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.
Actually Charles there were quite a lot of things on lists which would have been deliverable because the Lds supported them too.
- tax reform - bank reform - some prosecutions for crminal bankers - rebalancing the economy - house building - HoL reform - Rotherham - "tone" in killing off spin
There are lots thinsg Cameron could have done with the LDs and didn't ( cue second defense of its the Tory nutters ). In reality he has just called the politcs wrong and is now suffering for it as he heads to an election.
If he had stuck with " we're all in it together" and put more action behind it he would be heading for a majority.
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.
Which would be remarkably naive since its that segment of voters that won the election for Thatcher and Major.
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.
In what way .... rather than what position clearly ??
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.
I agree. It is time to ask about "registered to vote?".
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.
And there are no tanks in Baghdad.
To be fair I actually thought you were making sound points until the last sentence.
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.
And there are no tanks in Baghdad.
To be fair I actually thought you were making sound points until the last sentence.
How many of that 60% want a change from coalition to Tory Majority ?
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.
It's not the white van men the Conservatives needed to lose, it was the people who refer to the EUSSR. Job only half done, I'd say.
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 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 r 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.
Not naughty at all Charles. I'm merely pointing out that folks like antifrank should be voting for you after all that effort and they aren't, A/f will no doubt speak for himself, but the tone in his comments to me at any rate is that he thinks Cameron is a good chap, but he wouldn't vote blue.
You have detoxed Cameron but not the Conservatives.
On the other hand you've lost people like myself who would even turn out for the no-hoper of 1997. Since effectively Cameron has put nothing on the table to keep us on board and his coterie have seriously misjudged people's appetite for stupid grandstanding. I said as early as 2011 that Cameronwas being a spendthrift with his political capital and so it is proving.
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...
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?
Nick is 2/7 to beat fishwife Soubrey so presumably the lead is still looking pretty good
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.
The majority of Tory MPs voted against gay marriage.
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.
It's not the white van men the Conservatives needed to lose, it was the people who refer to the EUSSR. Job only half done, I'd say.
Any more on the rumour they might lose another one of that ilk this week?
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.
It's not the white van men the Conservatives needed to lose, it was the people who refer to the EUSSR. Job only half done, I'd say.
Any more on the rumour they might lose another one of that ilk this week?
Pfft. Broad church my ass, let's lose WVM, lets lose the euro-sceptics, carry on like this and soon it will be the most intellectually and morally pure third party around.
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.
You're in danger of ruining it with that comment. Calling those who disagree with you mad or bad isn't the best way of getting them to listen to you, and you're more likely than not to get the same accusations thrown back at you.
Despite your intelligence it's probably a good job you're not a party strategist.
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 don't. But social housing is a scarce resource that should be allocated as effectively as possible. It's nice for an individual if they have a spare bedroom - but why should the taxpayer subsidise that additional pleasure?
There will always be hard cases - which is why there were funds provided to local councils to deal with those - but fundamentally if people want something extra they should be asked to contribute to the cost
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.
And Labour, whilst in power, cared what you got up to in your bedroom if you lived in private, subsidised, rented accommodation.
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.
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.
True, but it doesn’t sit well with “we’re all in this together”. It’s not even as if there’s any public shaming.
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.
In what way .... rather than what position clearly ??
If no-one sleeps in it regularly, then you don’t need it!
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 don't. But social housing is a scarce resource that should be allocated as effectively as possible. It's nice for an individual if they have a spare bedroom - but why should the taxpayer subsidise that additional pleasure?
There will always be hard cases - which is why there were funds provided to local councils to deal with those - but fundamentally if people want something extra they should be asked to contribute to the cost
Actually as we have seen in the last few months the Conservatives seem to care very much what you watch in your bedroom with the passing of the massively "popular" amendment last year, the so called "porn ban". The own goals just keep adding up.
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.
It's not the white van men the Conservatives needed to lose, it was the people who refer to the EUSSR. Job only half done, I'd say.
Any more on the rumour they might lose another one of that ilk this week?
Pfft. Broad church my ass, let's lose WVM, lets lose the euro-sceptics, carry on like this and soon it will be the most intellectually and morally pure third party around.
Who wants to lose WVM? I have been suggesting a range of policies aimed at getting his vote.
But the price that the Tory party has paid for the sad obsessions of the Euro-nutters has been high enough already. 13 years of opposition whilst huge structural damage was done to our country.
The EU is an important issue but it is only 1 issue and by no means the most important. Those who want to froth endlessly about it have done the Tories far more harm than good and UKIP are welcome to them.
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 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.
In terms of social policy, this government has tended to be very Blairite. Not just over gay marriage, but over things like free speech, smoking, emotional cruelty, feminist issues, ethnic monitoring etc. You couldn't really put a cigarette paper between people like Theresa May or Nicky Morgan, on the one hand, and Yvette Cooper and Rachel Reeves on the other.
But, I don't think they realised how many of their voters disliked Blairite social policies.
No, they don't. But social housing is a scarce resource that should be allocated as effectively as possible. It's nice for an individual if they have a spare bedroom - but why should the taxpayer subsidise that additional pleasure?
There will always be hard cases - which is why there were funds provided to local councils to deal with those - but fundamentally if people want something extra they should be asked to contribute to the cost
Two rather basic problems with the policy: 1. Lack of alternative accommodation. In most towns there are no smaller public sector homes available for people to downsize into. They could move into private sector smaller houses but as we pay their rents which will be significantly higher its a policy that if followed to its logical conclusion would cost us more 2. Lack of tenants for family homes. Some councils now stuck with 3 bed homes that tenants can no longer afford to live in. As a policy its actively reducing the stock of social housing available
Its a classic really. Sounds plausible on paper. But batshit crazy in the real world.
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.
So the PB Tories seem to be suggesting that they could win because Labour voters wont actually turn out to vote?
Hardly sounds very confident or inspiring? Equivalent to a football manager stating his team will win....so long as the opposition doesnt actually turn up for the match
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.
True, but it doesn’t sit well with “we’re all in this together”. It’s not even as if there’s any public shaming.
I think the problem is if you go toe-to-toe with a very rich person that is paying for the best lawyers, you have a pretty good chance of losing, because HMRC's record in court is piss poor, and its record against rich people is probably at the bad end of that. If they win in court then you have just set another precedent supporting their point of view and rapidly your laws come into disrepute. HMRC is traditionally rather nervous of getting into court cases which might set a dangerous precedent if they lose, especially since they tend to do just that.
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.
I think that at the moment the Conservatives are hanging fire, letting the opposition fire of bullets before they know what the target is. After the budget it will be 'shock and awe' for the 6 weeks or so until the election. Six weeks is sufficient time to hammer home a message, yet short enough to make the campaign affordable.
A second point, of course, is that once the campaign officially gets under way then the BBC / Channel 4 have to be seen as being neutral - why waste money when you know your message will be obfuscated by the media?
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...
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?
Nick is 2/7 to beat fishwife Soubrey so presumably the lead is still looking pretty good
The breaking news is that WIND is reporting to the JNN the contents of the latest ARSE with added APLOMB 2015 General Election and "JackW Dozen" Projections. (Changes From 10th February Projection) :
Con 306 (+8) .. Lab 256 (-6) .. LibDem 34 (-4) .. SNP 28 (+2) .. PC 2 .. NI 18 .. UKIP 3 .. Respect 1 .. Green 1 .. Ind 0 .. Speaker 1
Conservatives 20 seats short of a majority ......................................................................................
"JackW Dozen" - 13 seats that will shape the General Election result :
Bury North - Likely Con Hold Pudsey - Likely Con Hold Broxtowe - Likely Lab Gain Warwickshire North - Likely Lab Gain Cambridge - LibDem Hold Ipswich - Likely Con Hold from TCTC Watford - Likely LibDem Gain Croydon Central - Con Hold from Likely Con Hold Enfield North - TCTC from Likely Lab Gain Cornwall North - Likely LibDem Hold Great Yarmouth - Con Hold Vale of Glamorgan - Con Hold Ochil and South Perthshire - Likely SNP Gain
Changes From 10 Feb - Ipswich moves from TCTC to Likely Con Hold. Croydon Central moves from Likely Con Hold to Con Hold. Enfield North moves from Likely Lab Gain to TCTC.
TCTC - Too Close To Call - Less than 500 votes Likely Hold/Gain - 500 - 2500 votes Gain/Hold - Over 2500 .......................................................................................
ARSE is sponsored by Auchentennach Fine Pies (Est 1745)
WIND - Whimsical Independent News Division JNN - Jacobite News Network ARSE - Anonymous Random Selection of Electors APLOMB - Auchentennach Pies Leading Outsales Mainland Britain
The EU is an important issue but it is only 1 issue and by no means the most important. Those who want to froth endlessly about it have done the Tories far more harm than good and UKIP are welcome to them.
