politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Norman Lamb, my long-term bet for Clegg’s replacement, move

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Norman Lamb, my long-term bet for Clegg’s replacement, moves a step closer to being a leadership contender

Norman Lamb could be the "stop Farron" candidate if there's an early LD leadership fight
http://t.co/nnKi8Y4nBh pic.twitter.com/vsRgO7hIWw

Read the full story here

Indigo

First!

Indigo

First we had Balls with his "post-neoclassical endogenous growth theory"

But he is easily trumped by Miliband with this opaque wonkery.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/blighty/2014/01/labours-economic-plans

Mr Miliband’s economic outlook is often ascribed to Professor Jacob Hacker of Yale University– and his 2011 Policy Network paper on “pre-distribution” (how to reduce inequality before tax)– but his interest in this agenda is much older. It is rooted in work of “Varieties of Capitalism” (VoC) theorists, a loose gathering of political economists mostly based in Harvard, Oxford or Berlin’s WZB. The group is named after a 2001 book of the same name; on the invitation of whose editor, Peter Hall, Mr Miliband lectured at Harvard in 2003. Stewart Wood, the Labour leader’s top wonk, wrote one of its chapters.

As the phrase suggests, the VoC approach identifies several different ways to run a capitalist economy. Most adherents concentrate on two models – “liberal” (eg Britain, Ireland, the United States) and “co-ordinated” (eg Germany, Sweden, South Korea) – which, they argue, are fundamentally different.

Insofar as Mr Miliband has a long-term project, it is to jolt Britain off the “liberal” operating system and onto the “co-ordinated” one, which most VoC theorists claim is better at generating and distributing living-standards improvements to ordinary folk.

JackW

Sky News report from Michael Moore's Berwickshire seat indicating, albeit from a small voxpox sample, that the LibDems and Con in a tight fight. Moore clearly well known.

Report likely to be repeated through the morning.

JohnLoony

Why would there need to be a "Stop Farron" candidate anyway? What's wrong with Farron?

SimonStClare

Morning all.

Norman Lamb appears a decent sort, although somewhat diffident for a chap who may wish to lead his party someday. – I get the impression that Tim Farron is clearly a man on a mission and will fight tooth ‘n’ claw for the prize.

Would appreciate a recap on LD leadership procedures, IMRC, the vote is open to all MPs and party members on a 1:1 vote?.

Charles

Indigo said:

First we had Balls with his "post-neoclassical endogenous growth theory"

But he is easily trumped by Miliband with this opaque wonkery.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/blighty/2014/01/labours-economic-plans

Mr Miliband’s economic outlook is often ascribed to Professor Jacob Hacker of Yale University– and his 2011 Policy Network paper on “pre-distribution” (how to reduce inequality before tax)– but his interest in this agenda is much older. It is rooted in work of “Varieties of Capitalism” (VoC) theorists, a loose gathering of political economists mostly based in Harvard, Oxford or Berlin’s WZB. The group is named after a 2001 book of the same name; on the invitation of whose editor, Peter Hall, Mr Miliband lectured at Harvard in 2003. Stewart Wood, the Labour leader’s top wonk, wrote one of its chapters.

As the phrase suggests, the VoC approach identifies several different ways to run a capitalist economy. Most adherents concentrate on two models – “liberal” (eg Britain, Ireland, the United States) and “co-ordinated” (eg Germany, Sweden, South Korea) – which, they argue, are fundamentally different.

Insofar as Mr Miliband has a long-term project, it is to jolt Britain off the “liberal” operating system and onto the “co-ordinated” one, which most VoC theorists claim is better at generating and distributing living-standards improvements to ordinary folk.

Well there are lots of long words, but effectively it just means he wants to move from a free market to a corporatist market.

Which favours the big companies and the producers at the expense of the individuals and the customer.

Way to go, buddy!

Gadfly

Moving average chart of the 100 most recent YouGov polls. Click to enlarge...

JackW

Latest ARSE with added APLOMB 2015 General Election & "JackW Dozen" Projection Countdown :

50 hours

RobD

JackW said:

Latest ARSE with added APLOMB 2015 General Election & "JackW Dozen" Projection Countdown :

50 hours

Hopefully with added BRAN to ensure smooth and timely delivery.

Charles

JackW said:

Latest ARSE with added APLOMB 2015 General Election & "JackW Dozen" Projection Countdown :

50 hours

How much time do you spend hovering over your computer waiting for the precise moment to press "post comment"

Or does one of your superannuated flunkies do it for you?

Charles

RobD said:

JackW said:

Latest ARSE with added APLOMB 2015 General Election & "JackW Dozen" Projection Countdown :

50 hours

Hopefully with added BRAN to ensure smooth and timely delivery.

British Regionalised Audited Numerology?

RobD

Charles said:

RobD said:

JackW said:

Latest ARSE with added APLOMB 2015 General Election & "JackW Dozen" Projection Countdown :

50 hours

Hopefully with added BRAN to ensure smooth and timely delivery.

British Regionalised Audited Numerology?

Very apt, given the divine nature of the ARSE...

titters....

JackW

RobD said:

JackW said:

Latest ARSE with added APLOMB 2015 General Election & "JackW Dozen" Projection Countdown :

50 hours

Hopefully with added BRAN to ensure smooth and timely delivery.

Charles said:

JackW said:

Latest ARSE with added APLOMB 2015 General Election & "JackW Dozen" Projection Countdown :

50 hours

How much time do you spend hovering over your computer waiting for the precise moment to press "post comment"

Or does one of your superannuated flunkies do it for you?

Any of Chez JackW "flunkies" that served up BRAN, especially at breakers, would find themselves uncomfortably close to a future Auchentennach fine pie nor are the staff allowed in the SHIT - Supreme Headquarters Intelligence Theatre - to access computers.

MarqueeMark

JohnLoony said:

Why would there need to be a "Stop Farron" candidate anyway? What's wrong with Farron?

Perhaps that Farron is not quite the over-arching cure to all of the LibDems ills that Farron thinks he is?

foxinsoxuk

JohnLoony said:

Why would there need to be a "Stop Farron" candidate anyway? What's wrong with Farron?

Some (including me) feel that Farron lacks much depth, but also a leadership contest needs a plausible alternative candidate. Norman Lamb would be good choice, with a different style to Farron. There are others depending on who survives in parliament.

The outcome would depend on the number of LDs. A bloodbath would favour Farron as he is more distant from the coalition. It would also depend on what sort of government there was. If the LDs are on the opposition benches facing the Tories then Farron may be the better bet.

MarqueeMark

Anyway, why this interest in a post-election LibDem leadership fight? It will have all the relevance and appeal of bald men fighting over a skip-found comb.

What?

OldKingCole

SimonStClare said:

Morning all.

