

    Indigo said:

    Charles said:

    Indigo said:

    Interesting view from Mr Lammy about going soft on shoplifters taking from up-scale stores. On the face of it, it sounds like a stupid thing to say, but Mr Lammy is a very clever chap, a Barrister from Harvard Law no less, so how does this pronouncement work in the big game. It's difficult to see which constituency he is trying to appeal to, and how it does him any credit in his campaign to be the next Labour Mayor of London. What is next? Softer sentences for robbing big banks instead of small ones? Softer sentences for killing old people because they have less life left? Very bizarre.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2976526/Give-shoplifters-softer-sentences-steal-stores-Labour-MP-David-Lammy-says-luxury-shops-Fortnam-Mason-absorb-losses.html

    Logically it's just an extension of the multiple based system used for driving offences (i.e. you went through a red light, that's a 4 point offence. 4 points times x% of your weekly income = your fine).

    If people with high incomes should pay more for breaking the same law (so that the punishment can be deemed to have equal effect) couldn't you also argue that rich people won't notice something being stolen because it's a smaller percentage of their wealth?
    But he isn't saying that, he is saying in effect if you rob a corner shop you should get six months in jail, but if you rob Harrods you should only get three. So the sentence is based on the means of the victim, not the means of the criminal.
    May be I wasn't clear? The sentence is proportional to the damage caused to the victim:

    Steal £100 of goods from F&M and they won't notice.

    Steal £100 from Ye Olde Corner Shop and that's a big chunk of their daily profits.

    Hence shorter sentence for the F&M scenario because they have suffered less damage from the crime.
    Which is iniquitous, every shoplifter in existence makes a bee-line for F&M because they can a) potentially steal more and b) will get a smaller sentence if caught.

    Not only that it suggests that the size of an establishment, or the price of their goods in any way reflects their profitability, which is at best an assumption, and having seen some quite large names go bust over the last decade, quite a dubious one compared to some well run smaller chains etc.
    I suspect it's the Daily Mail that has included the actual name of a specific store rather than Lammy. And I'd agree, well-run smaller chains are often more focused on details that matter.

    But as I said to @Sean_F: I don't agree with Lammy
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    Charles said:

    Indigo said:

    antifrank said:

    It's a false choice though, albeit one which the modernisers within the Conservative Party have given much credence over the years.

    Any successful political party worth it's salt can both retain its core *and* win over floating voters. It's not an either or choice. It's about building a broad coalition of support. And different policies will appeal to different groups, with leadership, a plan for the future, the economy and competence the key icing on the cake.

    If you can't ride two horses at once you shouldn't be in the circus.

    Perhaps surprisingly, I agree with much of that. The mistake that the current Conservative leadership made was, in my view, one of tone rather than policy (in objective terms this has been a rightwing government that has sounded centrist rather than the reverse, so it isn't about policy) . They know they're posh boys, so why did they marginalise all the rougher, gruffer voices in their party? Eric Pickles has been woefully underused.
    Partly tone, and partly unnecessary showboating for little effect with bills that were bound to be controversial with some of his more traditional core voters.

    He had the option to quietly ease in Gay Marriage without a big song and dance, to sell it as some "tidying up", and deprecate it as "not a big deal because most of it was in civil partnerships"

    Instead he rubbed his social conservative core's face in it, and show-boated it for all he was worth, and insulted anyone on the right of his party who expressed even qualified reservation to the policy. One assumes this was to impress the Guardian and try and attract some of their voters, always a futile idea because Guardian readers can get their social liberalism from Labour with added "cuddly austerity".
    He did that because, in particular, the pink community has some very wealthy elements who - based on economics - would vote Tory but didn't in any meaningful way.

    Gay marriage was an important part of repositioning the Tories as a modern, inclusive party. It was necessary to buy them the "right to be heard" by significant parts of the electorate.

    Societies change. Gay marriage's time had come.
    I didn't say it hadn't. I said doing it in a lower key fashion, whilst adopting a more emollient tone about it with his core would have had the same effect and saved him a ton of votes.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    Gadfly said:

    JWisemann said:

    Right - another crossover in all polls where conservatives are showing a lead ignoring all of those many more in which they are not. Ok folks.