WVM are social conservatives and patriots in general, they vanished to UKIP as soon as Dave showed his first bit of socially liberal ankle. Our list of friends grows short....
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".
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?
Yes, but it's nobody's fault but the Conservatives for failing to win a majority in GE2010.
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...
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?
Nick is 2/7 to beat fishwife Soubrey so presumably the lead is still looking pretty good
There's plenty of time for voters in Broxtowe to see sense, and vote to keep an MP who's achieved something, rather than merely plod along as an expensive nodding dog.
A good start to the week for the Conservatives though plenty of caveats as always with these polls and OGH's comments on the Ashcroft poll also need to be noted.
As the unmissed Audreyanne would no doubt be reminding us ad nauseam, many people have yet to engage with the election in any meaningful sense so perhaps certainty to vote figures at this time need to be taken with a bucketful of salt.
I will be honest - I don't much relish the prospect of a Conservative Government which will be fixated on Europe from now until 2017 with endless coverage of Cameron's "negotiations" followed by a referendum, the prospect of which seems guaranteed to engender more instability.
I don't much relish the prospect of a Labour Government blundering along economically dragging us back into recession and stagnation undermining some of the good the Coalition has done and ensuring that by 2020 I am likely not only to be worse off than in 2015 but worse off than 2010 - a "lost decade" if there ever was one.
I suppose the best option would be a Coalition without an EU Referendum - Cameron's good at PR, I'm sure he could sell that ?
You're in danger of ruining it with that comment. Calling those who disagree with you mad or bad isn't the best way of getting them to listen to you, and you're more likely than not to get the same accusations thrown back at you.
Despite your intelligence it's probably a good job you're not a party strategist.
I agree that the Conservatives should not call waverers bad or mad. But they would have done far better to argue that UKIP were an unserious party with unserious solutions to undoubted problems rather than make concessions in the vain hope that they could outkip the kippers. That argument could not, however, be made by David Cameron or George Osborne - as Adam Ant once wisely noted, it's quite a toff to tell a scruff the big mistake he's making.
The breaking news is that WIND is reporting to the JNN the contents of the latest ARSE with added APLOMB 2015 General Election and "JackW Dozen" Projections. (Changes From 10th February Projection) :
Con 306 (+8) .. Lab 256 (-6) .. LibDem 34 (-4) .. SNP 28 (+2) .. PC 2 .. NI 18 .. UKIP 3 .. Respect 1 .. Green 1 .. Ind 0 .. Speaker 1
Conservatives 20 seats short of a majority ......................................................................................
"JackW Dozen" - 13 seats that will shape the General Election result :
Bury North - Likely Con Hold Pudsey - Likely Con Hold Broxtowe - Likely Lab Gain Warwickshire North - Likely Lab Gain Cambridge - LibDem Hold Ipswich - Likely Con Hold from TCTC Watford - Likely LibDem Gain Croydon Central - Con Hold from Likely Con Hold Enfield North - TCTC from Likely Lab Gain Cornwall North - Likely LibDem Hold Great Yarmouth - Con Hold Vale of Glamorgan - Con Hold Ochil and South Perthshire - Likely SNP Gain
Changes From 10 Feb - Ipswich moves from TCTC to Likely Con Hold. Croydon Central moves from Likely Con Hold to Con Hold. Enfield North moves from Likely Lab Gain to TCTC.
TCTC - Too Close To Call - Less than 500 votes Likely Hold/Gain - 500 - 2500 votes Gain/Hold - Over 2500 ....................................................
I would be very surprised if the phrase "Lib Dem gain" is seen scrolling across the bottom of the screen in Watford or anywhere else
"Lib Dem hold" will be enough to get champagne corks cracking in any seats the collabarators do hang on to...................................
ARSE is sponsored by Auchentennach Fine Pies (Est 1745)
WIND - Whimsical Independent News Division JNN - Jacobite News Network ARSE - Anonymous Random Selection of Electors APLOMB - Auchentennach Pies Leading Outsales Mainland Britain
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.
It's not the white van men the Conservatives needed to lose, it was the people who refer to the EUSSR. Job only half done, I'd say.
You are not the key swing electorate. Half of the population want to leave the EU. 2/3 to 3/4 want an absolute reduction in immigration levels.
Even if you don't agree with those, and you obviously don't, there is a major electoral constituency there. I sense your real fear is that a government might be elected that might actually do something about it.
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 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.
In terms of social policy, this government has tended to be very Blairite. Not just over gay marriage, but over things like free speech, smoking, emotional cruelty, feminist issues, ethnic monitoring etc. You couldn't really put a cigarette paper between people like Theresa May or Nicky Morgan, on the one hand, and Yvette Cooper and Rachel Reeves on the other.
But, I don't think they realised how many of their voters disliked Blairite social policies.
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.
It's not the white van men the Conservatives needed to lose, it was the people who refer to the EUSSR. Job only half done, I'd say.
Any more on the rumour they might lose another one of that ilk this week?
Pfft. Broad church my ass, let's lose WVM, lets lose the euro-sceptics, carry on like this and soon it will be the most intellectually and morally pure third party around.
Who wants to lose WVM? I have been suggesting a range of policies aimed at getting his vote.
But the price that the Tory party has paid for the sad obsessions of the Euro-nutters has been high enough already. 13 years of opposition whilst huge structural damage was done to our country.
The EU is an important issue but it is only 1 issue and by no means the most important. Those who want to froth endlessly about it have done the Tories far more harm than good and UKIP are welcome to them.
This appears to be the PBCamerons self delusion.
The Tories are not losing votes to the handful of "Euronutters", Conservative activists are as obsessed with UKIP as UKIp are obsessed with doing in Cameron.But most of that 6-8% of voters Cameron can't reach don't give a fig for Europe as polls repeatedly prove.
The tories are losing votes from WVM voters because they have not offered them anything to get their vote and make it doubly plain that their concerns are not considered worthy by Cameroons.
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...
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?
Nick is 2/7 to beat fishwife Soubrey so presumably the lead is still looking pretty good
There's plenty of time for voters in Broxtowe to see sense, and vote to keep an MP who's achieved something, rather than merely plod along as an expensive nodding dog.
Not naughty at all Charles. I'm merely pointing out that folks like antifrank should be voting for you after all that effort and they aren't, A/f will no doubt speak for himself, but the tone in his comments to me at any rate is that he thinks Cameron is a good chap, but he wouldn't vote blue.
You have detoxed Cameron but not the Conservatives.
On the other hand you've lost people like myself who would even turn out for the no-hoper of 1997. Since effectively Cameron has put nothing on the table to keep us on board and his coterie have seriously misjudged people's appetite for stupid grandstanding. I said as early as 2011 that Cameronwas being a spendthrift with his political capital and so it is proving.
I quite like David Cameron and as it happens I think this government has done a decent job in very difficult circumstances. For me there is a dealbreaker for voting Conservative in 2015, which is that if they get back into government they will exhaust themselves and the government over the essentially peripheral issue of the EU. There are far more important things to be getting on with.
I'm also unimpressed by their spending plans, but I don't believe in practice that they would follow them, so that's a semi-dealbreaker.
I'll either vote Lib Dem or Green. Probably Lib Dem, to reward them for the good job that they have done in government.
Two months to go to the GE. Creeps up on you, doesn't it?
But whatever happened to the much-vaunted John Cruddas policy project? That one which was going to transform the country through a Miliband government?
I'm not having a dig here. But Miliband was elected as a bit of a left-field candidate and I was expecting him to at least come up with some radical ideas.
Two months to go to the GE. Creeps up on you, doesn't it?
But whatever happened to the much-vaunted John Cruddas policy project? That one which was going to transform the country through a Miliband government?
I'm not having a dig here. But Miliband was elected as a bit of a left-field candidate and I was expecting him to at least come up with some radical ideas.
We have had quite a lot of bits of tinsel, and several moon-on-a-sticks, to be paid for variously out of Bankers Bonuses, Mansion Taxes or levies on the pensions of rich people, whilst quietly glossing over what they plan to do about the extra £100bn being added onto the national debt every year before they start handing out sweeties to their various interest groups.
The general theme appears to be bashing rich people not very much, and making a lot of noise about it, presumably hoping they won't be bothered enough bugger off with their money and make the deficit even worse.
So we nearly have a coherent policy plan to make a manifesto from, nearly
The breaking news is that WIND is reporting to the JNN the contents of the latest ARSE with added APLOMB 2015 General Election and "JackW Dozen" Projections. (Changes From 10th February Projection) :
Con 306 (+8) .. Lab 256 (-6) .. LibDem 34 (-4) .. SNP 28 (+2) .. PC 2 .. NI 18 .. UKIP 3 .. Respect 1 .. Green 1 .. Ind 0 .. Speaker 1
Conservatives 20 seats short of a majority ......................................................................................