Norman Lamb appears a decent sort, although somewhat diffident for a chap who may wish to lead his party someday. – I get the impression that Tim Farron is clearly a man on a mission and will fight tooth ‘n’ claw for the prize.

Would appreciate a recap on LD leadership procedures, IMRC, the vote is open to all MPs and party members on a 1:1 vote?.

Didn’t a somewhat flamboyant party leader once say of his opponent “A modest little man, with much to be modest about”?

And hoiw did that turn out?

JackW

MarqueeMark said:

Anyway, why this interest in a post-election LibDem leadership fight? It will have all the relevance and appeal of bald men fighting over a skip-found comb.

What?

My understanding is that skips are banned in Bedford.

Gadfly

JohnLoony said:

Why would there need to be a "Stop Farron" candidate anyway? What's wrong with Farron?

You have clearly never met the man.

richardDodd

OKC..I believe that was Churchill about Attlee .

foxinsoxuk

MarqueeMark said:

Anyway, why this interest in a post-election LibDem leadership fight? It will have all the relevance and appeal of bald men fighting over a skip-found comb.

What?

We are likely to see in the next parliament the alternative to coalition, with either a minority government or a wafer thin majority being heavily whipped.

It is quite likely that with one (or both) major parties collapsing into infighting that the current coalition is seen as a golden period of stable government. If both major parties pander to their extremes then there is potential for a LD revival. Even after further losses in May there will be a strong base in local government.

OldKingCole

richardDodd said:

OKC..I believe that was Churchill about Attlee .

Indeed. Before the “45 election! And the former never bested the latter in terms of votes cast.

Paul_Mid_Beds

Mr Lamb has to retain his seat first.

While he had a majority of about 12,000 in 2005 and 2010 he won it by a knife edge in 2001 and the Tories held it in the nadir of 1997.

There hasn't been much demographic change in North Norfolk since 1992, although a lot of Guardianistas have second homes in the area.

From 1970 to 1997 it was safe Conservative seat but can be volatile, from 1945-1970 it was held by labour and pre war by the Tories.

JackW

Dilshan hits seven successive fours for Sri Lanka as they chase 377 against Oz.

SL 55/1 after 7 overs

TCPoliticalBetting

JackW said:

MarqueeMark said:

Anyway, why this interest in a post-election LibDem leadership fight? It will have all the relevance and appeal of bald men fighting over a skip-found comb.

What?

My understanding is that skips are banned in Bedford.

They have enough abandoned cars.

SirNorfolkPassmore

Paul_Mid_Beds said:

Mr Lamb has to retain his seat first.

While he had a majority of about 12,000 in 2005 and 2010 he won it by a knife edge in 2001 and the Tories held it in the nadir of 1997.

There hasn't been much demographic change in North Norfolk since 1992, although a lot of Guardianistas have second homes in the area.

From 1970 to 1997 it was safe Conservative seat but can be volatile, from 1945-1970 it was held by labour and pre war by the Tories.

But the fact it was safely Conservative not so very long ago is surely a testament to Lamb's personal following in the area, and that's precisely what Lib Dems need in order to hold seats? The places where they are in greatest danger is where they are historically strong but have weak candidates - the precise opposite of North Norfolk.

Lamb will retain this easily, and very possibly with a five figure majority still.

AlastairMeeks

If the Lib Dems have been thumped, they'll need someone who can persuade the public to take a second look at them. Norman Lamb doesn't look like the right person for that.

Paul_Mid_Beds

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Paul_Mid_Beds said:

Mr Lamb has to retain his seat first.

While he had a majority of about 12,000 in 2005 and 2010 he won it by a knife edge in 2001 and the Tories held it in the nadir of 1997.

There hasn't been much demographic change in North Norfolk since 1992, although a lot of Guardianistas have second homes in the area.

From 1970 to 1997 it was safe Conservative seat but can be volatile, from 1945-1970 it was held by labour and pre war by the Tories.

But the fact it was safely Conservative not so very long ago is surely a testament to Lamb's personal following in the area, and that's precisely what Lib Dems need in order to hold seats? The places where they are in greatest danger is where they are historically strong but have weak candidates - the precise opposite of North Norfolk.

Lamb will retain this easily, and very possibly with a five figure majority still.

On the contrary, its a lesson in how the Libdems successfully presented themselves as all things to all men to attract Labour voters.

In 1997 this seat (which was a safe Labour seat throughout the '50s and '60s got 14,736 Labour voters. In 2010, Labour got 2,896.

The labour vote dropped by 11,840 between 1997 and 2010. Lambs Majority in 2010 was 214 votes less than this at 11,626.

People like Lamb depend entirely on continuing to borrow Labours voters, which after five years of coalition with the Tories may be a hard ask. He may keep his seat, but I would bet if he does his majority will suffer a caning.

I would suggest that any Libdem sitting in a seat where his majority is lower than the drop in the Labour vote since 1997 could be in trouble.

Places like Sutton and Cheam, where the Libdems have never had a majority of more than 2000-3000 and the Labour vote from the vast St Helier council estate has been lent to the liberals (seeing Labour drop from 7,280 in 1997 to 3,376 in 2010 are obviously more vulnerable.

Similarly, Carshalton & Wallington Liberals rely on Labour voters in the Roundshaw council estate. (Lab 11,575-4, 015 1997-2010)

SquareRoot

If you need a stop candidate.. you need one for the Greens.. That Natalie woman is absolutely stark staring bonkers.

TCPoliticalBetting

Farron would be a good choice to kill off any hope of a coalition with the Conservatives as he is full of past hatred as a class warrior. Let us hope he is the one the members choose. He can even get a yellow minibus for transporting all the MPs.

kle4

In the right circumstances, with a new leader and Labour potentially shedding support if Tory hopes that they make as poor a showing as possible ends up being true, it is conceivable the LDs could begin to rebuild quicker than most of us, myself included, think is likely. I guess it is impossible to say for certain who would be best for leading that possibility, and I am embarrassed to admit I completely forgot who Norman Lamb even was, but then maybe being fairly anonymous might help his case. If he is any good and can blossom into the role of Leader, having a low profile beforehand will limit the spread of the governmental contagion the LDs have caught.

After all, Ed M has done pretty well to avoid too many negative associations from the last government, despite being at the very heart of it from even before he was an MP.

richardDodd

Square Root..That Green woman should be kept on.. she really is priceless..absolutely away with the fairies..great fun.

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

Less than a week from now the first race of the F1 season will be over. Will be interesting to see how the various teams fare.

Whilst Lamb seems a mostly sensible chap, not sure he'll win.

SirNorfolkPassmore

Paul_Mid_Beds said:

People like Lamb depend entirely on continuing to borrow Labours voters, which after five years of coalition with the Tories may be a hard ask. He may keep his seat, but I would bet if he does his majority will suffer a caning.

