When I read the Standard tonite I was quite surprised at some of the seats that appear to be 'in play'. I'm even beginning to worry for young Sunil in Ilford North.
That's got to be about 80 or so seats down in the target list. Spooky.
12% in London is a bigger lead than Yougov have generally shown. But, it would be quite consistent with Labour under performing in the rest of the South East, for example.
To be honest, given the property price insanity, and year-on-year demographic change, that doesn't surprise me.
I can see London becoming pretty left wing. Just look at Bill De Blasio winning in New York.
As someone that works in London, it seems that there are two clear trends in the demographics. One is that many areas are gentrifying as the cost of housing becomes increasingly expensive. The other is that an increasing share of the city is composed of migrants, from both the EU and from other countries, particularly those in Africa and Asia. The first trend would seem to favour the Conservatives while the second trend would seem to favour the Labour Party. I would predict that the second trend would outweigh the first on the current trajectory, due to Labour's advantage with ethnic minorities being much larger than the Conservative's advantage with the professional class. But if the Conservatives manage to successfully reduce immigration, at least from beyond the EU, they could remain competitive.
SeanT's prediction of the Conservatives only coming back into power in London once the city declines economically would be very worrying, as London is the engine of the whole UK economy.
A while back EICIPM seemed inevitable, and TV debates were the Tories' great hope and Labour's great fe
It's Farage. The PM is most vulnerable on the immigration claims he made during the 2010 debates. That's a penalty kick for the purples, if they are ever given the chance to take it.
But UKIP didn't mislead anybody during the 2010 debates. Square.
They have of course pointed out many times since that Cameron is not to be trusted in the matter of immigration. Nothing would drum it home so much though as to point out from a debate podium that five years ago on a debate podium Cameron thoroughly misled the electorate. It would undermine his credibility on this subject, and by implication on everything elese.
Would be difficult for him to wriggle out of that, hence his determination to avoid a television debate.
nless Farage does some sort of mea culpa for yesterday the Tories immigration fox has got away with its tail rather singed. Labour and Libdems would are now better positioned to attack the Tories over immigration because it was such an abject failure and poor judgement.
I am hoping that by dropping an arbitrary number Farage is moving in this direction.
Having a number is absolutely ludicrous... I don't claim to speak for anyone else but I would have thought for most people, their concern about immigration is the lack of control we have over the numbers..
Of course there may be a shortage in a particular skillset that means we need to actively encourage immigration.. why wouldnt you prefer control and flexibility rather than rigid targets and helplessness?
You don't ditch the primary target, you talk about periodic adjustments, contingency arrangements and special Ministerial measures to address any critical shortages. What you don't do is weeks before an election on the hoof turn your most important policy on its head without it seems the full buy in of the person who is supposed to be implementing it. Its just bad politics.
Its clear the policy has not been thought through and its not fully developed. How on earth is that going to be communicated out to the 600 plus constituencies coherently in 8 weeks?
It doesn't even replicate the Australian system which does have caps and ministerial control built into it
Have to disagree.. I see no need for a target, what would it achieve except to be used as a measure of failure?
As it is, even The Independent are writing columns praising UKIP stance on this
And not want to see the reintroduction of hanging. They BIT her. Before she died. She was eight.
Jesus wept. And they're merely convicted of "manslaughter"??
Hang them. We bomb innocents, yet they are spared?
Did they plead insanity as a defence? Hopefully, they'll be detained indefinitely.
I think I am now officially persuaded (much as it matters) that we should reintroduce the death penalty.
It should be reserved for cases where the Judge decides the guilt is beyond doubt, and the cruelty and horror is especially deserving of the ultimate punishment. When the judge so decides, the case should then be referred to the Supreme Court, who then hand the capital punishment down, or not. And if they say Death, they should do it with scary black f*cking wigs on. The whole theatrical kaboodle.
This case fulfills all the criteria for me. They tortured an eight year old girl to death. They bit her.
Hang them.
I think a lifetime of solitary confinement with no prospect of release, being forced to endure a pointless, futile and wasted life, reflecting every day on what you've done and why you're there, with no escape, is a more serious punishment.
No, it's not. There is something about the ghastliness of the Death Penalty, the ultimate societal retribution, which makes it especially satisfying (for the public) and especially frightening (for the culprit). It extinguishes hope. It says: you will die, and we will kill you. And everyone will Know.
It should only be conferred in the most extreme cases (like this child torture/death) but we should be prepared to inflict it.
I no longer subscribe to the tired liberal pieties that saw Hanging abolished. We kill people - innocent children indeed - all the time. From abortion to drones to the occasional war. Obama is still a liberal hero yet he's probably killed more innocent kids, with his Predators, than Fred West.