"JackW Dozen" - 13 seats that will shape the General Election result :
Bury North - Likely Con Hold Pudsey - Likely Con Hold Broxtowe - Likely Lab Gain Warwickshire North - Likely Lab Gain Cambridge - LibDem Hold Ipswich - Likely Con Hold from TCTC Watford - Likely LibDem Gain Croydon Central - Con Hold from Likely Con Hold Enfield North - TCTC from Likely Lab Gain Cornwall North - Likely LibDem Hold Great Yarmouth - Con Hold Vale of Glamorgan - Con Hold Ochil and South Perthshire - Likely SNP Gain
Changes From 10 Feb - Ipswich moves from TCTC to Likely Con Hold. Croydon Central moves from Likely Con Hold to Con Hold. Enfield North moves from Likely Lab Gain to TCTC.
TCTC - Too Close To Call - Less than 500 votes Likely Hold/Gain - 500 - 2500 votes Gain/Hold - Over 2500 .........................................................................
ARSE is sponsored by Auchentennach Fine Pies (Est 1745)
WIND - Whimsical Independent News Division JNN - Jacobite News Network ARSE - Anonymous Random Selection of Electors APLOMB - Auchentennach Pies Leading Outsales Mainland Britain
No Lib Dem gains for me in Watford, North of Watford, South of Watford, East of Watford, West of Watford or even.in fictional Walford
I have seen the polls re Watford but they just seem too unlikely to be true .A party gone from 23% to at best 9 or maybe 10 surely aint gaining seats anywhere
Impressive JackW. The breadth of your ARSE has increased significantly over the last month.
too many doughnuts?
As a purveyor of fine pies, cakes, pastries and other delectable comestibles may I advise you that there is always time for delicious doughnuts especially if laced with lashings of fine Scottish jam.
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.
So the PB Tories seem to be suggesting that they could win because Labour voters wont actually turn out to vote?
No, its Labour voters who are saying they are less likely to turn out to vote......
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.
It's not the white van men the Conservatives needed to lose, it was the people who refer to the EUSSR. Job only half done, I'd say.
Any more on the rumour they might lose another one of that ilk this week?
Pfft. Broad church my ass, let's lose WVM, lets lose the euro-sceptics, carry on like this and soon it will be the most intellectually and morally pure third party around.
Who wants to lose WVM? I have been suggesting a range of policies aimed at getting his vote.
But the price that the Tory party has paid for the sad obsessions of the Euro-nutters has been high enough already. 13 years of opposition whilst huge structural damage was done to our country.
The EU is an important issue but it is only 1 issue and by no means the most important. Those who want to froth endlessly about it have done the Tories far more harm than good and UKIP are welcome to them.
I quite agree that Clarke, Heseltine and their ilk are sad obsessive Euro nutters but it was the leadership who decided to listen to them rather than to the view of the majority of the Tory party. The damage has been done to the Tory party precisely because the views of the membership were ignored.
Not naughty at all Charles. I'm merely pointing out that folks like antifrank should be voting for you after all that effort and they aren't, A/f will no doubt speak for himself, but the tone in his comments to me at any rate is that he thinks Cameron is a good chap, but he wouldn't vote blue.
You have detoxed Cameron but not the Conservatives.
On the other hand you've lost people like myself who would even turn out for the no-hoper of 1997. Since effectively Cameron has put nothing on the table to keep us on board and his coterie have seriously misjudged people's appetite for stupid grandstanding. I said as early as 2011 that Cameronwas being a spendthrift with his political capital and so it is proving.
I quite like David Cameron and as it happens I think this government has done a decent job in very difficult circumstances. For me there is a dealbreaker for voting Conservative in 2015, which is that if they get back into government they will exhaust themselves and the government over the essentially peripheral issue of the EU. There are far more important things to be getting on with.
I'm also unimpressed by their spending plans, but I don't believe in practice that they would follow them, so that's a semi-dealbreaker.
I'll either vote Lib Dem or Green. Probably Lib Dem, to reward them for the good job that they have done in government.
Oddly my views for not voting Blue mirror yours. I think this government has spent too much time on peripheral issues and not enough on reforming the economy. Like you I don't believe their spending plans for the next Parliament, however I don't believe anyone else's either.
If spending is a major concern for you I'd have thought the Greens is an odd choice.
The breaking news is that WIND is reporting to the JNN the contents of the latest ARSE with added APLOMB 2015 General Election and "JackW Dozen" Projections. (Changes From 10th February Projection) :
Con 306 (+8) .. Lab 256 (-6) .. LibDem 34 (-4) .. SNP 28 (+2) .. PC 2 .. NI 18 .. UKIP 3 .. Respect 1 .. Green 1 .. Ind 0 .. Speaker 1
Conservatives 20 seats short of a majority ......................................................................................
"JackW Dozen" - 13 seats that will shape the General Election result :
Bury North - Likely Con Hold Pudsey - Likely Con Hold Broxtowe - Likely Lab Gain Warwickshire North - Likely Lab Gain Cambridge - LibDem Hold Ipswich - Likely Con Hold from TCTC Watford - Likely LibDem Gain Croydon Central - Con Hold from Likely Con Hold Enfield North - TCTC from Likely Lab Gain Cornwall North - Likely LibDem Hold Great Yarmouth - Con Hold Vale of Glamorgan - Con Hold Ochil and South Perthshire - Likely SNP Gain
Changes From 10 Feb - Ipswich moves from TCTC to Likely Con Hold. Croydon Central moves from Likely Con Hold to Con Hold. Enfield North moves from Likely Lab Gain to TCTC.
TCTC - Too Close To Call - Less than 500 votes Likely Hold/Gain - 500 - 2500 votes Gain/Hold - Over 2500 .........................................................................
ARSE is sponsored by Auchentennach Fine Pies (Est 1745)
WIND - Whimsical Independent News Division JNN - Jacobite News Network ARSE - Anonymous Random Selection of Electors APLOMB - Auchentennach Pies Leading Outsales Mainland Britain
No Lib Dem gains for me in Watford, North of Watford, South of Watford, East of Watford, West of Watford or even.in fictional Walford
I have seen the polls re Watford but they just seem too unlikely to be true .A party gone from 23% to at best 9 or maybe 10 surely aint gaining seats anywhere
For your further enlightenment you may wish to note the most recent polling in Watford took place before the LibDem mayor Dorothy Thornhill became the PPC.
You might also wish to consider her extraordinary popularity and continuing victories in the seat, the most recent of which also took place whilst the national yellow peril were only marginally more popular than Benjamin Netanyahu at a Hamas conference.
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...
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?
Nick is 2/7 to beat fishwife Soubrey so presumably the lead is still looking pretty good
There's plenty of time for voters in Broxtowe to see sense, and vote to keep an MP who's achieved something, rather than merely plod along as an expensive nodding dog.
What exactly has Soubrey "achieved"?
Huppert in Cambridge showing how to see off Labour retreads. Biggest uncertainty now in Cambridge is who finishes second...
Not naughty at all Charles. I'm merely pointing out that folks like antifrank should be voting for you after all that effort and they aren't, A/f will no doubt speak for himself, but the tone in his comments to me at any rate is that he thinks Cameron is a good chap, but he wouldn't vote blue.
You have detoxed Cameron but not the Conservatives.
On the other hand you've lost people like myself who would even turn out for the no-hoper of 1997. Since effectively Cameron has put nothing on the table to keep us on board and his coterie have seriously misjudged people's appetite for stupid grandstanding. I said as early as 2011 that Cameronwas being a spendthrift with his political capital and so it is proving.
I quite like David Cameron and as it happens I think this government has done a decent job in very difficult circumstances. For me there is a dealbreaker for voting Conservative in 2015, which is that if they get back into government they will exhaust themselves and the government over the essentially peripheral issue of the EU. There are far more important things to be getting on with.
I'm also unimpressed by their spending plans, but I don't believe in practice that they would follow them, so that's a semi-dealbreaker.
I'll either vote Lib Dem or Green. Probably Lib Dem, to reward them for the good job that they have done in government.
Oddly my views for not voting Blue mirror yours. I think this government has spent too much time on peripheral issues and not enough on reforming the economy.Like you I don't believe their spending plans for the next Parliament, however I don't believe anyone else's either.
If spending is a major concern for you I'd have thought the Greens is an odd choice.