    Crossovers come and go, but moving averages are hard to ignore...

    Simple, Free Image and File Hosting at MediaFire

    That's correct! Hard to see much in those moving averages, though.
    If you look closely, Nick, you'll see the bit where the blue line crosses the red line.

    I appreciate you've been busy lately, but the idea behind FPTP is to get the most votes...

    ;)
    Is a simple cross-over that relevant in GE2015? Don't Tories need to be several points ahead for a even a draw on seats ( at least 4) and 11 or more for a majority?
    My gut feel is that 3-4 points clear would be sufficient, not the 7% that OGH quotes. I was convinced by @DavidL's thesis a while ago.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,963
    Labour want to trial online voting:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31704025
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,687
    Charles said:

    Indigo said:

    antifrank said:

    It's a false choice though, albeit one which the modernisers within the Conservative Party have given much credence over the years.

    Any successful political party worth it's salt can both retain its core *and* win over floating voters. It's not an either or choice. It's about building a broad coalition of support. And different policies will appeal to different groups, with leadership, a plan for the future, the economy and competence the key icing on the cake.

    If you can't ride two horses at once you shouldn't be in the circus.

    Perhaps surprisingly, I agree with much of that. The mistake that the current Conservative leadership made was, in my view, one of tone rather than policy (in objective terms this has been a rightwing government that has sounded centrist rather than the reverse, so it isn't about policy) . They know they're posh boys, so why did they marginalise all the rougher, gruffer voices in their party? Eric Pickles has been woefully underused.
    Partly tone, and partly unnecessary showboating for little effect with bills that were bound to be controversial with some of his more traditional core voters.

    He had the option to quietly ease in Gay Marriage without a big song and dance, to sell it as some "tidying up", and deprecate it as "not a big deal because most of it was in civil partnerships"

    Instead he rubbed his social conservative core's face in it, and show-boated it for all he was worth, and insulted anyone on the right of his party who expressed even qualified reservation to the policy. One assumes this was to impress the Guardian and try and attract some of their voters, always a futile idea because Guardian readers can get their social liberalism from Labour with added "cuddly austerity".
    He did that because, in particular, the pink community has some very wealthy elements who - based on economics - would vote Tory but didn't in any meaningful way.

    Gay marriage was an important part of repositioning the Tories as a modern, inclusive party. It was necessary to buy them the "right to be heard" by significant parts of the electorate.

    Societies change. Gay marriage's time had come.
    I would like to think he did it because it was the right thing to do.

    For all my dislike and criticism of Cameron it is one of the few shining lights of his premiership and I persist in believing he did it for the best of reasons rather than for purely political advantage - which as you say was not assured anyway.
  • roserees64roserees64 Posts: 251
    As far as I can deduce, the polls show level pegging.A blip towards Labour or Conservative indicates very little.Last week 60% of respondents in one poll stated that they wanted a change of government.Yes, Miliband is not popular but neither is Cameron and the Tories are more disliked.The Tories need to be 6% points ahead of Labour in order to gain a majority.Scotland will support a left wing government and that is the most telling point at this stage.There has been no crossover, only Tory biased polling, from A and YG.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,538
    antifrank said:

    antifrank said:

    It's a false choice though, albeit one which the modernisers within the Conservative Party have given much credence over the years.

    Any successful political party worth it's salt can both retain its core *and* win over floating voters. It's not an either or choice. It's about building a broad coalition of support. And different policies will appeal to different groups, with leadership, a plan for the future, the economy and competence the key icing on the cake.

    If you can't ride two horses at once you shouldn't be in the circus.

    Perhaps surprisingly, I agree with much of that. The mistake that the current Conservative leadership made was, in my view, one of tone rather than policy (in objective terms this has been a rightwing government that has sounded centrist rather than the reverse, so it isn't about policy) . They know they're posh boys, so why did they marginalise all the rougher, gruffer voices in their party? Eric Pickles has been woefully underused.
    Me likewise. Normally, with respect, I think you're the last person anyone should listen to when it comes to attracting UKIP waverers back to the Conservatives. But I actually agree with most of that.

