Just finished my "Ashcroft on to Andy JS" transcription. What struck me was that even ignoring how old many of the constituency polls now are, there are 5 seats where the Labour lead was 1% and a further 11 seats where the Labour lead was 5% or less.
On twitter, catching up with the dozens of tweets from constituencies the length and breadth of the country showing Team2015 volunteers out canvassing etc for their local Tory MPs and candidates.
Was delighted to hear that Ruth Davidson addressed 100+ Scots Tories last night at an event in Dingwall to support Lindsey MacCallum, the Tory candidate in Charles Kennedy's seat.
At the same point in 2010 there were two polls published giving the Tories leads of 2% and 5% – an average of 3.5%. This compared with the May 2010 outcome of a Tory lead of 7.3% – a swing to the Opposition of almost 2% in the final two months
Are you sure it wasn't a swing to the Tories rather than simply a swing to the Opposition? We have had many discussions over the years about swingback and which party benefits more from it.
It's a blog about PB with some mentions of Scottish independence
One might suggest Kelly & co get a life.
Yep, people on an obscure political blog commenting on people on another obscure political blog commenting on people on the first blog are definite high rollers in the life stakes.
Re the debates - this is only guess but is there a chance that the Conservatives may be represented by someone other than Cameron?
ie Cameron will say he is out campaigning etc but of course if the debates are going ahead then the Conservatives must be represented.
He then sends Hague. A bit odd in that Hague is retiring but still the obvious person - in recent years he has consistently rated extremely highly.
Even if it was to be allowed, and I think the other parties might well kick up a fuss. Furthermore, Hague isn't very popular outside of the Tory party though...in fact the Tories don't really have anybody outside of Cameron and Bojo who are more popular than the Tory brand.
Boris would be the ultimate ringer for the Tories. Very popular, totally bamboozles his opponents, makes little sense when done debates previously but still people have gone that Boris he's alright and to top it off wouldn't really have to defend the bad bits of the coalition as he isn't responsible for it.
I would also be surprised (and delighted) if the SNP only got 32 seats. They are clearly going to win the vast majority of the 11 Lib Dems seats, probably at least 8 of them. So the assumption underlying this calculation is that they are only going to win 18 off SLAB (assuming they don't take the Tory seat). That seems low to me.
I think the general dislike of the SNP on this site seems to have clouded many folks thinking. Even with the weight of evidence from the national polls and the much anticipated Lord Ashcroft polls, still many seem to doubt that SLAB is facing extinction (as well as the LibDems).
I think the SNP's position is only going to strengthen as we approach May - consider the following factors:
- SLAB are already in meltdown, with recriminations about their impending defeat already setting in.
- In terms of tactical voting, other than a few diehard Unionist Scottish Tories who might vote Labour, the vast majority of Scottish Tories and SLAB supporters, hate each other more than they hate the SNP. So the SNP are likely to be net beneficiaries of any tactical voting.
- Ed Milliband is so unpopular in Scotland that the more we see of him on the TV screens yet more SLAB support will melt away to the SNP, Greens, UKIP and even the LibDems.
I agree that Scottish Tories hate Labour more than we do the SNP. Strategically we have a much better chance of winning seats back in future elections from the SNP than from SLAB. Miliband is just poison in Scotland to WWC voters. Ashcroft has shown the Scots Tory vote is holding up while SLAB's and the LibDems are melting away.
The SNP government under Salmond has been a fairly centrist beast. There is lots of evidence to suggest the Sturgeon government will be very different. She is moving quickly to the left and centralising power in a Central Belt mafia of her key supporters. With the likes of the Land Reform bill we are seeing the very worst class hatred coming out in her government.
Re the debates - this is only guess but is there a chance that the Conservatives may be represented by someone other than Cameron?
ie Cameron will say he is out campaigning etc but of course if the debates are going ahead then the Conservatives must be represented.
He then sends Hague. A bit odd in that Hague is retiring but still the obvious person - in recent years he has consistently rated extremely highly.
Even if it was to be allowed, and I think the other parties might well kick up a fuss. Furthermore, Hague isn't very popular outside of the Tory party though...in fact the Tories don't really have anybody outside of Cameron and Bojo who are more popular than the Tory brand.
Not many who would not be despised by a lot of actual Tories at any rate, countering any potential benefits.
3.3.15 LAB 295 (297) CON 269(269) LD 30(30) UKIP 2(2) Others 54(52) (Ed is crap is PM) Last weeks BJESUS in brackets BJESUS (Big John Election Service Uniform Swing) BJESUS (Big John Election Service Uniform Swing) Using current polling adjusted for 65 days left to go factor and using UKPR standard swingometer plus Scotland predictor
At least a poll reflecting reality
Jack W is a nice enough fella but its clear in polling terms he doesnt know his ARSE from his elbow
Far be it for me to speak up for Scottish aristocrats on a Saturday afternoon, but JackW would say his ARSE is a projection, not a poll.
And Mr Jack + RodCrosby had a good record back in 2010, though post performance is not necessarily a reflection of future accuracy...