I would suggest that any Libdem sitting in a seat where his majority is lower than the drop in the Labour vote since 1997 could be in trouble.

This comment makes the mistake of believing people who've been voting Lib Dem for 15-20 years still see themselves as Labour voters who are merely lending their support. That simply isn't right. It also misses the many small "c" conservative voters in NN who liked their old Tory MP and like their current Lib Dem one. Finally, it ignores UKIP, who will take thousands of Tory votes here.

No doubt we'll have to agree to disagree, but you'll certainly find come May that this isn't anywhere near to close.

Charles

OldKingCole said:

richardDodd said:

OKC..I believe that was Churchill about Attlee .

Indeed. Before the “45 election! And the former never bested the latter in terms of votes cast.

He did "save the world" however

kle4

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Paul_Mid_Beds said:

People like Lamb depend entirely on continuing to borrow Labours voters, which after five years of coalition with the Tories may be a hard ask. He may keep his seat, but I would bet if he does his majority will suffer a caning.

I would suggest that any Libdem sitting in a seat where his majority is lower than the drop in the Labour vote since 1997 could be in trouble.

This comment makes the mistake of believing people who've been voting Lib Dem for 15-20 years still see themselves as Labour voters who are merely lending their support. That simply isn't right.

For about 50% of that vote, apparently it was, given that is about the proportion who jumped ship immediately upon the coalition rather than wait and see if the party managed to do well out of it, or make the price worth the cost.

For me, I'm open to giving the LDs a sympathy vote as I think they are a tad hard done by, but they've dropped so low to the point even should be safe seats are vulnerable, that it hardly feels worth it.

Charles

Paul_Mid_Beds said:

I would suggest that any Libdem sitting in a seat where his majority is lower than the drop in the Labour vote since 1997 could be in trouble.

That's an interesting way of looking at it.

I doubt it would be a 1-for-1 transfer, but you could easily pluck a number - say 60-80% of these "lent" votes returning to determine a new hit list of formerly safe LD seats

foxinsoxuk

Paul_Mid_Beds said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Paul_Mid_Beds said:

Mr Lamb has to retain his seat first.

While he had a majority of about 12,000 in 2005 and 2010 he won it by a knife edge in 2001 and the Tories held it in the nadir of 1997.

There hasn't been much demographic change in North Norfolk since 1992, although a lot of Guardianistas have second homes in the area.

From 1970 to 1997 it was safe Conservative seat but can be volatile, from 1945-1970 it was held by labour and pre war by the Tories.

But the fact it was safely Conservative not so very long ago is surely a testament to Lamb's personal following in the area, and that's precisely what Lib Dems need in order to hold seats? The places where they are in greatest danger is where they are historically strong but have weak candidates - the precise opposite of North Norfolk.

Lamb will retain this easily, and very possibly with a five figure majority still.

On the contrary, its a lesson in how the Libdems successfully presented themselves as all things to all men to attract Labour voters.

In 1997 this seat (which was a safe Labour seat throughout the '50s and '60s got 14,736 Labour voters. In 2010, Labour got 2,896.

The labour vote dropped by 11,840 between 1997 and 2010. Lambs Majority in 2010 was 214 votes less than this at 11,626.

People like Lamb depend entirely on continuing to borrow Labours voters, which after five years of coalition with the Tories may be a hard ask. He may keep his seat, but I would bet if he does his majority will suffer a caning.

I would suggest that any Libdem sitting in a seat where his majority is lower than the drop in the Labour vote since 1997 could be in trouble.

Places like Sutton and Cheam, where the Libdems have never had a majority of more than 2000-3000 and the Labour vote from the vast St Helier council estate has been lent to the liberals (seeing Labour drop from 7,280 in 1997 to 3,376 in 2010 are obviously more vulnerable.

1997 was a long time ago. Those Labour voters have moved on. They are not going to be attracted to Milibandism. I think that rural East Anglia no longer has the Labour tradition that it used to. Labour struggles to hold even urban seats like Norwich or Ipswich. UKIP (possibly) may pick up the old Labour vote here, but not Labour itself.

We shall see shortly how effective personal votes are. "I hate Clegg and Cameron, but that Lamb bloke is alright..."

anotherDave

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Paul_Mid_Beds said:

People like Lamb depend entirely on continuing to borrow Labours voters, which after five years of coalition with the Tories may be a hard ask. He may keep his seat, but I would bet if he does his majority will suffer a caning.

I would suggest that any Libdem sitting in a seat where his majority is lower than the drop in the Labour vote since 1997 could be in trouble.

This comment makes the mistake of believing people who've been voting Lib Dem for 15-20 years still see themselves as Labour voters who are merely lending their support. That simply isn't right. It also misses the many small "c" conservative voters in NN who liked their old Tory MP and like their current Lib Dem one. Finally, it ignores UKIP, who will take thousands of Tory votes here.

No doubt we'll have to agree to disagree, but you'll certainly find come May that this isn't anywhere near to close.

The 2013 local elections were a three way tie.

Con: 8,774
LD: 8,388
UKIP: 8,330
Lab: 5,234
Green: 1,377
Others: 588

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/norfolknorth/comment-page-1/#comment-12936

Charles

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

This comment makes the mistake of believing people who've been voting Lib Dem for 15-20 years still see themselves as Labour voters who are merely lending their support. That simply isn't right.

Are you sure they are "LibDems" vs "not-Tories"?

If the latter then the impact could be severe

kle4

foxinsoxuk said:

Paul_Mid_Beds said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Paul_Mid_Beds said:

Mr Lamb has to retain his seat first.

While he had a majority of about 12,000 in 2005 and 2010 he won it by a knife edge in 2001 and the Tories held it in he Tories.

But the fact it

On the contrary, its a lesson in how the Libdems successfully presented themselves as all things to all men to attract Labour voters.

In 1997 this seat (which was a safe Labour seat throughout the '50s and '60s got 14,736 Labour voters. In 2010, Labour got 2,896.

The labour vote dropped by 11,840 between 1997 and 2010. Lambs Majority in 2010 was 214 votes less than this at 11,626.

People like Lamb depend entirely on continuing to borrow Labours voters, which after five years of coalition with the Tories may be a hard ask. He may keep his seat, but I would bet if he does his majority will suffer a caning.

I would suggest that any Libdem sitting in a seat where his majority is lower than the drop in the Labour vote since 1997 could be in trouble.

Places like Sutton and Cheam, where the Libdems have never had a majority of more than 2000-3000 and the Labour vote from the vast St Helier council estate has been lent to the liberals (seeing Labour drop from 7,280 in 1997 to 3,376 in 2010 are obviously more vulnerable.