    If it had delivered on its 2010GE manifesto in areas like IHT cut, immigration reduction, married couple support, repeal the hunting ban and achieved much more in the way of EU concessions I'd probably agree with you entirely.
    Precisely because the current Conservative leadership is so well-fed, it is unable to tell UKIP-waverers to get a grip and not to throw their lot in with monomaniac hysteriacs. It needs some grammar school alumni to do that, but David Cameron has failed to nurture them. He has been too busy making the coalition with the Lib Dems work to notice that he had to look after other bits of the coalition more carefully.

    The contrast with the way that Tony Blair pushed forward John Prescott to talk to Labour's traditional base is telling.
    Surely, the theory was that losing White Van Men would help to detoxify the Conservatives.

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    Indigo said:

    antifrank said:

    It's a false choice though, albeit one which the modernisers within the Conservative Party have given much credence over the years.

    Any successful political party worth it's salt can both retain its core *and* win over floating voters. It's not an either or choice. It's about building a broad coalition of support. And different policies will appeal to different groups, with leadership, a plan for the future, the economy and competence the key icing on the cake.

    If you can't ride two horses at once you shouldn't be in the circus.

    Perhaps surprisingly, I agree with much of that. The mistake that the current Conservative leadership made was, in my view, one of tone rather than policy (in objective terms this has been a rightwing government that has sounded centrist rather than the reverse, so it isn't about policy) . They know they're posh boys, so why did they marginalise all the rougher, gruffer voices in their party? Eric Pickles has been woefully underused.
    Partly tone, and partly unnecessary showboating for little effect with bills that were bound to be controversial with some of his more traditional core voters.

    He had the option to quietly ease in Gay Marriage without a big song and dance, to sell it as some "tidying up", and deprecate it as "not a big deal because most of it was in civil partnerships"

    Instead he rubbed his social conservative core's face in it, and show-boated it for all he was worth, and insulted anyone on the right of his party who expressed even qualified reservation to the policy. One assumes this was to impress the Guardian and try and attract some of their voters, always a futile idea because Guardian readers can get their social liberalism from Labour with added "cuddly austerity".
    He did that because, in particular, the pink community has some very wealthy elements who - based on economics - would vote Tory but didn't in any meaningful way.

    Gay marriage was an important part of repositioning the Tories as a modern, inclusive party. It was necessary to buy them the "right to be heard" by significant parts of the electorate.

    Societies change. Gay marriage's time had come.
    LOL

    so if you are gay, well off, socially liberal and metropolitan the Tories are the party for you.

    ask antifrank how he's voting.
    Now you are just being naughty.

    But fundamentally, I don't care what people get up to in their bedroom. I think it's great if they vote for the Tories. And I wouldn't support a party that tells a significant percentage of the population that they have less rights than other citizens simply because of their sexual preferences.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Indigo said:

    Charles said:

    Indigo said:

    antifrank said:

    It's a false choice though, albeit one which the modernisers within the Conservative Party have given much credence over the years.

    Any successful political party worth it's salt can both retain its core *and* win over floating voters. It's not an either or choice. It's about building a broad coalition of support. And different policies will appeal to different groups, with leadership, a plan for the future, the economy and competence the key icing on the cake.

    If you can't ride two horses at once you shouldn't be in the circus.

    Perhaps surprisingly, I agree with much of that. The mistake that the current Conservative leadership made was, in my view, one of tone rather than policy (in objective terms this has been a rightwing government that has sounded centrist rather than the reverse, so it isn't about policy) . They know they're posh boys, so why did they marginalise all the rougher, gruffer voices in their party? Eric Pickles has been woefully underused.
    Partly tone, and partly unnecessary showboating for little effect with bills that were bound to be controversial with some of his more traditional core voters.