Rod Crosby did very well in 2010 but I believe that Mr Jack underestimated the number of Labour MPs by a fair margin - and he was far too optimistic re-the No vote last September.Jack's forecast appears to assume a continued swing to the Government right up to polling day despite the fact that such a pattern is at variance with past election campaigns with the solitary exception of 1992.
I agree that Scottish Tories hate Labour more than we do the SNP. Strategically we have a much better chance of winning seats back in future elections from the SNP than from SLAB. Miliband is just poison in Scotland to WWC voters. Ashcroft has shown the Scots Tory vote is holding up while SLAB's and the LibDems are melting away.
The SNP government under Salmond has been a fairly centrist beast. There is lots of evidence to suggest the Sturgeon government will be very different. She is moving quickly to the left and centralising power in a Central Belt mafia of her key supporters. With the likes of the Land Reform bill we are seeing the very worst class hatred coming out in her government.
I am not sure there is any such thing as a safe Labour seat in Scotland anymore. And of course they have a huge number of useless time servers who would never have been selected if they thought they were facing a battle. Sheila Gilmore being a good example.
Labour voters turning to the tories in disgust is a bit of a stretch though.
Maybe they where just being polite on the door, but I certainly do not feel any anticipation for Labour-SNP pact. Ruth Davidson and the Cons 'only true unionst' voice could well resonate. Would not be surprised if there is a s wing from Labour to the Conservatives.
At the same point in 2010 there were two polls published giving the Tories leads of 2% and 5% – an average of 3.5%. This compared with the May 2010 outcome of a Tory lead of 7.3% – a swing to the Opposition of almost 2% in the final two months
Are you sure it wasn't a swing to the Tories rather than simply a swing to the Opposition? We have had many discussions over the years about swingback and which party benefits more from it.
No - 1959/1964 and 1987 also saw swings to the Opposition in the final weeks. The same thing happened in the short February 1974 campaign.
Was out canvassing in Edinburgh East this morning. Yes tactical voting is on the cards, but I did not meet a single voter who said they where going to certainly vote Labour. Many say they are considering voting Tory instead because of the potential of a snp-labour pact. This is a 'safe' labour seat.
Welcome.
I am not sure there is any such thing as a safe Labour seat in Scotland anymore. And of course they have a huge number of useless time servers who would never have been selected if they thought they were facing a battle. Sheila Gilmore being a good example.
Labour voters turning to the tories in disgust is a bit of a stretch though.
Maybe they where just being polite on the door, but I certainly do not feel any anticipation for Labour-SNP pact. Ruth Davidson and the Cons 'only true unionst' voice could well resonate. Would not be surprised if there is a swing from Labour to the Conservatives.
Just a thought....I wonder how much time Cameron, Ed, etc have spent prepping for these debates, rather than doing other things.
We know Ed have been busy practicing with Bad Al, if Cameron's hasn't and is eventually forced to do even one, could it really backfire. I think last time he just presumed he would crush Brown and Clegg was kinda of irrelevant, and what happened was Clegg was the best prepped for them and it was only by the third one that Cameron caught up and won one, by which time damage was done.
I agree that Scottish Tories hate Labour more than we do the SNP. Strategically we have a much better chance of winning seats back in future elections from the SNP than from SLAB. Miliband is just poison in Scotland to WWC voters. Ashcroft has shown the Scots Tory vote is holding up while SLAB's and the LibDems are melting away.
The SNP government under Salmond has been a fairly centrist beast. There is lots of evidence to suggest the Sturgeon government will be very different. She is moving quickly to the left and centralising power in a Central Belt mafia of her key supporters. With the likes of the Land Reform bill we are seeing the very worst class hatred coming out in her government.
The concentration of land ownership in Scotland is not something I would imagine too many people are keen on. I guess you just want to ignore it. Okay for a party that aspires to 16%.
One of the things that irks me most about Miliband is how dishonest he is, and how he constantly changes his message depending on who his audience is.
Today in Scotland he said Labour would "end Tory austerity". This after months of him saying in the English media about how Labour would be "balancing the books" and being tough on spending and voting for Tory spending plans.
I don't understand how he can think he's going to get away with putting out completely contradictory messages.
Re - historical swingback the most striking example is probably the recovery by Wilson's Labour Government prior to the 1970 election. Whilst Labour still lost the margin of defeat was just 2.2% compared with poll deficits of 25%+ throghout 1968 and the first half of 1969.
Re - historical swingback the most striking example is probably the recovery by Wilson's Labour Government prior to the 1970 election. Whilst Labour still lost the margin of defeat was just 2.2% compared with poll deficits of 25%+ throghout 1968 and the first half of 1969.
I thought Labour were widely expected to win that election.
Given that February is somewhat of rogue month, the best guide to the state of the overall market is to carry out a year-on-year comparison. It is not a pretty picture.
Several Sunday titles suffered double-digit percentage falls, including the Sunday Telegraph (-12.02%), the Daily Star Sunday (-12.28%), the Sunday People (-11.81%) and the Observer (-11.28%).