That fact that a centrist LD speaks with approval of the policy positions of a Conservative PM should be ringing large warning bells in and of it self. It implies not only that Cameron's views are probably way off what would be typical of his party, worse it implies that voters that like his views should consider the "real thing" and vote LD, which might be awkward when the LDs ditch Clegg and climb out of the coffin.
Not naughty at all Charles. I'm merely pointing out that folks like antifrank should be voting for you after all that effort and they aren't, A/f will no doubt speak for himself, but the tone in his comments to me at any rate is that he thinks Cameron is a good chap, but he wouldn't vote blue.
You have detoxed Cameron but not the Conservatives.
On the other hand you've lost people like myself who would even turn out for the no-hoper of 1997. Since effectively Cameron has put nothing on the table to keep us on board and his coterie have seriously misjudged people's appetite for stupid grandstanding. I said as early as 2011 that Cameronwas being a spendthrift with his political capital and so it is proving.
I quite like David Cameron and as it happens I think this government has done a decent job in very difficult circumstances. For me there is a dealbreaker for voting Conservative in 2015, which is that if they get back into government they will exhaust themselves and the government over the essentially peripheral issue of the EU. There are far more important things to be getting on with.
I'm also unimpressed by their spending plans, but I don't believe in practice that they would follow them, so that's a semi-dealbreaker.
I'll either vote Lib Dem or Green. Probably Lib Dem, to reward them for the good job that they have done in government.
Oddly my views for not voting Blue mirror yours. I think this government has spent too much time on peripheral issues and not enough on reforming the economy. Like you I don't believe their spending plans for the next Parliament, however I don't believe anyone else's either.
If spending is a major concern for you I'd have thought the Greens is an odd choice.
If I vote Green it will not be to elect an MP but to send a message through the only means I have at my disposal about the importance of the environment.
Not naughty at all Charles. I'm merely pointing out that folks like antifrank should be voting for you after all that effort and they aren't, A/f will no doubt speak for himself, but the tone in his comments to me at any rate is that he thinks Cameron is a good chap, but he wouldn't vote blue.
You have detoxed Cameron but not the Conservatives.
On the other hand you've lost people like myself who would even turn out for the no-hoper of 1997. Since effectively Cameron has put nothing on the table to keep us on board and his coterie have seriously misjudged people's appetite for stupid grandstanding. I said as early as 2011 that Cameronwas being a spendthrift with his political capital and so it is proving.
I quite like David Cameron and as it happens I think this government has done a decent job in very difficult circumstances. For me there is a dealbreaker for voting Conservative in 2015, which is that if they get back into government they will exhaust themselves and the government over the essentially peripheral issue of the EU. There are far more important things to be getting on with.
I'm also unimpressed by their spending plans, but I don't believe in practice that they would follow them, so that's a semi-dealbreaker.
I'll either vote Lib Dem or Green. Probably Lib Dem, to reward them for the good job that they have done in government.
Oddly my views for not voting Blue mirror yours. I think this government has spent too much time on peripheral issues and not enough on reforming the economy.Like you I don't believe their spending plans for the next Parliament, however I don't believe anyone else's either.
If spending is a major concern for you I'd have thought the Greens is an odd choice.
That fact that a centrist LD speaks with approval of the policy positions of a Conservative PM should be ringing large warning bells in and of it self. It implies not only that Cameron's views are probably way off what would be typical of his party, worse it implies that voters that like his views should consider the "real thing" and vote LD, which might be awkward when the LDs ditch Clegg and climb out of the coffin.
I think this just says antifrank is a fairly decent lawyer.
( shit a/f my fingers nearly seized up ;-) ! ) .
He is salami slicing Cameroons with a just one more push approach, being naive souls they believe one more concession will get them the vote ( it won't ). Oddly they ignore all the other ones they're losing off the other end of the spectrum.
Not naughty at all Charles. I'm merely pointing out that folks like antifrank should be voting for you after all that effort and they aren't, A/f will no doubt speak for himself, but the tone in his comments to me at any rate is that he thinks Cameron is a good chap, but he wouldn't vote blue.
You have detoxed Cameron but not the Conservatives.
On the other hand you've lost people like myself who would even turn out for the no-hoper of 1997. Since effectively Cameron has put nothing on the table to keep us on board and his coterie have seriously misjudged people's appetite for stupid grandstanding. I said as early as 2011 that Cameronwas being a spendthrift with his political capital and so it is proving.
I quite like David Cameron and as it happens I think this government has done a decent job in very difficult circumstances. For me there is a dealbreaker for voting Conservative in 2015, which is that if they get back into government they will exhaust themselves and the government over the essentially peripheral issue of the EU. There are far more important things to be getting on with.
I'm also unimpressed by their spending plans, but I don't believe in practice that they would follow them, so that's a semi-dealbreaker.
I'll either vote Lib Dem or Green. Probably Lib Dem, to reward them for the good job that they have done in government.
Oddly my views for not voting Blue mirror yours. I think this government has spent too much time on peripheral issues and not enough on reforming the economy.Like you I don't believe their spending plans for the next Parliament, however I don't believe anyone else's either.
If spending is a major concern for you I'd have thought the Greens is an odd choice.
That fact that a centrist LD speaks with approval of the policy positions of a Conservative PM should be ringing large warning bells in and of it self. It implies not only that Cameron's views are probably way off what would be typical of his party, worse it implies that voters that like his views should consider the "real thing" and vote LD, which might be awkward when the LDs ditch Clegg and climb out of the coffin.
I've not voted Lib Dem at a general election for some time.
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...
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?
Nick is 2/7 to beat fishwife Soubrey so presumably the lead is still looking pretty good
There's plenty of time for voters in Broxtowe to see sense, and vote to keep an MP who's achieved something, rather than merely plod along as an expensive nodding dog.
What exactly has Soubrey "achieved"?
How about the first woman to be appointed a Defence Minister of State. NPXMP on the other hand in 13 years didn't even manage the most junior Under Secretary of State for toilet rolls and plumbing repairs in the HoC stores cupboard!
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?
Perhaps we'll find out from Ashcroft! I'm not detecting significant movement, but *if* the national polls are tightening, ours will be too. My guess on that basis is the 5-7 range.
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...
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?
Using my broad brush model, I reckon NP's lead is about 3%.
Not naughty at all Charles. I'm merely pointing out that folks like antifrank should be voting for you after all that effort and they aren't, A/f will no doubt speak for himself, but the tone in his comments to me at any rate is that he thinks Cameron is a good chap, but he wouldn't vote blue.
You have detoxed Cameron but not the Conservatives.
On the other hand you've lost people like myself who would even turn out for the no-hoper of 1997. Since effectively Cameron has put nothing on the table to keep us on board and his coterie have seriously misjudged people's appetite for stupid grandstanding. I said as early as 2011 that Cameronwas being a spendthrift with his political capital and so it is proving.
I quite like David Cameron and as it happens I think this government has done a decent job in very difficult circumstances. For me there is a dealbreaker for voting Conservative in 2015, which is that if they get back into government they will exhaust themselves and the government over the essentially peripheral issue of the EU. There are far more important things to be getting on with.
I'm also unimpressed by their spending plans, but I don't believe in practice that they would follow them, so that's a semi-dealbreaker.
I'll either vote Lib Dem or Green. Probably Lib Dem, to reward them for the good job that they have done in government.
Oddly my views for not voting Blue mirror yours. I think this government has spent too much time on peripheral issues and not enough on reforming the economy. Like you I don't believe their spending plans for the next Parliament, however I don't believe anyone else's either.
If spending is a major concern for you I'd have thought the Greens is an odd choice.
If I vote Green it will not be to elect an MP but to send a message through the only means I have at my disposal about the importance of the environment.
You have a choice at least. I'm looking for some eurosceptic mad bastards who'll threaten to shoot the british establishment.
Unfortunately Sinn Fein don't stand in Stratford upon Avon.
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.
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.
It's a long-term plan. You can mug a banker and receive nothing more than a stern telling off. Burgling a banker actually gets you a stamp on a loyalty card. Ten stamps nets you a get-out-of-jail-free card for GBH on a hedge fund owner.
Not naughty at all Charles. I'm merely pointing out that folks like antifrank should be voting for you after all that effort and they aren't, A/f will no doubt speak for himself, but the tone in his comments to me at any rate is that he thinks Cameron is a good chap, but he wouldn't vote blue.
You have detoxed Cameron but not the Conservatives.
On the other hand you've lost people like myself who would even turn out for the no-hoper of 1997. Since effectively Cameron has put nothing on the table to keep us on board and his coterie have seriously misjudged people's appetite for stupid grandstanding. I said as early as 2011 that Cameronwas being a spendthrift with his political capital and so it is proving.