1997 was a long time ago. Those Labour voters have moved on. They are not going to be attracted to Milibandism. I think that rural East Anglia no longer has the Labour tradition that it used to.

I can see that, to a degree. There are many places that just don't vote Labour anymore, if not as many areas that just don't vote for their opponents. But if the LDs look like no hopers nationally, which they do, even if those people are not attracted to Milibandism, they might be attracted by anti-Toryism and vote for his people anyway, in enough numbers to make a difference in some places. Maybe not, and maybe UKIP end up hoovering up those votes, but I used to think the LDs would begin to rise and end up with seats in the mid 30s, so now I assume the very worst for them in all circumstances, as the very worst appears to be where they are headed.

Charles

anotherDave said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Paul_Mid_Beds said:

People like Lamb depend entirely on continuing to borrow Labours voters, which after five years of coalition with the Tories may be a hard ask. He may keep his seat, but I would bet if he does his majority will suffer a caning.

I would suggest that any Libdem sitting in a seat where his majority is lower than the drop in the Labour vote since 1997 could be in trouble.

This comment makes the mistake of believing people who've been voting Lib Dem for 15-20 years still see themselves as Labour voters who are merely lending their support. That simply isn't right. It also misses the many small "c" conservative voters in NN who liked their old Tory MP and like their current Lib Dem one. Finally, it ignores UKIP, who will take thousands of Tory votes here.

No doubt we'll have to agree to disagree, but you'll certainly find come May that this isn't anywhere near to close.

The 2013 local elections were a three way tie.

Con: 8,774
LD: 8,388
UKIP: 8,330
Lab: 5,234
Green: 1,377
Others: 588

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/norfolknorth/comment-page-1/#comment-12936

Hmmh.

If a lot of the LD retentions are suddenly marginals vs safe seats how does that impact the likelihood of them joining a government after May?

They do have a maggot-like tendency to burrow into their seats - so, if they suddenly feel personally much more vulnerable are they going to want to redouble their efforts. That suggests (a) an innate preference for opposition and (b) a desire to spend less time ministering and more time burrowing

MikeSmithson

Another thread where the old mistake is made.

In your constituency you vote for an individual not a party or a party leader.

Charles

Anecdote alert

I had lunch yesterday with someone who, although not very political himself (he's a Coalitionista) has the benefit of knowing personally senior folks on all sides of the political divide (and not just the big 3).

He mentioned that the internal consensus in Westminster is for hung parliament, Labour minority government with tacit support from the SNP and 22-24 LibDems.

Make of that what you will!

kle4

MikeSmithson said:

Another thread where the old mistake is made.

In your constituency you vote for an individual not a party or a party leader.

Another thread where the impact of the above fact is overstated in most cases, hence the old standby of a donkey in the right rosette winning safe seats being also true, which if we took the above as the sole or most vital factor, would not be the case.

Charles

MikeSmithson said:

Another thread where the old mistake is made.

In your constituency you vote for an individual not a party or a party leader.

You are a dreamer, Mike.

Theoretically, you are 100% right.

But time and time again, you see the vast majority of voters making their decision based on party colours vs the specific merits of individual candidates.

volcanopete

Lamb suffers from the pious sanctimony of the hypocrite-he cuts mental health services by 20% then acts as the guarantor.If the LDs select a leader as nauseous as him,there's a future for all previous kamikaze pilots.

DavidL

At the risk of being superficial and somewhat sexist about this in a televisual age does this man look like a leader? To me he looks like someone's slightly past it dad. As a slightly past it dad myself I don't think that this is the end of the world but my guess would be that the Lib Dems will go for someone that at least looks a bit younger and slightly more dynamic.

nigel4england

MikeSmithson said:

Another thread where the old mistake is made.

In your constituency you vote for an individual not a party or a party leader.

If that is true Mike then why I are you swapping your constituency vote with someone in Twickenham?

FrancisUrquhart

ITV could 'break ranks' with the other major broadcasters in an attempt to lure the Prime Minister to its debate

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2984637/ITV-break-ranks-major-broadcasters-attempt-lure-Prime-Minister-debate.html

MikeSmithson

Charles said:

MikeSmithson said:

Another thread where the old mistake is made.

In your constituency you vote for an individual not a party or a party leader.

You are a dreamer, Mike.

Theoretically, you are 100% right.

But time and time again, you see the vast majority of voters making their decision based on party colours vs the specific merits of individual candidates.

Except in LD seats

saddened

MikeSmithson said:

Another thread where the old mistake is made.

In your constituency you vote for an individual not a party or a party leader.

I doubt the vast majority of people even know the name of their candidate prior to entering the booth and looking it up by scrolling down the list to find the party they intend to vote for.

anotherDave

North Norfolk District Council 2014 EU Parliament result.

UKIP 12,260
Con 8,423
LD 4,432
Lab 3,552
Green 2,829

http://www.northnorfolk.org/files/NNDC-Statement_of_Local_Results_2014.pdf

Sean_F

MikeSmithson said:

Another thread where the old mistake is made.

In your constituency you vote for an individual not a party or a party leader.

I think it depends on the constituency. It's very much the case in Cornwall, rural Wales, and rural Scotland that people vote for the individual, rather than party. Likewise in seats where the MP (usually Lib Dem) has aquired a large personal following.

In other seats, people are clearly voting for the party.

kle4

MikeSmithson said:

Charles said:

MikeSmithson said:

Another thread where the old mistake is made.

In your constituency you vote for an individual not a party or a party leader.

You are a dreamer, Mike.

Theoretically, you are 100% right.

But time and time again, you see the vast majority of voters making their decision based on party colours vs the specific merits of individual candidates.

Except in LD seats

I hope so - with UKIP not really able to suddenly get several dozen seats, it would be unfortunate for the LDs to be reduced as far as currently looks probable, as I personally think a strong third party is a good thing. I guess the SNP will cover that this time, but is a bit less personally preferable for me.

daodao

It is unacceptable for the SNP to be in a position to influence the government of the UK, even via C&S. Like SF in 1918, they are enemies of this state and a grand coalition, as suggested by 2 Tory elder statesmen, is preferable to a Lab-SNP arrangement, if no other combination commands an OM in the HoC. The Tories need to pursue EM's refusal to rule out collaboration with the SNP as unpatriotic. This might lead to a Scottish UDI, but IMO this is inevitable if the SNP do as well in 2015 as SF did in 1918.

SquareRoot

FrancisUrquhart said:

ITV could 'break ranks' with the other major broadcasters in an attempt to lure the Prime Minister to its debate

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2984637/ITV-break-ranks-major-broadcasters-attempt-lure-Prime-Minister-debate.html

"Rival broadcaster"

LOL

The BBC don't like it up em do they.... Nothing would please me more, they are bunch of arrogant sods who think they know what is best for us. The more the BBC get stabbed in the back the better and not just in the political sphere.