The Sunday Express and Sunday Mirror were off by 9.5% and 8.67% respectively, while the Independent on Sunday and Sunday Times lost about 5% of their sales.
As for the dailies, the Guardian was down 10.34% and there were significant falls also for the Daily Telegraph (-9.5%), the Daily Express (-8.9%), the Independent (-8%) and the i (-7.2%, on the back of a cover price rise).
The Financial Times (-6.2%) and the Daily Mail (-5.5%) did better than the overall fall of 7.7%. And the Times was the only paper to add sales over the year, recording a rise of 1.8%.
Can the last newspaper reader turn the light off please. Interesting the Times has added readers, despite their digital offering, and the Guardian / Observer well at this rate outside of the BBC will there be any copies actually sold to the public?
And the i doesn't look like a goer, despite all the initial hype.
It's a blog about PB with some mentions of Scottish independence
One might suggest Kelly & co get a life.
Yep, people on an obscure political blog commenting on people on another obscure political blog commenting on people on the first blog are definite high rollers in the life stakes.
Devoting entire threads to them?
Not bitter at all........
Perhaps he's bitter about being arbitrarily banned
James was banned because he wouldn't abide by site rules and told OGH that in no uncertain terms.
I would also be surprised (and delighted) if the SNP only got 32 seats. They are clearly going to win the vast majority of the 11 Lib Dems seats, probably at least 8 of them. So the assumption underlying this calculation is that they are only going to win 18 off SLAB (assuming they don't take the Tory seat). That seems low to me.
I do think that the SNP will fall back a bit from their current highs. I think the vote Labour to keep the tories out cannot have lost all its efficacy in 5 years. But the ground operation, number of activists and polling information from the Indy Ref has given the SNP a base the like of which they have never had before. I would expect them to take something around 40 at the moment with the risk being on the higher side.
I've got a feeling Jack is on the mark. I'm sceptical that all bar 3 Scottish seats will vote for SNP. Especially if they start allieing with the Green Party showing themselves as the hard left that they are. I think it is also likely that the Tories will win 3 or 4 Scottish seats.
I agree that they will not win 54 seats. Other than that I am struggling. The Greens are irrelevant up here. At best they will cost the SNP a couple of per cent.
I may not have managed to keep my distaste for the SNP entirely hidden but even I would struggle to describe the Scottish Government as "hard left". Centralising, bossy, arrogant, complacent, self satisfied, bureaucratic and with a disappointing choice of priorities yes, but hard left? I don't think so.
And the tories 4 seats? Keep taking the pills.
I think the general dislike of the SNP on this site seems to have clouded many folks thinking. Even with the weight of evidence from the national polls and the much anticipated Lord Ashcroft polls, still many seem to doubt that SLAB is facing extinction (as well as the LibDems).
I think the SNP's position is only going to strengthen as we approach May
And in the run up to an election, we often see voters 'returning to the establishment'.....which is the SNP in Scotland.
Re - historical swingback the most striking example is probably the recovery by Wilson's Labour Government prior to the 1970 election. Whilst Labour still lost the margin of defeat was just 2.2% compared with poll deficits of 25%+ throghout 1968 and the first half of 1969.
I thought Labour were widely expected to win that election.
Indeed they were - but that does not affect the substantive point.
Just a thought....I wonder how much time Cameron, Ed, etc have spent prepping for these debates, rather than doing other things.
We know Ed have been busy practicing with Bad Al, if Cameron's hasn't and is eventually forced to do even one, could it really backfire. I think last time he just presumed he would crush Brown and Clegg was kinda of irrelevant, and what happened was Clegg was the best prepped for them and it was only by the third one that Cameron caught up and won one, by which time damage was done.
Clegg's "popularity" was that he was seen to be the outsider. Nothing else.
Can the last newspaper reader turn the light off please. Interesting the Times has added readers, despite their digital offering, and the Guardian / Observer well at this rate outside of the BBC will there be any copies actually sold to the public?
And the i doesn't look like a goer, despite all the initial hype.
The hard figures are in the equivalent article in the Press Gazette
It's a blog about PB with some mentions of Scottish independence
One might suggest Kelly & co get a life.
Yep, people on an obscure political blog commenting on people on another obscure political blog commenting on people on the first blog are definite high rollers in the life stakes.
Devoting entire threads to them?
Not bitter at all........
Perhaps he's bitter about being arbitrarily banned
James was banned because he wouldn't abide by site rules and told OGH that in no uncertain terms.
But, oh how he enjoys playing the victim.......
LOL, James is still reading PB, frothing and screaming like a child about certain posters and claiming the site is run by Tories. Poor boy's blood pressure must be terrible.
I agree that Scottish Tories hate Labour more than we do the SNP. Strategically we have a much better chance of winning seats back in future elections from the SNP than from SLAB. Miliband is just poison in Scotland to WWC voters. Ashcroft has shown the Scots Tory vote is holding up while SLAB's and the LibDems are melting away.