I quite like David Cameron and as it happens I think this government has done a decent job in very difficult circumstances. For me there is a dealbreaker for voting Conservative in 2015, which is that if they get back into government they will exhaust themselves and the government over the essentially peripheral issue of the EU. There are far more important things to be getting on with.
I'm also unimpressed by their spending plans, but I don't believe in practice that they would follow them, so that's a semi-dealbreaker.
I'll either vote Lib Dem or Green. Probably Lib Dem, to reward them for the good job that they have done in government.
Oddly my views for not voting Blue mirror yours. I think this government has spent too much time on peripheral issues and not enough on reforming the economy. Like you I don't believe their spending plans for the next Parliament, however I don't believe anyone else's either.
If spending is a major concern for you I'd have thought the Greens is an odd choice.
If I vote Green it will not be to elect an MP but to send a message through the only means I have at my disposal about the importance of the environment.
You have a choice at least. I'm looking for some eurosceptic mad bastards who'll threaten to shoot the british establishment.
Unfortunately Sinn Fein don't stand in Stratford upon Avon.
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.
The sentiment is good, but parties that can't tell the difference between "less" and "fewer" will never get a pedant swing vote...
That fact that a centrist LD speaks with approval of the policy positions of a Conservative PM should be ringing large warning bells in and of it self. It implies not only that Cameron's views are probably way off what would be typical of his party, worse it implies that voters that like his views should consider the "real thing" and vote LD, which might be awkward when the LDs ditch Clegg and climb out of the coffin.
Sounds like Messrs Alanbrooke, Antifrank and Stodge are of similar mind this morning which can only be a positive thing for everyone.
As to a post-Clegg Liberal Democrat Party, I don't know. The implication from your comment is you expect Farron to drag us off to "the Left" (whatever that means).
I don't see that at all. The Party won't run away from what it's achieved in Coalition but will rightly refefine its position (assuming we are in Opposition) to what the Government does.
The economic policy based on tax rises and spending cuts to achieve deficit reduction is the only credible thing out there but there are probably few if any votes in it.
Beyond that, as with most people, I've no problem with people being rich. The problem is when the same standards that apply to the rest of us don't seem to apply to them.
Not naughty at all Charles. I'm merely pointing out that folks like antifrank should be voting for you after all that effort and they aren't, A/f will no doubt speak for himself, but the tone in his comments to me at any rate is that he thinks Cameron is a good chap, but he wouldn't vote blue.
You have detoxed Cameron but not the Conservatives.
On the other hand you've lost people like myself who would even turn out for the no-hoper of 1997. Since effectively Cameron has put nothing on the table to keep us on board and his coterie have seriously misjudged people's appetite for stupid grandstanding. I said as early as 2011 that Cameronwas being a spendthrift with his political capital and so it is proving.
I quite like David Cameron and as it happens I think this government has done a decent job in very difficult circumstances. For me there is a dealbreaker for voting Conservative in 2015, which is that if they get back into government they will exhaust themselves and the government over the essentially peripheral issue of the EU. There are far more important things to be getting on with.
I'm also unimpressed by their spending plans, but I don't believe in practice that they would follow them, so that's a semi-dealbreaker.
I'll either vote Lib Dem or Green. Probably Lib Dem, to reward them for the good job that they have done in government.
Oddly my views for not voting Blue mirror yours. I think this government has spent too much time on peripheral issues and not enough on reforming the economy. Like you I don't believe their spending plans for the next Parliament, however I don't believe anyone else's either.
If spending is a major concern for you I'd have thought the Greens is an odd choice.
If I vote Green it will not be to elect an MP but to send a message through the only means I have at my disposal about the importance of the environment.
You have a choice at least. I'm looking for some eurosceptic mad bastards who'll threaten to shoot the british establishment.
Unfortunately Sinn Fein don't stand in Stratford upon Avon.
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...
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?
Nick is 2/7 to beat fishwife Soubrey so presumably the lead is still looking pretty good
There's plenty of time for voters in Broxtowe to see sense, and vote to keep an MP who's achieved something, rather than merely plod along as an expensive nodding dog.
What exactly has Soubrey "achieved"?
How about the first woman to be appointed a Defence Minister of State. NPXMP on the other hand in 13 years didn't even manage the most junior Under Secretary of State for toilet rolls and plumbing repairs in the HoC stores cupboard!
That says nothing about what she's done for Broxtowe.
Not naughty at all Charles. I'm merely pointing out that folks like antifrank should be voting for you after all that effort and they aren't, A/f will no doubt speak for himself...
I quite like David Cameron and as it happens I think this government has done a decent job in very difficult circumstances. For me there is a dealbreaker for voting Conservative in 2015, which is that if they get back into government they will exhaust themselves and the government over the essentially peripheral issue of the EU. There are far more important things to be getting on with.
I'm also unimpressed by their spending plans, but I don't believe in practice that they would follow them, so that's a semi-dealbreaker.
I'll either vote Lib Dem or Green. Probably Lib Dem, to reward them for the good job that they have done in government.
The EU is not peripheral, either politically or economically. The issue of the Euro is not peripheral. It is central and its right to renegotiate our position in the EU as the Eurozone becomes more fiscally and hence politically centralised. The tory spending plans are sensible over 5 years and are not draconian as you imply. As David Smith of The Times suggests Osborne is shouting about them more than they need to. http://www.economicsuk.com/blog/002078.html#more ''Underlying deficit reduction in Britain has been 6.6% of GDP, with 3.5% still to go'' two thirds gone and one third left. There is nothing ideological in what the Tories are proposing, despite what the LDs say. Equally there is nothing in the Govts (a coalition) or Camerons that justifies Alanbrookes assertions. The opposite in fact. It has been firm but rational in spending, ''as the IFS points out, was that official estimates of the size of the “structural” budget deficit – that which is not dependent on the economic cycle – increased between 2010 and the end of 2012. Osborne could have tried to compensate for that underlying deterioration but chose instead to defer the additional deficit reduction needed until the next parliament.'' It has been positive on pensions welfare and public sector jobs. The nonsense about bus passes should not hide the fact that the Tories have increased pension age and reformed public sector pensions and brought in compulsory private sector pensions (thereby affecting wages). Labour (with its Great White Hope and friend of PBers, Johnson in charge) ran away from public sector pension reform). Critics are left with ring fencing the NHS, helping to stop people starving and oh yes gay marriage.
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...
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?
Nick is 2/7 to beat fishwife Soubrey so presumably the lead is still looking pretty good
There's plenty of time for voters in Broxtowe to see sense, and vote to keep an MP who's achieved something, rather than merely plod along as an expensive nodding dog.
What exactly has Soubrey "achieved"?
How about the first woman to be appointed a Defence Minister of State. NPXMP on the other hand in 13 years didn't even manage the most junior Under Secretary of State for toilet rolls and plumbing repairs in the HoC stores cupboard!
So nothing she has actually done except show undying loyalty to her leader. And don't you think being a good constituency representative is actually what being an MP is supposed to be about?
Jack's ARSE suggesting Labour wouldn't gain any net seats from their current total of 256.
And Con down only a handful (they do need to give Labour the speakers chair..)
Incredible.
Essentially the LibDems are losing seats to Con, Lab and SNP, Con losing some seats to Lab and Lab losing to the SNP.
For Con and Lab almost net precisely as you were.
And PM Cameron and DPM Clegg...
Certainly on those numbers the only viable stable government would a continuance of the present arrangement with the LibDems taking one fewer cabinet post - 4 rather 5. Fewer than four would be a difficult sell for Clegg.
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...
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?
Nick is 2/7 to beat fishwife Soubrey so presumably the lead is still looking pretty good
There's plenty of time for voters in Broxtowe to see sense, and vote to keep an MP who's achieved something, rather than merely plod along as an expensive nodding dog.
What exactly has Soubrey "achieved"?
How about the first woman to be appointed a Defence Minister of State. NPXMP on the other hand in 13 years didn't even manage the most junior Under Secretary of State for toilet rolls and plumbing repairs in the HoC stores cupboard!
So nothing she has actually done except show undying loyalty to her leader. And don't you think being a good constituency representative is actually what being an MP is supposed to be about?
Strong support from the Kippers on here for the lefty Europhile over the righty one it seems.
No, they don't. But social housing is a scarce resource that should be allocated as effectively as possible. It's nice for an individual if they have a spare bedroom - but why should the taxpayer subsidise that additional pleasure?
There will always be hard cases - which is why there were funds provided to local councils to deal with those - but fundamentally if people want something extra they should be asked to contribute to the cost
Two rather basic problems with the policy: 1. Lack of alternative accommodation. In most towns there are no smaller public sector homes available for people to downsize into. They could move into private sector smaller houses but as we pay their rents which will be significantly higher its a policy that if followed to its logical conclusion would cost us more 2. Lack of tenants for family homes. Some councils now stuck with 3 bed homes that tenants can no longer afford to live in. As a policy its actively reducing the stock of social housing available
Its a classic really. Sounds plausible on paper. But batshit crazy in the real world.