Alistair

daodao said:

It is unacceptable for the SNP to be in a position to influence the government of the UK, even via C&S. Like SF in 1918, they are enemies of this state and a grand coalition, as suggested by 2 Tory elder statesmen, is preferable to a Lab-SNP arrangement, if no other combination commands an OM in the HoC. The Tories need to pursue EM's refusal to rule out collaboration with the SNP as unpatriotic. This might lead to a Scottish UDI, but IMO this is inevitable if the SNP do as well in 2015 as SF did in 1918.

2015 is not about independence unless the other parties make it about independence. The Scottish elections next year will be about independence.

Roger

A lot of posters believe that as the election approaches the Tories will move into a small lead which just grow and grow like a boil until it's brought to a halt by the election.

There's a smaller number who believe that Ed and Labour are just waiting till they see the whites of the Tory eyes to launch a counter offensive so powrful and explosive that it'll blow them out of the water......

.......Something that points to the way the Tories are transforming Britain into an image of themselves. Something that has its roots in 'Maggies Broken Britain' which modesty forbids me mentioning. Something that makes people angry like a million people using food banks and tens of thousands of disabled being forced to leave their homes because of the Bedroom Tax........

anotherDave

Roger said:

There's a smaller number who believe that Ed and Labour are just waiting till they see the whites of the Tory eyes to launch a counter offensive so powrful and explosive that it'll blow the Tories out of the water......

Do these people live in the UK?

Charles

MikeSmithson said:

Charles said:

MikeSmithson said:

Another thread where the old mistake is made.

In your constituency you vote for an individual not a party or a party leader.

You are a dreamer, Mike.

Theoretically, you are 100% right.

But time and time again, you see the vast majority of voters making their decision based on party colours vs the specific merits of individual candidates.

Except in LD seats

You are saying that no one rational would vote for the party based on their policies then?

I'd like some evidence please. Most of the stats I've seen suggest that personal votes are, at best, 1-3,000.

The LibDems have done well historically by (a) maxing the personal vote through hard work (b) squeezing Labour voters ["only we can beat the Tories"] and (c) being the repository of NOTA.

That's not "voting for an individual not a party or party leader"

saddened

Roger said:

A lot of posters believe that as the election approaches the Tories will move into a small lead which just grow and grow like a boil until it's brought to a halt by the election.

There's a smaller number who believe that Ed and Labour are just waiting till they see the whites of the Tory eyes to launch a counter offensive so powrful and explosive that it'll blow the Tories out of the water......

.......Something that points to the way the Tories are transforming Britain into an image of themselves. Something that has its roots in 'Maggies Broken Britain' which modesty forbids me mentioning. Something that makes people angry like a million people using food banks and tens of thousands of disabled being forced to leave their homes of generations because of the Bedroom Tax........


Let's wait and see

Care to point to any factual cases of the disabled being driven from their homes?

Scott_P

Roger said:

Labour are just waiting till they see the whites of the Tory eyes to launch a counter offensive so powerful and explosive that it'll blow the Tories out of the water......

Something of the calibre of 'Ed will make it illegal not to appear on television with him...'

Can't wait

kle4

Alistair said:

daodao said:

It is unacceptable for the SNP to be in a position to influence the government of the UK, even via C&S. Like SF in 1918, they are enemies of this state and a grand coalition, as suggested by 2 Tory elder statesmen, is preferable to a Lab-SNP arrangement, if no other combination commands an OM in the HoC. The Tories need to pursue EM's refusal to rule out collaboration with the SNP as unpatriotic. This might lead to a Scottish UDI, but IMO this is inevitable if the SNP do as well in 2015 as SF did in 1918.

2015 is not about independence unless the other parties make it about independence.

It is hard not to make it so if the will of the Scottish people is that they want their UK Parliamentary reps to overwhelmingly be in favour of independence. Sure it may not be first on the agenda immediately following the election, but it's hard not to imagine things heading down that route again as a result.

Charles

saddened said:

Roger said:

A lot of posters believe that as the election approaches the Tories will move into a small lead which just grow and grow like a boil until it's brought to a halt by the election.

There's a smaller number who believe that Ed and Labour are just waiting till they see the whites of the Tory eyes to launch a counter offensive so powrful and explosive that it'll blow the Tories out of the water......

.......Something that points to the way the Tories are transforming Britain into an image of themselves. Something that has its roots in 'Maggies Broken Britain' which modesty forbids me mentioning. Something that makes people angry like a million people using food banks and tens of thousands of disabled being forced to leave their homes of generations because of the Bedroom Tax........


Let's wait and see

Care to point to any factual cases of the disabled being driven from their homes?

Plus explain why the local councils chose not to use the "hard case" funds made available for them to deal with these specific situations

nigel4england

This is a scandal:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2984529/Cabinet-office-child-abuse-cover-MoS-beats-attempt-No10-gag-VIP-file-shows-Thatcher-knew-paedophile-MP-Cyril-Smith.html

Also the piece near the bottom about them not even naming the four files they have found, which I am sure will somehow manage to get lost, is disgusting.

I'm so sick of the political class i'm not sure I want to vote for any of the scumbags.

Alanbrooke

kle4 said:

Alistair said:

daodao said:

It is unacceptable for the SNP to be in a position to influence the government of the UK, even via C&S. Like SF in 1918, they are enemies of this state and a grand coalition, as suggested by 2 Tory elder statesmen, is preferable to a Lab-SNP arrangement, if no other combination commands an OM in the HoC. The Tories need to pursue EM's refusal to rule out collaboration with the SNP as unpatriotic. This might lead to a Scottish UDI, but IMO this is inevitable if the SNP do as well in 2015 as SF did in 1918.

2015 is not about independence unless the other parties make it about independence.

It is hard not to make it so if the will of the Scottish people is that they want their UK Parliamentary reps to overwhelmingly be in favour of independence. Sure it may not be first on the agenda immediately following the election, but it's hard not to imagine things heading down that route again as a result.

" the will of the Scottish people"

I thought that only counted if it gives the Nats right result ?

MikeSmithson

SquareRoot said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

ITV could 'break ranks' with the other major broadcasters in an attempt to lure the Prime Minister to its debate

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2984637/ITV-break-ranks-major-broadcasters-attempt-lure-Prime-Minister-debate.html

"Rival broadcaster"

LOL

The BBC don't like it up em do they.... Nothing would please me more, they are bunch of arrogant sods who think they know what is best for us. The more the BBC get stabbed in the back the better and not just in the political sphere.

What tedious ill-thought out crap. Sky is the one that has been leading on this but your peurile hatred of the BBC gets the better of you.

maaarsh

MikeSmithson said:

Another thread where the old mistake is made.

In your constituency you vote for an individual not a party or a party leader.