The SNP government under Salmond has been a fairly centrist beast. There is lots of evidence to suggest the Sturgeon government will be very different. She is moving quickly to the left and centralising power in a Central Belt mafia of her key supporters. With the likes of the Land Reform bill we are seeing the very worst class hatred coming out in her government.
The concentration of land ownership in Scotland is not something I would imagine too many people are keen on. I guess you just want to ignore it. Okay for a party that aspires to 16%.
Frank last night on the main Scottish news, it showed Gamekeepers attending their annual gathering in Perth criticising the Land Reform Bill. Their spokesman indicated they have worked out it would immediately lead to 100+ Gamekeepers, mostly in remote and fragile rural locations, losing their jobs. The Scottish Government immediately dismissed their claims as nonsense. I wonder of the Scottish Government spokesman has ever been north of Stirling!
Under the plans to be debated by members, Article Five of the UN Declaration of Human Rights – stating “no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” – would be extended to “all sentient life forms”.
The plans would impose the same prison sentences for the killing, torture or “kidnapping” of dolphins, whales, apes and elephants as would occur for equivalent crimes committed against humans.
Members also propose a ban on commercial horse and dog racing.
I thought the fruitcakes were supposed to have all joined the kippers !?
Was out canvassing in Edinburgh East this morning. Yes tactical voting is on the cards, but I did not meet a single voter who said they where going to certainly vote Labour. Many say they are considering voting Tory instead because of the potential of a snp-labour pact. This is a 'safe' labour seat.
Welcome.
I am not sure there is any such thing as a safe Labour seat in Scotland anymore. And of course they have a huge number of useless time servers who would never have been selected if they thought they were facing a battle. Sheila Gilmore being a good example.
Labour voters turning to the tories in disgust is a bit of a stretch though.
Maybe they where just being polite on the door, but I certainly do not feel any anticipation for Labour-SNP pact. Ruth Davidson and the Cons 'only true unionst' voice could well resonate. Would not be surprised if there is a swing from Labour to the Conservatives.
If pro unionist scots who were labour are now more scared of a lab-snp pact and what that entails for the chances of Scotland breaking away from rUK, they may be more willing to hold their noses and vote tory to keep the union, and put up with a tory government, especially with devomax happening
Just a thought....I wonder how much time Cameron, Ed, etc have spent prepping for these debates, rather than doing other things.
We know Ed have been busy practicing with Bad Al, if Cameron's hasn't and is eventually forced to do even one, could it really backfire. I think last time he just presumed he would crush Brown and Clegg was kinda of irrelevant, and what happened was Clegg was the best prepped for them and it was only by the third one that Cameron caught up and won one, by which time damage was done.
Clegg's "popularity" was that he was seen to be the outsider. Nothing else.
I don't agree, Clegg turned up, he was well prepped, and he had developed a style that we hadn't really seen on the floor of the HoC (he was never particular memorable at PMQ's, although from his position it was difficult). He was much more engaging than Cameron, who was very very conservative (with a small c) and Gordon who was just Gordon.
Just a thought....I wonder how much time Cameron, Ed, etc have spent prepping for these debates, rather than doing other things.
We know Ed have been busy practicing with Bad Al, if Cameron's hasn't and is eventually forced to do even one, could it really backfire. I think last time he just presumed he would crush Brown and Clegg was kinda of irrelevant, and what happened was Clegg was the best prepped for them and it was only by the third one that Cameron caught up and won one, by which time damage was done.
Cameron surely cannot be bothered about debating with Ed.
He pastes him every week at PMQs, and Ed is by common consent the worst LOTO in living memory. Even unprepared, Cameron would be expected to give him a drubbing. Personally I think he is more concerned about Farage.
It's not so much that Farage is a good performer (he is, though not exceptionally so) but rather that slightly awkward question the UKIP leader is bound to ask about the promise Cameron made in respect of immigration numbers at a similar debate five years ago.
Just a thought....I wonder how much time Cameron, Ed, etc have spent prepping for these debates, rather than doing other things.
We know Ed have been busy practicing with Bad Al, if Cameron's hasn't and is eventually forced to do even one, could it really backfire. I think last time he just presumed he would crush Brown and Clegg was kinda of irrelevant, and what happened was Clegg was the best prepped for them and it was only by the third one that Cameron caught up and won one, by which time damage was done.
Cameron surely cannot be bothered about debating with Ed.
He pastes him every week at PMQs, and Ed id by common consent the worst LOTO in living memory. Even unprepared, Cameron would be expected to him him a drubbing. Personally I think he is more concerned about Farage.
It's not so much that Farage is a good performer (he is, though not exceptionally so) but rather that slightly awkward question he is bound to ask about the promise Cameron made in respect of immigration numbers at a similar debate five years ago.
The debate format is different though. Cameron used to paste Brown every week at PMQ's, worse than Miliband*, but last time Cameron didn't really manage to do a good job on Brown in the actual debates. The third one he won, but Brown was actually a bit better in it. The first two, Cameron didn't really say or do anything of note. You could say it is because Clegg was there getting in the way of Cameron slaughtering Brown, but I don't think that was true.