1. Negotiate on the price. And, in any event, it will only be temporary.
2. So you are telling me that the state has huge amounts of capital tied up in assets which do not meet a social need. Your solution: give the surplus amenity value to a few lucky individuals. My solution: sell the inappropriate assets, release the excess capital, and redeploy it back into more socially productive uses.
A comment on the Sky News clip on Ipswich on Sunday. In a marginal town surrounded by lots of Conservative strongholds, it's unsurprising that Sky found few Labour supporters. If you go interviewing in Ipswich centre on a weekday, you'll get lots of out-of-town shoppers from the true blue rural constituencies.
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...
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?
Nick is 2/7 to beat fishwife Soubrey so presumably the lead is still looking pretty good
There's plenty of time for voters in Broxtowe to see sense, and vote to keep an MP who's achieved something, rather than merely plod along as an expensive nodding dog.
What exactly has Soubrey "achieved"?
How about the first woman to be appointed a Defence Minister of State. NPXMP on the other hand in 13 years didn't even manage the most junior Under Secretary of State for toilet rolls and plumbing repairs in the HoC stores cupboard!
So nothing she has actually done except show undying loyalty to her leader. And don't you think being a good constituency representative is actually what being an MP is supposed to be about?
Strong support from the Kippers on here for the lefty Europhile over the righty one it seems.
That fact that a centrist LD speaks with approval of the policy positions of a Conservative PM should be ringing large warning bells in and of it self. It implies not only that Cameron's views are probably way off what would be typical of his party, worse it implies that voters that like his views should consider the "real thing" and vote LD, which might be awkward when the LDs ditch Clegg and climb out of the coffin.
Sounds like Messrs Alanbrooke, Antifrank and Stodge are of similar mind this morning which can only be a positive thing for everyone.
Not naughty at all Charles. I'm merely pointing out that folks like antifrank should be voting for you after all that effort and they aren't, A/f will no doubt speak for himself, but the tone in his comments to me at any rate is that he thinks Cameron is a good chap, but he wouldn't vote blue.
You have detoxed Cameron but not the Conservatives.
On the other hand you've lost people like myself who would even turn out for the no-hoper of 1997. Since effectively Cameron has put nothing on the table to keep us on board and his coterie have seriously misjudged people's appetite for stupid grandstanding. I said as early as 2011 that Cameronwas being a spendthrift with his political capital and so it is proving.
I quite like David Cameron and as it happens I think this government has done a decent job in very difficult circumstances. For me there is a dealbreaker for voting Conservative in 2015, which is that if they get back into government they will exhaust themselves and the government over the essentially peripheral issue of the EU. There are far more important things to be getting on with.
I'm also unimpressed by their spending plans, but I don't believe in practice that they would follow them, so that's a semi-dealbreaker.
I'll either vote Lib Dem or Green. Probably Lib Dem, to reward them for the good job that they have done in government.
Oddly my views for not voting Blue mirror yours. I think this government has spent too much time on peripheral issues and not enough on reforming the economy. Like you I don't believe their spending plans for the next Parliament, however I don't believe anyone else's either.
If spending is a major concern for you I'd have thought the Greens is an odd choice.
If I vote Green it will not be to elect an MP but to send a message through the only means I have at my disposal about the importance of the environment.
You have a choice at least. I'm looking for some eurosceptic mad bastards who'll threaten to shoot the british establishment.
Unfortunately Sinn Fein don't stand in Stratford upon Avon.
But UKIP do...
How many Kalashnikovs have UKIP ? :-)
Well indeed there are degrees of establishment-screwing and UKIP are not yet up there with the paramilitaries - but in the scheme of British politics they are as fresh and as destabilising and as scary to the Sir Humphries and the old school ties as it is possible to get. Maybe a small whirlwind is preferable to actual bullets? (maybe not!)
"JackW Dozen" - 13 seats that will shape the General Election result :
Bury North - Likely Con Hold Pudsey - Likely Con Hold Broxtowe - Likely Lab Gain Warwickshire North - Likely Lab Gain Cambridge - LibDem Hold Ipswich - Likely Con Hold from TCTC Watford - Likely LibDem Gain Croydon Central - Con Hold from Likely Con Hold Enfield North - TCTC from Likely Lab Gain Cornwall North - Likely LibDem Hold Great Yarmouth - Con Hold Vale of Glamorgan - Con Hold Ochil and South Perthshire - Likely SNP Gain
Changes From 10 Feb - Ipswich moves from TCTC to Likely Con Hold. Croydon Central moves from Likely Con Hold to Con Hold. Enfield North moves from Likely Lab Gain to TCTC.
TCTC - Too Close To Call - Less than 500 votes Likely Hold/Gain - 500 - 2500 votes Gain/Hold - Over 2500 ....................................................
I would be very surprised if the phrase "Lib Dem gain" is seen scrolling across the bottom of the screen in Watford or anywhere else
"Lib Dem hold" will be enough to get champagne corks cracking in any seats the collabarators do hang on to...................................
ARSE is sponsored by Auchentennach Fine Pies (Est 1745)
WIND - Whimsical Independent News Division JNN - Jacobite News Network ARSE - Anonymous Random Selection of Electors APLOMB - Auchentennach Pies Leading Outsales Mainland Britain
I'm sure that the Tories with KROSSBI have got it covered. (Key Regional Objective Swing Seat Battleground Indicator)
Not naughty at all Charles. I'm merely pointing out that folks like antifrank should be voting for you after all that effort and they aren't, A/f will no doubt speak for himself, but the tone in his comments to me at any rate is that he thinks Cameron is a good chap, but he wouldn't vote blue.
You have detoxed Cameron but not the Conservatives.
On the other hand you've lost people like myself who would even turn out for the no-hoper of 1997. Since effectively Cameron has put nothing on the table to keep us on board and his coterie have seriously misjudged people's appetite for stupid grandstanding. I said as early as 2011 that Cameronwas being a spendthrift with his political capital and so it is proving.
I quite like David Cameron and as it happens I think this government has done a decent job in very difficult circumstances. For me there is a dealbreaker for voting Conservative in 2015, which is that if they get back into government they will exhaust themselves and the government over the essentially peripheral issue of the EU. There are far more important things to be getting on with.
I'm also unimpressed by their spending plans, but I don't believe in practice that they would follow them, so that's a semi-dealbreaker.
I'll either vote Lib Dem or Green. Probably Lib Dem, to reward them for the good job that they have done in government.
Oddly my views for not voting Blue mirror yours. I think this government has spent too much time on peripheral issues and not enough on reforming the economy. Like you I don't believe their spending plans for the next Parliament, however I don't believe anyone else's either.
If spending is a major concern for you I'd have thought the Greens is an odd choice.
If I vote Green it will not be to elect an MP but to send a message through the only means I have at my disposal about the importance of the environment.
You have a choice at least. I'm looking for some eurosceptic mad bastards who'll threaten to shoot the british establishment.
Unfortunately Sinn Fein don't stand in Stratford upon Avon.
But UKIP do...
How many Kalashnikovs have UKIP ? :-)
None of that modern muck, Lee Enfields with the odd Brown Bess for Kipper 'Classic'.
That fact that a centrist LD speaks with approval of the policy positions of a Conservative PM should be ringing large warning bells in and of it self. It implies not only that Cameron's views are probably way off what would be typical of his party, worse it implies that voters that like his views should consider the "real thing" and vote LD, which might be awkward when the LDs ditch Clegg and climb out of the coffin.
Sounds like Messrs Alanbrooke, Antifrank and Stodge are of similar mind this morning which can only be a positive thing for everyone.
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.
It's clear that getting Miliband as much exposure as possible should be a key Conservative tactic.
I'm surprised in a way there's been no attempt at a similar strategy in foreign policy. Rather than invading Afghanistan to bring it democracy it would have been so much simpler and more effective to bring socialism to that country. This would permanently wreck it and neutralise it for ever more as a threat to anyone else.
Arguably this was what the USSR got close to achieving in Britain in the 1970s. As well as suborning union leaders in order to wreck several industries, they also had Michael Foot and Jack Jones on the payroll, there was CND, and of course there are the Gordievsky claims about Harold Wislon.
If we wanted to completely undermine Iraq all we really needed to do was get people like Miliband into positions of influence there.
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.
There's nothing better than having an "Eve of Poll" super ARSE!
'Rather than invading Afghanistan to bring it democracy it would have been so much simpler and more effective to bring socialism to that country.'