The ballot paper has the name of an individual and the name of a party. I know far more people who use the name of the party as the guide for which box to mark, than otherwise.

isam

We must be mad, literally mad. It is like watching a nation, busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre

Michael Heaver (@Michael_Heaver)
08/03/2015 09:01
We've let 300 jihadists go and fight for Islamic State then come back into Britain. We must be insane. tgr.ph/1GuJJKd

FluffyThoughts

Charles said:

RobD said:

JackW said:

Latest ARSE with added APLOMB 2015 General Election & "JackW Dozen" Projection Countdown :

50 hours

Hopefully with added BRAN to ensure smooth and timely delivery.

British Regionalised Audited Numerology?

Surely: Brainlessly Recycled Auld News...?

:joke-w-107-since-2008:

kle4

Alanbrooke said:

kle4 said:

Alistair said:

daodao said:

It is unacceptable for the SNP to be in a position to influence the government of the UK, even via C&S. Like SF in 1918, they are enemies of this state and a grand coalition, as suggested by 2 Tory elder statesmen, is preferable to a Lab-SNP arrangement, if no other combination commands an OM in the HoC. The Tories need to pursue EM's refusal to rule out collaboration with the SNP as unpatriotic. This might lead to a Scottish UDI, but IMO this is inevitable if the SNP do as well in 2015 as SF did in 1918.

2015 is not about independence unless the other parties make it about independence.

It is hard not to make it so if the will of the Scottish people is that they want their UK Parliamentary reps to overwhelmingly be in favour of independence. Sure it may not be first on the agenda immediately following the election, but it's hard not to imagine things heading down that route again as a result.

" the will of the Scottish people"

I thought that only counted if it gives the Nats right result ?

Even if they don't they act like they did, so who knows?

Scott_P

@nicholaswatt: We do not want, we do not need + we are not planning coalition with @theSNP which is not social conscience of @UKLabour - @CarolineFlintMP

but we would do it in a heartbeat...

@IsabelHardman: If you’re into politicians dodging questions, Caroline Flint’s performance just then on Marr was v.good as she avoided ruling out SNP pact.

MikeSmithson

anotherDave said:

North Norfolk District Council 2014 EU Parliament result.

UKIP 12,260
Con 8,423
LD 4,432
Lab 3,552
Green 2,829

http://www.northnorfolk.org/files/NNDC-Statement_of_Local_Results_2014.pdf

And your point?

MikeSmithson

maaarsh said:

MikeSmithson said:

Another thread where the old mistake is made.

In your constituency you vote for an individual not a party or a party leader.

The ballot paper has the name of an individual and the name of a party. I know far more people who use the name of the party as the guide for which box to mark, than otherwise.

So your theory is based on unquantified anecdote.

Go look at the Ashcroft polls.

Alistair

kle4 said:

Alistair said:

daodao said:

It is unacceptable for the SNP to be in a position to influence the government of the UK, even via C&S. Like SF in 1918, they are enemies of this state and a grand coalition, as suggested by 2 Tory elder statesmen, is preferable to a Lab-SNP arrangement, if no other combination commands an OM in the HoC. The Tories need to pursue EM's refusal to rule out collaboration with the SNP as unpatriotic. This might lead to a Scottish UDI, but IMO this is inevitable if the SNP do as well in 2015 as SF did in 1918.

2015 is not about independence unless the other parties make it about independence.

It is hard not to make it so if the will of the Scottish people is that they want their UK Parliamentary reps to overwhelmingly be in favour of independence. Sure it may not be first on the agenda immediately following the election, but it's hard not to imagine things heading down that route again as a result.

Sure, but there is no mandate to call a second referendum. That mandate will come (or be rejected) at the Holyrood elections. However if Labour and the Conservatives keep banging on about how terribly unfair it is for UK citizens to elect MPs then they are making a fait accompli

MikeSmithson

Alistair said:

kle4 said:

Alistair said:

daodao said:

It is unacceptable for the SNP to be in a position to influence the government of the UK, even via C&S. Like SF in 1918, they are enemies of this state and a grand coalition, as suggested by 2 Tory elder statesmen, is preferable to a Lab-SNP arrangement, if no other combination commands an OM in the HoC. The Tories need to pursue EM's refusal to rule out collaboration with the SNP as unpatriotic. This might lead to a Scottish UDI, but IMO this is inevitable if the SNP do as well in 2015 as SF did in 1918.

2015 is not about independence unless the other parties make it about independence.

It is hard not to make it so if the will of the Scottish people is that they want their UK Parliamentary reps to overwhelmingly be in favour of independence. Sure it may not be first on the agenda immediately following the election, but it's hard not to imagine things heading down that route again as a result.

Sure, but there is no mandate to call a second referendum. That mandate will come (or be rejected) at the Holyrood elections. However if Labour and the Conservatives keep banging on about how terribly unfair it is for UK citizens to elect MPs then they are making a fait accompli

What about those Salmond statements pre-Sept 18 about this being Scotland's only chance and there wouldn't be another referendum in a generation? Was he telling lies?

stodge

Paul_Mid_Beds said:

Places like Sutton and Cheam, where the Libdems have never had a majority of more than 2000-3000 and the Labour vote from the vast St Helier council estate has been lent to the liberals (seeing Labour drop from 7,280 in 1997 to 3,376 in 2010 are obviously more vulnerable.

Similarly, Carshalton & Wallington Liberals rely on Labour voters in the Roundshaw council estate. (Lab 11,575-4, 015 1997-2010)

One of the unfortunate consequences of freedom of speech is we are forced to endure such half-baked nonsense as this.

The St Helier Estate sits within Carshalton & Wallington Constituency in Sutton and within the Mitcham & Morden constituency in the Borough of Merton. None of it is within the Sutton & Cheam Constituency.

Now you could have bothered to check your facts but far more important to make some half-witted comment to make a cheap political jibe. Presumably given your chronic inability to perform even the slightest research, we should all now treat your rantings with the contempt they deserve.

The comment about Roundshaw is even more pitiful. The estate isn't large enough to have the influence you give it and I can't remember a Labour Councillor ever having elected for the Ward in which it sits.

Charles

Alistair said:

kle4 said:

Alistair said:

daodao said:

It is unacceptable for the SNP to be in a position to influence the government of the UK, even via C&S. Like SF in 1918, they are enemies of this state and a grand coalition, as suggested by 2 Tory elder statesmen, is preferable to a Lab-SNP arrangement, if no other combination commands an OM in the HoC. The Tories need to pursue EM's refusal to rule out collaboration with the SNP as unpatriotic. This might lead to a Scottish UDI, but IMO this is inevitable if the SNP do as well in 2015 as SF did in 1918.

2015 is not about independence unless the other parties make it about independence.