*Ed does win a reasonable number of the battles normally due to some detailed bookwork, which means it doesn't really get beyond PMQ's.
He pastes him every week at PMQs, and Ed id by common consent the worst LOTO in living memory. Even unprepared, Cameron would be expected to him him a drubbing. Personally I think he is more concerned about Farage.
I think he is concerned that if Ed turns up, wears a decent suit, has his tie straight, and doesn't trip over the lectern or knock over his water glass, he will go up in people's estimation, which wouldn't be good.
It's not so much that Farage is a good performer (he is, though not exceptionally so) but rather that slightly awkward question he is bound to ask about the promise Cameron made in respect of immigration numbers at a similar debate five years ago
He is also likely to put him on the spot about his sham renegotiation, and fudging and waffling about his renegotiation position, or possible red lines is not going to go down well with sceptical voters. He might actually be waking up to the fact that Tory voters as a whole are pretty damn Eurosceptic, certainly far more than he is.
Was out canvassing in Edinburgh East this morning. Yes tactical voting is on the cards, but I did not meet a single voter who said they where going to certainly vote Labour. Many say they are considering voting Tory instead because of the potential of a snp-labour pact. This is a 'safe' labour seat.
Just a thought....I wonder how much time Cameron, Ed, etc have spent prepping for these debates, rather than doing other things.
We know Ed have been busy practicing with Bad Al, if Cameron's hasn't and is eventually forced to do even one, could it really backfire. I think last time he just presumed he would crush Brown and Clegg was kinda of irrelevant, and what happened was Clegg was the best prepped for them and it was only by the third one that Cameron caught up and won one, by which time damage was done.
Cameron surely cannot be bothered about debating with Ed.
He pastes him every week at PMQs, and Ed is by common consent the worst LOTO in living memory. Even unprepared, Cameron would be expected to give him a drubbing. Personally I think he is more concerned about Farage.
It's not so much that Farage is a good performer (he is, though not exceptionally so) but rather that slightly awkward question the UKIP leader is bound to ask about the promise Cameron made in respect of immigration numbers at a similar debate five years ago.
That's why he's agreed to the head-to-head but not the 7-way.
He pastes him every week at PMQs, and Ed id by common consent the worst LOTO in living memory. Even unprepared, Cameron would be expected to him him a drubbing. Personally I think he is more concerned about Farage.
I think he is concerned that if Ed turns up, wears a decent suit, has his tie straight, and doesn't trip over the lectern or knock over his water glass, he will go up in people's estimation, which wouldn't be good.
You are asking a lot there :-)
I actually think that Miliband will do fine in the debates, as he is a bookworm at heart and will study and study and study, and has Bad Al giving him the spin. If that means it will radically change people's perception of him and his policies I am not so sure. Labour people keep saying, like they did with Brown, just wait until the public get to know him, and we saw him more and more in as tightly controlled situations to make him look good and it made no difference.
Just a thought....I wonder how much time Cameron, Ed, etc have spent prepping for these debates, rather than doing other things.
We know Ed have been busy practicing with Bad Al, if Cameron's hasn't and is eventually forced to do even one, could it really backfire. I think last time he just presumed he would crush Brown and Clegg was kinda of irrelevant, and what happened was Clegg was the best prepped for them and it was only by the third one that Cameron caught up and won one, by which time damage was done.
Cameron surely cannot be bothered about debating with Ed.
He pastes him every week at PMQs, and Ed id by common consent the worst LOTO in living memory. Even unprepared, Cameron would be expected to him him a drubbing. Personally I think he is more concerned about Farage.
It's not so much that Farage is a good performer (he is, though not exceptionally so) but rather that slightly awkward question he is bound to ask about the promise Cameron made in respect of immigration numbers at a similar debate five years ago.
The debate format is different though. Cameron used to paste Brown every week at PMQ's, worse than Miliband*, but last time Cameron didn't really manage to do a good job on Brown in the actual debates. The third one he won, but Brown was actually a bit better in it. The first two, Cameron didn't really say or do anything of note. You could say it is because Clegg was there getting in the way of Cameron slaughtering Brown, but I don't think that was true.
*Ed does win a reasonable number of the battles normally due to some detailed bookwork, which means it doesn't really get beyond PMQ's.
Thanks Francis.
Of course I don't bother to watch PMQs myself, but I do check the reports on here and poster after poster testifies to the trouncing the PM gives hapless Ed each week.
why do you consider Enfield North too close too call?
Hi Andrea, always good to see you on site.
The seat has tacked from TCTC to Likely Lab Gain for over two years. Demographic changes have edged the seat Labour in recent years and the present forecast remains a Labour Gain although todays ARSE just edged the back below the 500 vote threshold . ARSE projections for the south east remain poor for Labour but better for London.