Thats kind of what they had before us and the americans destroyed it with the help of the taliban, changing the country from a gradually developing secular democracy with women's rights to a theocratic medieval hellhole.
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.
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 flaw in Lammy's reasoning, surely, is that while a £50 shoplifting offence harms a small business more than a large one, there are likely to be a lot more offences against the larger business, because it's larger. So if 50 people a year steal £20 in groceries from Sainsbury's, those are all trivial crimes compared to the one person a year who steals £20 from the corner shop. Really?
If there were any analysis to show that shoplifting in toto affects large businesses less, he might have a point. It still seems like a poor point though. If I steal from the government by fiddling benefits or tax, that is clearly of trivial severity alongside stealing the same from a large bank, because the state is bigger than a bank. That in turn is less serious than stealing it from a small bank,. which is less serious than stealing it from a supermarket, etc.
So to ensure the most lenient treatment, you should always steal from the government. Somehow one imagines there'll be a bit of exceptionalism deployed to get round this.
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.
There's nothing better than having an "Eve of Poll" super ARSE!
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.
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 flaw in Lammy's reasoning, surely, is that while a £50 shoplifting offence harms a small business more than a large one, there are likely to be a lot more offences against the larger business, because it's larger. So if 50 people a year steal £20 in groceries from Sainsbury's, those are all trivial crimes compared to the one person a year who steals £20 from the corner shop. Really?
If there were any analysis to show that shoplifting in toto affects large businesses less, he might have a point. It still seems like a poor point though. If I steal from the government by fiddling benefits or tax, that is clearly of trivial severity alongside stealing the same from a large bank, because the state is bigger than a bank. That in turn is less serious than stealing it from a small bank,. which is less serious than stealing it from a supermarket, etc.
So to ensure the most lenient treatment, you should always steal from the government. Somehow one imagines there'll be a bit of exceptionalism deployed to get round this, otherwise it starts to sound like one of those "victimless crime" arguments.
A comment on the Sky News clip on Ipswich on Sunday. In a marginal town surrounded by lots of Conservative strongholds, it's unsurprising that Sky found few Labour supporters. If you go interviewing in Ipswich centre on a weekday, you'll get lots of out-of-town shoppers from the true blue rural constituencies.
Did you find that apparent Sunday Times poll showing it at 34-34 ?
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...
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?
Nick is 2/7 to beat fishwife Soubrey so presumably the lead is still looking pretty good
There's plenty of time for voters in Broxtowe to see sense, and vote to keep an MP who's achieved something, rather than merely plod along as an expensive nodding dog.
What exactly has Soubrey "achieved"?
How about the first woman to be appointed a Defence Minister of State. NPXMP on the other hand in 13 years didn't even manage the most junior Under Secretary of State for toilet rolls and plumbing repairs in the HoC stores cupboard!
So nothing she has actually done except show undying loyalty to her leader. And don't you think being a good constituency representative is actually what being an MP is supposed to be about?
Strong support from the Kippers on here for the lefty Europhile over the righty one it seems.
Soubrey is reserved a special circle of hell by Kippers for her perfectly judged comment about Farage, fingers and fun....
Whatever next, shorter sentences for mugging rich people? Mind boggling.
Any of the leading contenders for labour mayoral candidate would be an unmitigated disaster for certain types of Londoner... Looks like I will be voting Tory for the first time ever
Unfortunately a long way from any notions of modesty and humility it would seem and please don't overburden us with your ARSE - it gets far too much exposure as it is.
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...
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?
Nick is 2/7 to beat fishwife Soubrey so presumably the lead is still looking pretty good
There's plenty of time for voters in Broxtowe to see sense, and vote to keep an MP who's achieved something, rather than merely plod along as an expensive nodding dog.
What exactly has Soubrey "achieved"?
How about the first woman to be appointed a Defence Minister of State. NPXMP on the other hand in 13 years didn't even manage the most junior Under Secretary of State for toilet rolls and plumbing repairs in the HoC stores cupboard!
So nothing she has actually done except show undying loyalty to her leader. And don't you think being a good constituency representative is actually what being an MP is supposed to be about?
We select leaders from our MPs - or do you think we should have unelected people running the country? The point is harsh on NPXMP but valid. Your point about Soubry is vacuous.
A comment on the Sky News clip on Ipswich on Sunday. In a marginal town surrounded by lots of Conservative strongholds, it's unsurprising that Sky found few Labour supporters. If you go interviewing in Ipswich centre on a weekday, you'll get lots of out-of-town shoppers from the true blue rural constituencies.
Did you find that apparent Sunday Times poll showing it at 34-34 ?
By the time I saw the clip, it appeared to be referring to the national YouGov poll in the Sunday Times that day, which was 34:34.
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...
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?
Nick is 2/7 to beat fishwife Soubrey so presumably the lead is still looking pretty good
There's plenty of time for voters in Broxtowe to see sense, and vote to keep an MP who's achieved something, rather than merely plod along as an expensive nodding dog.
What exactly has Soubrey "achieved"?
Huppert in Cambridge showing how to see off Labour retreads. Biggest uncertainty now in Cambridge is who finishes second...
Huppert is a good local MP. But really, he'll hold on because the Cambridge Labour Party are spectacularly inept. Cambridge should have - alongside Redcar - been the most nailed on Labour gain in the country. To be a position where people are talking about whether they will even come in second is extraordinary.
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...
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?
Nick is 2/7 to beat fishwife Soubrey so presumably the lead is still looking pretty good
There's plenty of time for voters in Broxtowe to see sense, and vote to keep an MP who's achieved something, rather than merely plod along as an expensive nodding dog.
What exactly has Soubrey "achieved"?
How about the first woman to be appointed a Defence Minister of State. NPXMP on the other hand in 13 years didn't even manage the most junior Under Secretary of State for toilet rolls and plumbing repairs in the HoC stores cupboard!
So nothing she has actually done except show undying loyalty to her leader. And don't you think being a good constituency representative is actually what being an MP is supposed to be about?
Strong support from the Kippers on here for the lefty Europhile over the righty one it seems.
Soubrey is reserved a special circle of hell by Kippers for her perfectly judged comment about Farage, fingers and fun....
Comments
- tax reform
- bank reform
- some prosecutions for crminal bankers
- rebalancing the economy
- house building
- HoL reform
- Rotherham
- "tone" in killing off spin
There are lots thinsg Cameron could have done with the LDs and didn't ( cue second defense of its the Tory nutters ). In reality he has just called the politcs wrong and is now suffering for it as he heads to an election.
If he had stuck with " we're all in it together" and put more action behind it he would be heading for a majority.
20 minutes
To be fair I actually thought you were making sound points until the last sentence.
"Good morning all and assuming crossover has taken place, what next?"
Well I guess we have The Month Of Pulling Away. OK, it was supposed to be February but better late than never.
You have detoxed Cameron but not the Conservatives.
On the other hand you've lost people like myself who would even turn out for the no-hoper of 1997. Since effectively Cameron has put nothing on the table to keep us on board and his coterie have seriously misjudged people's appetite for stupid grandstanding. I said as early as 2011 that Cameronwas being a spendthrift with his political capital and so it is proving.
lead is still looking pretty good
Despite your intelligence it's probably a good job you're not a party strategist.
There will always be hard cases - which is why there were funds provided to local councils to deal with those - but fundamentally if people want something extra they should be asked to contribute to the cost
But the price that the Tory party has paid for the sad obsessions of the Euro-nutters has been high enough already. 13 years of opposition whilst huge structural damage was done to our country.
The EU is an important issue but it is only 1 issue and by no means the most important. Those who want to froth endlessly about it have done the Tories far more harm than good and UKIP are welcome to them.
1. Lack of alternative accommodation. In most towns there are no smaller public sector homes available for people to downsize into. They could move into private sector smaller houses but as we pay their rents which will be significantly higher its a policy that if followed to its logical conclusion would cost us more
2. Lack of tenants for family homes. Some councils now stuck with 3 bed homes that tenants can no longer afford to live in. As a policy its actively reducing the stock of social housing available
Its a classic really. Sounds plausible on paper. But batshit crazy in the real world.
Labour voters wont actually turn out to vote?
Hardly sounds very confident or inspiring? Equivalent to a football manager
stating his team will win....so long as the opposition doesnt
actually turn up for the match
A second point, of course, is that once the campaign officially gets under way then the BBC / Channel 4 have to be seen as being neutral - why waste money when you know your message will be obfuscated by the media?
The breaking news is that WIND is reporting to the JNN the contents of the latest ARSE with added APLOMB 2015 General Election and "JackW Dozen" Projections. (Changes From 10th February Projection) :
Con 306 (+8) .. Lab 256 (-6) .. LibDem 34 (-4) .. SNP 28 (+2) .. PC 2 .. NI 18 .. UKIP 3 .. Respect 1 .. Green 1 .. Ind 0 .. Speaker 1
Conservatives 20 seats short of a majority
......................................................................................