It is hard not to make it so if the will of the Scottish people is that they want their UK Parliamentary reps to overwhelmingly be in favour of independence. Sure it may not be first on the agenda immediately following the election, but it's hard not to imagine things heading down that route again as a result.

Sure, but there is no mandate to call a second referendum. That mandate will come (or be rejected) at the Holyrood elections. However if Labour and the Conservatives keep banging on about how terribly unfair it is for UK citizens to elect MPs then they are making a fait accompli

The issue will come after 2015 if the SNP MPs act in a way calculated to damage the Union.

I'd read the message from 2014/2015 as "we want to remain in the Union but want a party that will fight for our interests first". That's a legitimate position, but a narrow path to travel

MarqueeMark

MikeSmithson said:

SquareRoot said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

ITV could 'break ranks' with the other major broadcasters in an attempt to lure the Prime Minister to its debate

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2984637/ITV-break-ranks-major-broadcasters-attempt-lure-Prime-Minister-debate.html

"Rival broadcaster"

LOL

The BBC don't like it up em do they.... Nothing would please me more, they are bunch of arrogant sods who think they know what is best for us. The more the BBC get stabbed in the back the better and not just in the political sphere.

What tedious ill-thought out crap. Sky is the one that has been leading on this but your peurile hatred of the BBC gets the better of you.

This will be the same Mike Smithson with this on his CV?

"For 13 years Mike was a journalist with BBC News"

Admit it, you aren't exactly impartial on this are you Mike?

maaarsh

MikeSmithson said:

maaarsh said:

MikeSmithson said:

Another thread where the old mistake is made.

In your constituency you vote for an individual not a party or a party leader.

The ballot paper has the name of an individual and the name of a party. I know far more people who use the name of the party as the guide for which box to mark, than otherwise.

So your theory is based on unquantified anecdote.

Go look at the Ashcroft polls.

I'd love to know which part of those polls provides evidence that a majority of voters are motivated by the individual candidate rather than the party, let alone rules out any voting for the party as your BOLD statement claims. The correlation between party voting intention and named candidate voting intention, of course, pretty strong.

It's a simple fact that there is only 1 candidate per party, so regardless of your choice of font, people can (and do) vote for a party in their constituency.

Barnesian

antifrank said:

If the Lib Dems have been thumped, they'll need someone who can persuade the public to take a second look at them. Norman Lamb doesn't look like the right person for that.

He'll have to change his name for a start!

MarqueeMark

MikeSmithson said:

maaarsh said:

MikeSmithson said:

Another thread where the old mistake is made.

In your constituency you vote for an individual not a party or a party leader.

The ballot paper has the name of an individual and the name of a party. I know far more people who use the name of the party as the guide for which box to mark, than otherwise.

So your theory is based on unquantified anecdote.

Go look at the Ashcroft polls.

I am working in Torbay, a tough LibDem-Conservative marginal. The sitting LibDem undoubtedly has a following and plenty of folks are happy to give him their vote.

Until you point out that returning him as an MP would carry a very significant risk of allowing Ed Miliband, Prime Minister. Then many admit it is a risk they are not prepared to take.

Anecdote? Yes. Still highly relevant though. In Torbay, I am regularly finding that voting TO PREVENT A PARTY LEADER is top trumps over voting for an individual. Ed Miliband is toxic.

malcolmg

daodao said:

It is unacceptable for the SNP to be in a position to influence the government of the UK, even via C&S. Like SF in 1918, they are enemies of this state and a grand coalition, as suggested by 2 Tory elder statesmen, is preferable to a Lab-SNP arrangement, if no other combination commands an OM in the HoC. The Tories need to pursue EM's refusal to rule out collaboration with the SNP as unpatriotic. This might lead to a Scottish UDI, but IMO this is inevitable if the SNP do as well in 2015 as SF did in 1918.

Away you thick undemocratic halfwitted nutjob.

john_zims

@DavidL

'At the risk of being superficial and somewhat sexist about this in a televisual age does this man look like a leader'

Makes John Major look radiant...

malcolmg

kle4 said:

Alistair said:

daodao said:

It is unacceptable for the SNP to be in a position to influence the government of the UK, even via C&S. Like SF in 1918, they are enemies of this state and a grand coalition, as suggested by 2 Tory elder statesmen, is preferable to a Lab-SNP arrangement, if no other combination commands an OM in the HoC. The Tories need to pursue EM's refusal to rule out collaboration with the SNP as unpatriotic. This might lead to a Scottish UDI, but IMO this is inevitable if the SNP do as well in 2015 as SF did in 1918.

2015 is not about independence unless the other parties make it about independence.

It is hard not to make it so if the will of the Scottish people is that they want their UK Parliamentary reps to overwhelmingly be in favour of independence. Sure it may not be first on the agenda immediately following the election, but it's hard not to imagine things heading down that route again as a result.

It is a certainty

anotherDave

MikeSmithson said:

anotherDave said:

North Norfolk District Council 2014 EU Parliament result.

UKIP 12,260
Con 8,423
LD 4,432
Lab 3,552
Green 2,829

http://www.northnorfolk.org/files/NNDC-Statement_of_Local_Results_2014.pdf

And your point?

Norfolk North does not look like a 'safe LD seat'.

A three-way tie in the 2013 local elections, LDs third in the 2014 EU election.

malcolmg

Alanbrooke said:

kle4 said:

Alistair said:

daodao said:

It is unacceptable for the SNP to be in a position to influence the government of the UK, even via C&S. Like SF in 1918, they are enemies of this state and a grand coalition, as suggested by 2 Tory elder statesmen, is preferable to a Lab-SNP arrangement, if no other combination commands an OM in the HoC. The Tories need to pursue EM's refusal to rule out collaboration with the SNP as unpatriotic. This might lead to a Scottish UDI, but IMO this is inevitable if the SNP do as well in 2015 as SF did in 1918.

2015 is not about independence unless the other parties make it about independence.

It is hard not to make it so if the will of the Scottish people is that they want their UK Parliamentary reps to overwhelmingly be in favour of independence. Sure it may not be first on the agenda immediately following the election, but it's hard not to imagine things heading down that route again as a result.

" the will of the Scottish people"

I thought that only counted if it gives the Nats right result ?

Tut Tut Alan

Ishmael_X

MikeSmithson said:

maaarsh said:

MikeSmithson said:

Another thread where the old mistake is made.

In your constituency you vote for an individual not a party or a party leader.

The ballot paper has the name of an individual and the name of a party. I know far more people who use the name of the party as the guide for which box to mark, than otherwise.

So your theory is based on unquantified anecdote.

Go look at the Ashcroft polls.

What do the Ashcroft polls have to say about it?

I must say tim's greatest sleight of hand was the introduction of the false dichotomy "anecdotes vs. poll".