@Peter_the_Punter Cameron does not want to engage with Ed in the debates too close to the election, because his spin doctors have decided that it is not democratic to energise and engage younger voters. Our blue friends will cry foul at this statement, and whine like little pups.
He pastes him every week at PMQs, and Ed id by common consent the worst LOTO in living memory. Even unprepared, Cameron would be expected to him him a drubbing. Personally I think he is more concerned about Farage.
I think he is concerned that if Ed turns up, wears a decent suit, has his tie straight, and doesn't trip over the lectern or knock over his water glass, he will go up in people's estimation, which wouldn't be good.
You are asking a lot there :-)
I actually think that Miliband will do fine in the debates, as he is a bookworm at heart and will study and study and study, and has Bad Al giving him the spin. If that means it will radically change people's perception of him and his policies I am not so sure. Labour people keep saying, like they did with Brown, just wait until the public get to know him, and we saw him more and more in as tightly controlled situations to make him look good and it made no difference.
I agree. Ed is a studious apparatchik and will be well drilled with figures, facts and prepared soundbites. Dave is a chillaxed gentleman amateur who belives charm and winging it are the way to win. Ed is likely to expose him.
The other issue is that both leaders will need to spend days with their minders doing prep. This weights it to Ed. We know Ed is rather gaffe prone when exposed to the public, while Dave is rather good at it. The debates will give Labour an excuse to keep Ed in the cupboard.
why do you consider Enfield North too close too call?
It's a good question Andrea. If Ed is not winning super marginals in North London at a canter where is he winning ?
Labour are edging Enfield North and some other Conservative London seats, Broxtowe and some other marginals in the midlands and north together with some LibDem seats. Against this are the SNP losses.
I agree that Scottish Tories hate Labour more than we do the SNP. Strategically we have a much better chance of winning seats back in future elections from the SNP than from SLAB. Miliband is just poison in Scotland to WWC voters. Ashcroft has shown the Scots Tory vote is holding up while SLAB's and the LibDems are melting away.
The SNP government under Salmond has been a fairly centrist beast. There is lots of evidence to suggest the Sturgeon government will be very different. She is moving quickly to the left and centralising power in a Central Belt mafia of her key supporters. With the likes of the Land Reform bill we are seeing the very worst class hatred coming out in her government.
The concentration of land ownership in Scotland is not something I would imagine too many people are keen on. I guess you just want to ignore it. Okay for a party that aspires to 16%.
Is there any particular pent up demand for low grade agicultural land ?
He pastes him every week at PMQs, and Ed id by common consent the worst LOTO in living memory. Even unprepared, Cameron would be expected to him him a drubbing. Personally I think he is more concerned about Farage.
I think he is concerned that if Ed turns up, wears a decent suit, has his tie straight, and doesn't trip over the lectern or knock over his water glass, he will go up in people's estimation, which wouldn't be good.
You are asking a lot there :-)
I actually think that Miliband will do fine in the debates, as he is a bookworm at heart and will study and study and study, and has Bad Al giving him the spin. If that means it will radically change people's perception of him and his policies I am not so sure. Labour people keep saying, like they did with Brown, just wait until the public get to know him, and we saw him more and more in as tightly controlled situations to make him look good and it made no difference.
I agree. Ed is a studious apparatchik and will be well drilled with figures, facts and prepared soundbites. Dave is a chillaxed gentleman amateur who belives charm and winging it are the way to win. Ed is likely to expose him.
The other issue is that both leaders will need to spend days with their minders doing prep. This weights it to Ed. We know Ed is rather gaffe prone when exposed to the public, while Dave is rather good at it. The debates will give Labour an excuse to keep Ed in the cupboard.
If one's acquaintance of him were limited to reading posts on PB, you'd think Ed was the Village Idiot.
He is of course nothing of the sort and given a fair wind there's a decent chance he will demonstrate that before the election, debate or no debate. Expectations of him are set so low that even a moderate performance before the wider public could have a dramatic effect on voting intentions.
This is a danger to which I am sure CCHQ is alert, and is taking all possible measures to minimise.
It's a blog about PB with some mentions of Scottish independence
One might suggest Kelly & co get a life.
Yep, people on an obscure political blog commenting on people on another obscure political blog commenting on people on the first blog are definite high rollers in the life stakes.
I would also be surprised (and delighted) if the SNP only got 32 seats. They are clearly going to win the vast majority of the 11 Lib Dems seats, probably at least 8 of them. So the assumption underlying this calculation is that they are only going to win 18 off SLAB (assuming they don't take the Tory seat). That seems low to me.
I do think that the SNP will fall back a bit from their current highs. I think the vote Labour to keep the tories out cannot have lost all its efficacy in 5 years. But the ground operation, number of activists and polling information from the Indy Ref has given the SNP a base the like of which they have never had before. I would expect them to take something around 40 at the moment with the risk being on the higher side.
I've got a feeling Jack is on the mark. I'm sceptical that all bar 3 Scottish seats will vote for SNP. Especially if they start allieing with the Green Party showing themselves as the hard left that they are. I think it is also likely that the Tories will win 3 or 4 Scottish seats.