Enough. If the state can kill (and it must have that ability) then it can and should kill obvious monsters.
I am not 'liberal' in the slightest, as you know. But it is precisely to avoid such hyper-emotional reactions that the death penalty was abolished.
I agree with Denis Thatcher in this regard, and not his wife. And I say that as someone who is as disgusted by this crime as you are.
And not want to see the reintroduction of hanging. They BIT her. Before she died. She was eight.
Jesus wept. And they're merely convicted of "manslaughter"??
Hang them. We bomb innocents, yet they are spared?
Did they plead insanity as a defence? Hopefully, they'll be detained indefinitely.
I think I am now officially persuaded (much as it matters) that we should reintroduce the death penalty.
It should be reserved for cases where the Judge decides the guilt is beyond doubt, and the cruelty and horror is especially deserving of the ultimate punishment. When the judge so decides, the case should then be referred to the Supreme Court, who then hand the capital punishment down, or not. And if they say Death, they should do it with scary black f*cking wigs on. The whole theatrical kaboodle.
This case fulfills all the criteria for me. They tortured an eight year old girl to death. They bit her.
Hang them.
I think a lifetime of solitary confinement with no prospect of release, being forced to endure a pointless, futile and wasted life, reflecting every day on what you've done and why you're there, with no escape, is a more serious punishment.
No, it's not. There is something about the ghastliness of the Death Penalty, the ultimate societal retribution, which makes it especially satisfying (for the public) and especially frightening (for the culprit). It extinguishes hope. It says: you will die, and we will kill you. And everyone will Know.
It should only be conferred in the most extreme cases (like this child torture/death) but we should be prepared to inflict it.
I no longer subscribe to the tired liberal pieties that saw Hanging abolished. We kill people - innocent children indeed - all the time. From abortion to drones to the occasional war. Obama is still a liberal hero yet he's probably killed more innocent kids, with his Predators, than Fred West.
Enough. If the state can kill (and it must have that ability) then it can and should kill obvious monsters.
There are people who merit execution. The difficulty is agreeing who.
These two are a case in point. If they're mad, they wouldn't be executed. Thus, you could have years of argument over their mental capacity.
And not want to see the reintroduction of hanging. They BIT her. Before she died. She was eight.
Jesus wept. And they're merely convicted of "manslaughter"??
Hang them. We bomb innocents, yet they are spared?
Did they plead insanity as a defence? Hopefully, they'll be detained indefinitely.
I think I am now officially persuaded (much as it matters) that we should reintroduce the death penalty.
It should be reserved for cases where the Judge decides the guilt is beyond doubt, and the cruelty and horror is especially deserving of the ultimate punishment. When the judge so decides, the case should then be referred to the Supreme Court, who then hand the capital punishment down, or not. And if they say Death, they should do it with scary black f*cking wigs on. The whole theatrical kaboodle.
This case fulfills all the criteria for me. They tortured an eight year old girl to death. They bit her.
Hang them.
I think a lifetime of solitary confinement with no prospect of release, being forced to endure a pointless, futile and wasted life, reflecting every day on what you've done and why you're there, with no escape, is a more serious punishment.
No, it's not. There is something about the ghastliness of the Death Penalty, the ultimate societal retribution, which makes it especially satisfying (for the public) and especially frightening (for the culprit). It extinguishes hope. It says: you will die, and we will kill you. And everyone will Know.
It should only be conferred in the most extreme cases (like this child torture/death) but we should be prepared to inflict it.
I no longer subscribe to the tired liberal pieties that saw Hanging abolished. We kill people - innocent children indeed - all the time. From abortion to drones to the occasional war. Obama is still a liberal hero yet he's probably killed more innocent kids, with his Predators, than Fred West.
Enough. If the state can kill (and it must have that ability) then it can and should kill obvious monsters.
If its good enough for thousands of innocent Iraqi children its good enough for Lee Rigby's killers, (and Mohammed Emwazi)
JEO - in what sense is London the engine of the entire UK economy? I can't believe it represents more than 20-25% of GDP. Many major businesses may be headquartered there but they are reliant on engines all over the UK to turn a profit. It obviously has a dominant role in terms of finance but treating that sector as though it's the engine of our economy is arguably what's helped to cause so many of our problems.
No doubt a fair few snobs would take the view that it's people sitting in boardrooms moving pieces on a chessboard that are creating all the wealth in the UK. Personally I tend more to the view that's it's the mass of the population distributed right across this island getting up early every morning that's the engine of the economy. Sadly globalisation as it's currently proceeding is leading to a total disrespect for ordinary workers who are easily tradable for 'more efficient' units.
Listening to the radio 5 phone in this morning on the leaders debate,noticed alot of the callers going to vote UKIP,most ex labour.