I know for a fact that my Tory MP is a lazy, self-regarding slob. It would never occur to me not to vote for him, though, or to inform myself about who his opponents might be. And I can't help noticing that this forum consists of one great debate over the self-evident propositions that Cameron is a principled, far-sighted and above all courageous statesman, and ed is crap. It isn't 650 different conversations about whether candidate Perkins, Snorkins or Jorkins came out best in the brouhaha over the relocation of the municipal bus station the year before last.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. G, not many things are certain.

I wouldn't be surprised if another referendum occurred relatively soon, but it's far from certain.

malcolmg

MikeSmithson said:

Alistair said:

kle4 said:

Alistair said:

daodao said:

It is unacceptable for the SNP to be in a position to influence the government of the UK, even via C&S. Like SF in 1918, they are enemies of this state and a grand coalition, as suggested by 2 Tory elder statesmen, is preferable to a Lab-SNP arrangement, if no other combination commands an OM in the HoC. The Tories need to pursue EM's refusal to rule out collaboration with the SNP as unpatriotic. This might lead to a Scottish UDI, but IMO this is inevitable if the SNP do as well in 2015 as SF did in 1918.

2015 is not about independence unless the other parties make it about independence.

It is hard not to make it so if the will of the Scottish people is that they want their UK Parliamentary reps to overwhelmingly be in favour of independence. Sure it may not be first on the agenda immediately following the election, but it's hard not to imagine things heading down that route again as a result.

Sure, but there is no mandate to call a second referendum. That mandate will come (or be rejected) at the Holyrood elections. However if Labour and the Conservatives keep banging on about how terribly unfair it is for UK citizens to elect MPs then they are making a fait accompli

What about those Salmond statements pre-Sept 18 about this being Scotland's only chance and there wouldn't be another referendum in a generation? Was he telling lies?

Mike, Did you miss him standing down and no longer being involved in the decision.

coolagorna

Barnesian said:

antifrank said:

If the Lib Dems have been thumped, they'll need someone who can persuade the public to take a second look at them. Norman Lamb doesn't look like the right person for that.

He'll have to change his name for a start!

Why? Hes a tabloid headline writers dream

LAMB IS LEADING LIB DEMS TO THE SLAUGHTER
LAMB ROASTED BY ACTIVISTS OVER U TURN
LAMB SHEEPISH AFTER LATEST POLL HUMILIATION

nigel4england

isam said:

We must be mad, literally mad. It is like watching a nation, busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre

Michael Heaver (@Michael_Heaver)
08/03/2015 09:01
We've let 300 jihadists go and fight for Islamic State then come back into Britain. We must be insane. tgr.ph/1GuJJKd

I wonder what they are doing now, probably back at school or college writing pieces titled 'What I did in the summer holidays'

This country beggars belief.

malcolmg

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. G, not many things are certain.

I wouldn't be surprised if another referendum occurred relatively soon, but it's far from certain.

MD, maybe not certain but very close unless Westminster ante up what they promised. They do not have a lot of time.

nigel4england

MikeSmithson said:

maaarsh said:

MikeSmithson said:

Another thread where the old mistake is made.

In your constituency you vote for an individual not a party or a party leader.

The ballot paper has the name of an individual and the name of a party. I know far more people who use the name of the party as the guide for which box to mark, than otherwise.

So your theory is based on unquantified anecdote.

Go look at the Ashcroft polls.

MikeSmithson said:

maaarsh said:

MikeSmithson said:

Another thread where the old mistake is made.

In your constituency you vote for an individual not a party or a party leader.

The ballot paper has the name of an individual and the name of a party. I know far more people who use the name of the party as the guide for which box to mark, than otherwise.

So your theory is based on unquantified anecdote.

Go look at the Ashcroft polls.

The unproven polls that are all over the place?

richardDodd

EdM is determined that the great British Public must have the right to watch TV debates among Party Leaders but denies the very same people the right to determine their future in Europe..I wonder which is the most important "Right"
The boy is a complete Dork

foxinsoxuk

nigel4england said:

isam said:

We must be mad, literally mad. It is like watching a nation, busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre

Michael Heaver (@Michael_Heaver)
08/03/2015 09:01
We've let 300 jihadists go and fight for Islamic State then come back into Britain. We must be insane. tgr.ph/1GuJJKd

I wonder what they are doing now, probably back at school or college writing pieces titled 'What I did in the summer holidays'

This country beggars belief.

Being back at college is a problem too:

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/why-wont-we-tell-students-that-kant-is-better-than-the-koran/16736#.VPwbXRBFCBa

The supine response of Universities to medival obscurantism on campus shows the real intellectual bankrupcy of the west.

Alanbrooke

malcolmg said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. G, not many things are certain.

I wouldn't be surprised if another referendum occurred relatively soon, but it's far from certain.

MD, maybe not certain but very close unless Westminster ante up what they promised. They do not have a lot of time.

Given Scots don't exactly know what they want that should be fun.

Flightpath

nigel4england said:

MikeSmithson said:

maaarsh said:

MikeSmithson said:

Another thread where the old mistake is made.

In your constituency you vote for an individual not a party or a party leader.

The ballot paper has the name of an individual and the name of a party. I know far more people who use the name of the party as the guide for which box to mark, than otherwise.

So your theory is based on unquantified anecdote.

Go look at the Ashcroft polls.

MikeSmithson said:

maaarsh said:

MikeSmithson said:

Another thread where the old mistake is made.

In your constituency you vote for an individual not a party or a party leader.

The ballot paper has the name of an individual and the name of a party. I know far more people who use the name of the party as the guide for which box to mark, than otherwise.

So your theory is based on unquantified anecdote.

Go look at the Ashcroft polls.

The unproven polls that are all over the place?

And probably by different pollsters

JackW

MarqueeMark said:

MikeSmithson said:

maaarsh said:

MikeSmithson said:

Another thread where the old mistake is made.

In your constituency you vote for an individual not a party or a party leader.

The ballot paper has the name of an individual and the name of a party. I know far more people who use the name of the party as the guide for which box to mark, than otherwise.

So your theory is based on unquantified anecdote.

Go look at the Ashcroft polls.

I am working in Torbay, a tough LibDem-Conservative marginal. The sitting LibDem undoubtedly has a following and plenty of folks are happy to give him their vote.

Until you point out that returning him as an MP would carry a very significant risk of allowing Ed Miliband, Prime Minister. Then many admit it is a risk they are not prepared to take.

Anecdote? Yes. Still highly relevant though. In Torbay, I am regularly finding that voting TO PREVENT A PARTY LEADER is top trumps over voting for an individual. Ed Miliband is toxic.

Remember in 2010 the Conservative call :

"Vote yellow get red"

How did that work out in Torbay?? .... Paging Marcus Wood ....