I agree that they will not win 54 seats. Other than that I am struggling. The Greens are irrelevant up here. At best they will cost the SNP a couple of per cent.
I may not have managed to keep my distaste for the SNP entirely hidden but even I would struggle to describe the Scottish Government as "hard left". Centralising, bossy, arrogant, complacent, self satisfied, bureaucratic and with a disappointing choice of priorities yes, but hard left? I don't think so.
And the tories 4 seats? Keep taking the pills.
I think the general dislike of the SNP on this site seems to have clouded many folks thinking. Even with the weight of evidence from the national polls and the much anticipated Lord Ashcroft polls, still many seem to doubt that SLAB is facing extinction (as well as the LibDems).
I think the SNP's position is only going to strengthen as we approach May - consider the following factors:
- SLAB are already in meltdown, with recriminations about their impending defeat already setting in.
- In terms of tactical voting, other than a few diehard Unionist Scottish Tories who might vote Labour, the vast majority of Scottish Tories and SLAB supporters, hate each other more than they hate the SNP. So the SNP are likely to be net beneficiaries of any tactical voting.
- Ed Milliband is so unpopular in Scotland that the more we see of him on the TV screens yet more SLAB support will melt away to the SNP, Greens, UKIP and even the LibDems.
Calum, I am surprised you noticed it with it being so subtle.
It's a blog about PB with some mentions of Scottish independence
One might suggest Kelly & co get a life.
Yep, people on an obscure political blog commenting on people on another obscure political blog commenting on people on the first blog are definite high rollers in the life stakes.
Devoting entire threads to them?
Not bitter at all........
Perhaps he's bitter about being arbitrarily banned and then seeing posters make snide remarks about him with no option to answer them.
Of course his PB fan club could make their criticisms to James directly during their many forays to his site. However it appears they'd rather scamper back here to a place where he has no right of reply.
I would also be surprised (and delighted) if the SNP only got 32 seats. They are clearly going to win the vast majority of the 11 Lib Dems seats, probably at least 8 of them. So the assumption underlying this calculation is that they are only going to win 18 off SLAB (assuming they don't take the Tory seat). That seems low to me.
I do think that the SNP will fall back a bit from their current highs. I think the vote Labour to keep the tories out cannot have lost all its efficacy in 5 years. But the ground operation, number of activists and polling information from the Indy Ref has given the SNP a base the like of which they have never had before. I would expect them to take something around 40 at the moment with the risk being on the higher side.
Labour have been making this argument for weeks and so far it has had no effect on the polls at all. If anything, Labour seem to be going backwards in Scotland.
The Labour campaign in Scotland seems to be Jim Murphy and Jenny Marra but as usual they are struggling with a serious lack of quality support.
Once the Darling and Brown generation go there is a serious lack of ability. Mark Lazarowicz generally has a good name but I am struggling to think of many more.
But I still think that as the election starts to dominate the media and as that media is inevitably focussed on the UK situation with poor quality Scottish tag alongs Labour will get something of a boost. As long as not too much of that coverage involves Ed of course.
Also struggling with fact both are crap and are promoting what they have opposed for years, not very bright.
It's a blog about PB with some mentions of Scottish independence
One might suggest Kelly & co get a life.
Yep, people on an obscure political blog commenting on people on another obscure political blog commenting on people on the first blog are definite high rollers in the life stakes.
Devoting entire threads to them?
Not bitter at all........
Perhaps he's bitter about being arbitrarily banned
James was banned because he wouldn't abide by site rules and told OGH that in no uncertain terms.
But, oh how he enjoys playing the victim.......
LOL, sad bitter and twisted emigrant hates anybody Scottish, what a pillock
Comments
On twitter, catching up with the dozens of tweets from constituencies the length and breadth of the country showing Team2015 volunteers out canvassing etc for their local Tory MPs and candidates.
Was delighted to hear that Ruth Davidson addressed 100+ Scots Tories last night at an event in Dingwall to support Lindsey MacCallum, the Tory candidate in Charles Kennedy's seat.
ie Cameron will say he is out campaigning etc but of course if the debates are going ahead then the Conservatives must be represented.
He then sends Hague. A bit odd in that Hague is retiring but still the obvious person - in recent years he has consistently rated extremely highly.
That would at least make it entertaining.
I agree that Scottish Tories hate Labour more than we do the SNP. Strategically we have a much better chance of winning seats back in future elections from the SNP than from SLAB. Miliband is just poison in Scotland to WWC voters. Ashcroft has shown the Scots Tory vote is holding up while SLAB's and the LibDems are melting away.
The SNP government under Salmond has been a fairly centrist beast. There is lots of evidence to suggest the Sturgeon government will be very different. She is moving quickly to the left and centralising power in a Central Belt mafia of her key supporters. With the likes of the Land Reform bill we are seeing the very worst class hatred coming out in her government.
I am not sure there is any such thing as a safe Labour seat in Scotland anymore. And of course they have a huge number of useless time servers who would never have been selected if they thought they were facing a battle. Sheila Gilmore being a good example.