"JackW Dozen" - 13 seats that will shape the General Election result :
Bury North - Likely Con Hold
Pudsey - Likely Con Hold
Broxtowe - Likely Lab Gain
Warwickshire North - Likely Lab Gain
Cambridge - LibDem Hold
Ipswich - Likely Con Hold from TCTC
Watford - Likely LibDem Gain
Croydon Central - Con Hold from Likely Con Hold
Enfield North - TCTC from Likely Lab Gain
Cornwall North - Likely LibDem Hold
Great Yarmouth - Con Hold
Vale of Glamorgan - Con Hold
Ochil and South Perthshire - Likely SNP Gain
Changes From 10 Feb - Ipswich moves from TCTC to Likely Con Hold. Croydon Central moves from Likely Con Hold to Con Hold. Enfield North moves from Likely Lab Gain to TCTC.
TCTC - Too Close To Call - Less than 500 votes
Likely Hold/Gain - 500 - 2500 votes
Gain/Hold - Over 2500
.......................................................................................
ARSE is sponsored by Auchentennach Fine Pies (Est 1745)
WIND - Whimsical Independent News Division
JNN - Jacobite News Network
ARSE - Anonymous Random Selection of Electors
APLOMB - Auchentennach Pies Leading Outsales Mainland Britain
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/572053013654847488
**Crossover post** **Crossover post** ** Crossover post**
ELBOW for three polls, Populus, Ashcroft and YG/Sun:
Con 33.4
Lab 32.7
UKIP 14.1
LD 7.7
Grn 6.0
Tory lead 0.7!!
A good start to the week for the Conservatives though plenty of caveats as always with these polls and OGH's comments on the Ashcroft poll also need to be noted.
As the unmissed Audreyanne would no doubt be reminding us ad nauseam, many people have yet to engage with the election in any meaningful sense so perhaps certainty to vote figures at this time need to be taken with a bucketful of salt.
I will be honest - I don't much relish the prospect of a Conservative Government which will be fixated on Europe from now until 2017 with endless coverage of Cameron's "negotiations" followed by a referendum, the prospect of which seems guaranteed to engender more instability.
I don't much relish the prospect of a Labour Government blundering along economically dragging us back into recession and stagnation undermining some of the good the Coalition has done and ensuring that by 2020 I am likely not only to be worse off than in 2015 but worse off than 2010 - a "lost decade" if there ever was one.
I suppose the best option would be a Coalition without an EU Referendum - Cameron's good at PR, I'm sure he could sell that ?
Even if you don't agree with those, and you obviously don't, there is a major electoral constituency there. I sense your real fear is that a government might be elected that might actually do something about it.
The Tories are not losing votes to the handful of "Euronutters", Conservative activists are as obsessed with UKIP as UKIp are obsessed with doing in Cameron.But most of that 6-8% of voters Cameron can't reach don't give a fig for Europe as polls repeatedly prove.
The tories are losing votes from WVM voters because they have not offered them anything to get their vote and make it doubly plain that their concerns are not considered worthy by Cameroons.
Except fleetingly.
At election time.
May I suggest you edit your post as it appears rather misleading in present form.
As to Watford there are special circumstances in the seat that have been extensively discussed on PB and to which you may not be aware.
too many doughnuts?
I'm also unimpressed by their spending plans, but I don't believe in practice that they would follow them, so that's a semi-dealbreaker.
I'll either vote Lib Dem or Green. Probably Lib Dem, to reward them for the good job that they have done in government.
But whatever happened to the much-vaunted John Cruddas policy project? That one which was going to transform the country through a Miliband government?
I'm not having a dig here. But Miliband was elected as a bit of a left-field candidate and I was expecting him to at least come up with some radical ideas.
The general theme appears to be bashing rich people not very much, and making a lot of noise about it, presumably hoping they won't be bothered enough bugger off with their money and make the deficit even worse.
So we nearly have a coherent policy plan to make a manifesto from, nearly
of Watford, West of Watford or even.in fictional Walford
I have seen the polls re Watford but they just seem too unlikely
to be true .A party gone from 23% to at best 9 or maybe 10 surely
aint gaining seats anywhere
If spending is a major concern for you I'd have thought the Greens is an odd choice.
You might also wish to consider her extraordinary popularity and continuing victories in the seat, the most recent of which also took place whilst the national yellow peril were only marginally more popular than Benjamin Netanyahu at a Hamas conference.
And Con down only a handful (they do need to give Labour the speakers chair..)
Incredible.
( shit a/f my fingers nearly seized up ;-) ! ) .
He is salami slicing Cameroons with a just one more push approach, being naive souls they believe one more concession will get them the vote ( it won't ). Oddly they ignore all the other ones they're losing off the other end of the spectrum.
Con 19556 (37%)
Lab 21116 (40%)
LD 3028 (6%)
Grn 3362 (6%)
UKIP 5380 (10%)
Unfortunately Sinn Fein don't stand in Stratford upon Avon.
For Con and Lab almost net precisely as you were.
As to a post-Clegg Liberal Democrat Party, I don't know. The implication from your comment is you expect Farron to drag us off to "the Left" (whatever that means).
I don't see that at all. The Party won't run away from what it's achieved in Coalition but will rightly refefine its position (assuming we are in Opposition) to what the Government does.
The economic policy based on tax rises and spending cuts to achieve deficit reduction is the only credible thing out there but there are probably few if any votes in it.
Beyond that, as with most people, I've no problem with people being rich. The problem is when the same standards that apply to the rest of us don't seem to apply to them.
The tory spending plans are sensible over 5 years and are not draconian as you imply. As David Smith of The Times suggests Osborne is shouting about them more than they need to.
http://www.economicsuk.com/blog/002078.html#more
''Underlying deficit reduction in Britain has been 6.6% of GDP, with 3.5% still to go'' two thirds gone and one third left. There is nothing ideological in what the Tories are proposing, despite what the LDs say.
Equally there is nothing in the Govts (a coalition) or Camerons that justifies Alanbrookes assertions. The opposite in fact.
It has been firm but rational in spending, ''as the IFS points out, was that official estimates of the size of the “structural” budget deficit – that which is not dependent on the economic cycle – increased between 2010 and the end of 2012. Osborne could have tried to compensate for that underlying deterioration but chose instead to defer the additional deficit reduction needed until the next parliament.''
It has been positive on pensions welfare and public sector jobs.
The nonsense about bus passes should not hide the fact that the Tories have increased pension age and reformed public sector pensions and brought in compulsory private sector pensions (thereby affecting wages). Labour (with its Great White Hope and friend of PBers, Johnson in charge) ran away from public sector pension reform).
Critics are left with ring fencing the NHS, helping to stop people starving and oh yes gay marriage.
2. So you are telling me that the state has huge amounts of capital tied up in assets which do not meet a social need. Your solution: give the surplus amenity value to a few lucky individuals. My solution: sell the inappropriate assets, release the excess capital, and redeploy it back into more socially productive uses.
Labour: the party for the favoured few.
(Key Regional Objective Swing Seat Battleground Indicator)
I'm surprised in a way there's been no attempt at a similar strategy in foreign policy. Rather than invading Afghanistan to bring it democracy it would have been so much simpler and more effective to bring socialism to that country. This would permanently wreck it and neutralise it for ever more as a threat to anyone else.
Arguably this was what the USSR got close to achieving in Britain in the 1970s. As well as suborning union leaders in order to wreck several industries, they also had Michael Foot and Jack Jones on the payroll, there was CND, and of course there are the Gordievsky claims about Harold Wislon.
If we wanted to completely undermine Iraq all we really needed to do was get people like Miliband into positions of influence there.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-31709056
'Thieves who target wealthy department stores should get lighter sentences than if they steal from a corner shop, a senior Labour MP claims today.'
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
Whatever next, shorter sentences for mugging rich people? Mind boggling.
Thats kind of what they had before us and the americans destroyed it with the help of the taliban, changing the country from a gradually developing secular democracy with women's rights to a theocratic medieval hellhole.
Poor lass.
If there were any analysis to show that shoplifting in toto affects large businesses less, he might have a point. It still seems like a poor point though. If I steal from the government by fiddling benefits or tax, that is clearly of trivial severity alongside stealing the same from a large bank, because the state is bigger than a bank. That in turn is less serious than stealing it from a small bank,. which is less serious than stealing it from a supermarket, etc.
So to ensure the most lenient treatment, you should always steal from the government. Somehow one imagines there'll be a bit of exceptionalism deployed to get round this.
Where will my magnificence end ?!?