    He had the option to quietly ease in Gay Marriage without a big song and dance, to sell it as some "tidying up", and deprecate it as "not a big deal because most of it was in civil partnerships"

    Instead he rubbed his social conservative core's face in it, and show-boated it for all he was worth, and insulted anyone on the right of his party who expressed even qualified reservation to the policy. One assumes this was to impress the Guardian and try and attract some of their voters, always a futile idea because Guardian readers can get their social liberalism from Labour with added "cuddly austerity".
    He did that because, in particular, the pink community has some very wealthy elements who - based on economics - would vote Tory but didn't in any meaningful way.

    Gay marriage was an important part of repositioning the Tories as a modern, inclusive party. It was necessary to buy them the "right to be heard" by significant parts of the electorate.

    Societies change. Gay marriage's time had come.
    I didn't say it hadn't. I said doing it in a lower key fashion, whilst adopting a more emollient tone about it with his core would have had the same effect and saved him a ton of votes.
    And the majority of the population wouldn't have noticed, so unscrupulous Labour would have continued to shout about s28.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,705
    Charles said:



    Now you are just being naughty.

    But fundamentally, I don't care what people get up to in their bedroom. I think it's great if they vote for the Tories. And I wouldn't support a party that tells a significant percentage of the population that they have less rights than other citizens simply because of their sexual preferences.

    Tories do care what you get up to in your bedroom if you happen to live in a council house.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,687
    edited March 2015
    Jonathan said:

    Charles said:



    Now you are just being naughty.

    But fundamentally, I don't care what people get up to in their bedroom. I think it's great if they vote for the Tories. And I wouldn't support a party that tells a significant percentage of the population that they have less rights than other citizens simply because of their sexual preferences.

    Tories do care what you get up to in your bedroom if you happen to live in a council house.
    No, they care about how many rooms you get up to it in :-)
  • EasterrossEasterross Posts: 1,915
    Good morning all and assuming crossover has taken place, what next?

    Tomorrow we get the noble Lord's next set of teasers. Do we expect further SNP success in Scotland? Are the Tories clawing back in those Tory-Lab battleground seats. Are the magical jumper wearers staging a defiance of the polls to hold the Yellow line?

    We are now so close to polling day that pollsters should only include 100% certain to vote and registered to vote. Doesn't really matter what non-voters think.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited March 2015
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Indigo said:

    antifrank said:

    Perhaps surprisingly, I agree with much of that. The mistake that the current Conservative leadership made was, in my view, one of tone rather than policy (in objective terms this has been a rightwing government that has sounded centrist rather than the reverse, so it isn't about policy) . They know they're posh boys, so why did they marginalise all the rougher, gruffer voices in their party? Eric Pickles has been woefully underused.

    Partly tone, and partly unnecessary showboating for little effect with bills that were bound to be controversial with some of his more traditional core voters.

    He had the option to quietly ease in Gay Marriage without a big song and dance, to sell it as some "tidying up", and deprecate it as "not a big deal because most of it was in civil partnerships"

    Instead he rubbed his social conservative core's face in it, and show-boated it for all he was worth, and insulted anyone on the right of his party who expressed even qualified reservation to the policy. One assumes this was to impress the Guardian and try and attract some of their voters, always a futile idea because Guardian readers can get their social liberalism from Labour with added "cuddly austerity".
    He did that because, in particular, the pink community has some very wealthy elements who - based on economics - would vote Tory but didn't in any meaningful way.

    Gay marriage was an important part of repositioning the Tories as a modern, inclusive party. It was necessary to buy them the "right to be heard" by significant parts of the electorate.

    Societies change. Gay marriage's time had come.
    LOL

    so if you are gay, well off, socially liberal and metropolitan the Tories are the party for you.

    ask antifrank how he's voting.
    Now you are just being naughty.

    But fundamentally, I don't care what people get up to in their bedroom. I think it's great if they vote for the Tories. And I wouldn't support a party that tells a significant percentage of the population that they have less rights than other citizens simply because of their sexual preferences.
    I don't think anyone is suggesting it shouldn't be done. But doing it without pissing off a chunk of his core vote would seem to be the sensible approach. There is no good sitting there glowing with moral authority and feelings of a job well done, on the opposition benches.
This discussion has been closed.