I think Labour could be in for quite a shock in the north where they considered themselves almost untouchable.
The Labour party's reaction to UKIP coming within 600 votes of winning in the by-election suggests they did not see it coming. The morning after Ed Milliband turned up gave a bizarre interview then literally ran off. Their faces said it all.
We'll know by midnight on election night.. Two Sunderland seats are potential ones where UKIP could make serious inroads into solid Labour majorities.
Labour currently have about 50% of the vote - but the Sunderland Labour voters are typical white working class (old heavy industry, traditional Labour). Anything less than 40% and UKIP > 25% well, buy the popcorn and enjoy the ride. Sunderland Central could be the most interesting - if UKIP can persuade the substantial Tory vote to join with them.
Another poll from Yougov, this time of 16-24 year olds gives Lab 36%, Con 22%, Green 19%, UKIP12%, Lib Dem 5%.
There's a huge difference in UKIP support between those who are in employment (18%) and students (4%).
looking at the labour share of 16 -24 year olds- it only proves the quote "If a man is not a socialist by the time he is 20, he has no heart. If he is not a conservative by the time he is 40, he has no brain" – Winston Churchill
Another poll from Yougov, this time of 16-24 year olds gives Lab 36%, Con 22%, Green 19%, UKIP12%, Lib Dem 5%.
There's a huge difference in UKIP support between those who are in employment (18%) and students (4%).
looking at the labour share of 16 -24 year olds- it only proves the quote "If a man is not a socialist by the time he is 20, he has no heart. If he is not a conservative by the time he is 40, he has no brain" – Winston Churchill
Well the Labour share isn't really much higher than their performance amongst all voters. What stands out is Lab + Green = 55%. It is extraordinary when you consider that in 2005/2010 Lib Dems were at the very least close to the lead amongst those under 30. Now they're way adrift in fifth place.
A while back EICIPM seemed inevitable, and TV debates were the Tories' great hope and Labour's great fe
It's Farage. The PM is most vulnerable on the immigration claims he made during the 2010 debates. That's a penalty kick for the purples, if they are ever given the chance to take it.
But UKIP didn't mislead anybody during the 2010 debates. Square.
Would be difficult for him to wriggle out of that, hence his determination to avoid a television debate.
nless Farage does some sort of mea culpa for yesterday the Tories immigratio
I am hoping that by dropping an arbitrary number Farage is moving in this direction.
se there may be a shortage in a particular skillset that means we need to actively encourage immigration.. why wouldnt you prefer control and flexibility rather than rigid targets and helplessness?
Its clear the policy has not been thought through and its not fully developed. How on earth is that going to be communicated out to the 600 plus constituencies coherently in 8 weeks?
It doesn't even replicate the Australian system which does have caps and ministerial control built into it
Have to disagree.. I see no need for a target, what would it achieve except to be used as a measure of failure?
As it is, even The Independent are writing columns praising UKIP stance on this
A measure of success? Yours is a very defeatist view and suggests you don't believe it can be achieved.
If targets are so wrong why have the party signed up to Osborne's deficit reduction targets? Are you telling me that you think that is a mistake as well and instead UKIP should say "We're going to fix the deficit but we're not going to tell you when but we'll set up a commission to manage it?"
That will improve people's confidence in the party's ability to run the economy won't it?
What Farage was waffling about yesterday was non-sensical and contradictory.
PS And if the Indy of all papers (which is owned by an immigrant) is praising them then that should be ringing alarm bells!
Comments
SeanT's prediction of the Conservatives only coming back into power in London once the city declines economically would be very worrying, as London is the engine of the whole UK economy.
There's a huge difference in UKIP support between those who are in employment (18%) and students (4%).
I agree with Denis Thatcher in this regard, and not his wife. And I say that as someone who is as disgusted by this crime as you are.
These two are a case in point. If they're mad, they wouldn't be executed. Thus, you could have years of argument over their mental capacity.
No doubt a fair few snobs would take the view that it's people sitting in boardrooms moving pieces on a chessboard that are creating all the wealth in the UK. Personally I tend more to the view that's it's the mass of the population distributed right across this island getting up early every morning that's the engine of the economy. Sadly globalisation as it's currently proceeding is leading to a total disrespect for ordinary workers who are easily tradable for 'more efficient' units.
Labour currently have about 50% of the vote - but the Sunderland Labour voters are typical white working class (old heavy industry, traditional Labour). Anything less than 40% and UKIP > 25% well, buy the popcorn and enjoy the ride. Sunderland Central could be the most interesting - if UKIP can persuade the substantial Tory vote to join with them.
"If a man is not a socialist by the time he is 20, he has no heart. If he is not a conservative by the time he is 40, he has no brain" – Winston Churchill