Labour voters turning to the tories in disgust is a bit of a stretch though.
Maybe they where just being polite on the door, but I certainly do not feel any anticipation for Labour-SNP pact. Ruth Davidson and the Cons 'only true unionst' voice could well resonate. Would not be surprised if there is a s wing from Labour to the Conservatives.
We know Ed have been busy practicing with Bad Al, if Cameron's hasn't and is eventually forced to do even one, could it really backfire. I think last time he just presumed he would crush Brown and Clegg was kinda of irrelevant, and what happened was Clegg was the best prepped for them and it was only by the third one that Cameron caught up and won one, by which time damage was done.
Or Jack is talking out his ARSE
Today in Scotland he said Labour would "end Tory austerity". This after months of him saying in the English media about how Labour would be "balancing the books" and being tough on spending and voting for Tory spending plans.
I don't understand how he can think he's going to get away with putting out completely contradictory messages.
Several Sunday titles suffered double-digit percentage falls, including the Sunday Telegraph (-12.02%), the Daily Star Sunday (-12.28%), the Sunday People (-11.81%) and the Observer (-11.28%).
The Sunday Express and Sunday Mirror were off by 9.5% and 8.67% respectively, while the Independent on Sunday and Sunday Times lost about 5% of their sales.
As for the dailies, the Guardian was down 10.34% and there were significant falls also for the Daily Telegraph (-9.5%), the Daily Express (-8.9%), the Independent (-8%) and the i (-7.2%, on the back of a cover price rise).
The Financial Times (-6.2%) and the Daily Mail (-5.5%) did better than the overall fall of 7.7%. And the Times was the only paper to add sales over the year, recording a rise of 1.8%.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2015/mar/06/the-sun-suffers-big-sales-fall-without-page-3-but-dont-rush-to-conclusions
Can the last newspaper reader turn the light off please. Interesting the Times has added readers, despite their digital offering, and the Guardian / Observer well at this rate outside of the BBC will there be any copies actually sold to the public?
And the i doesn't look like a goer, despite all the initial hype.
But, oh how he enjoys playing the victim.......
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/sun-sales-are-unharmed-first-month-without-topless-photos-page-three
Looks like the Graun now sells less copies than the Daily Record!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/green-party/11456572/Rodents-to-be-given-human-rights-under-Green-Party-plans.html I thought the fruitcakes were supposed to have all joined the kippers !?
He pastes him every week at PMQs, and Ed is by common consent the worst LOTO in living memory. Even unprepared, Cameron would be expected to give him a drubbing. Personally I think he is more concerned about Farage.
It's not so much that Farage is a good performer (he is, though not exceptionally so) but rather that slightly awkward question the UKIP leader is bound to ask about the promise Cameron made in respect of immigration numbers at a similar debate five years ago.
#Scotlab15: Murphy introducing Lab team: huge applause for Kez Dugdale and Margaret Curran, none for Ed Miliband
*Ed does win a reasonable number of the battles normally due to some detailed bookwork, which means it doesn't really get beyond PMQ's.
I'm listening to an artist much better than Dylan > Rodriguez from 1971
Oh, wait...
I actually think that Miliband will do fine in the debates, as he is a bookworm at heart and will study and study and study, and has Bad Al giving him the spin. If that means it will radically change people's perception of him and his policies I am not so sure. Labour people keep saying, like they did with Brown, just wait until the public get to know him, and we saw him more and more in as tightly controlled situations to make him look good and it made no difference.
Of course I don't bother to watch PMQs myself, but I do check the reports on here and poster after poster testifies to the trouncing the PM gives hapless Ed each week.
They are surely not making it up?
The seat has tacked from TCTC to Likely Lab Gain for over two years. Demographic changes have edged the seat Labour in recent years and the present forecast remains a Labour Gain although todays ARSE just edged the back below the 500 vote threshold . ARSE projections for the south east remain poor for Labour but better for London.
Ed, standing up to vested interests the leader...
'I don't understand how he can think he's going to get away with putting out completely contradictory messages."
The Lib Dems have been doing it for years. Its worked for them every time-except this one when-because shockingly they actually got into government!
I guess it must have passed you by or maybe you're too young......
Cameron does not want to engage with Ed in the debates too close to the election, because his spin doctors have decided that it is not democratic to energise and engage younger voters.
Our blue friends will cry foul at this statement, and whine like little pups.
The other issue is that both leaders will need to spend days with their minders doing prep. This weights it to Ed. We know Ed is rather gaffe prone when exposed to the public, while Dave is rather good at it. The debates will give Labour an excuse to keep Ed in the cupboard.
This close to the election, polls can come from various unexpected places...
He is of course nothing of the sort and given a fair wind there's a decent chance he will demonstrate that before the election, debate or no debate. Expectations of him are set so low that even a moderate performance before the wider public could have a dramatic effect on voting intentions.
This is a danger to which I am sure CCHQ is alert, and is taking all possible measures to minimise.