"Does anyone else here head straight to the Scottish crosstab when a poll comes out btw ? Or is that just me."
And the scotes on the boards today is 46% SNP, 28% Lab and 11% Tory!
And for an explanation for this continuing surge look no further than the prejudices and bile flowing from the regular posters to this site . They claim, and perhaps even believe, they are mounting penetrating attacks on the SNP. They come across as purile assaults on an entire country, which are reflected to a greater or lesser extent by the Westminster parties struggling in the SNP's wake.
This is the key of the Loyalist economic insanity. they lack any willingness to believe there is a weakness in the UK, that the UK is challenged financially and that the UK is fiscally bankrupt.
They believe without question the gerrymandering of figures, the burdening of the Scottish accounts with £5bn of debt interest payments Scotland never needed or wanted, £3bn of "UK wide Spending" that ends up spent on London and £1.5bn of Defense spending beyond that which Scotland would reasonably need.
There is no understanding amongst Loyalists that all Scotland needs to do is refuse to fund a continuing English subsidy and it has no borrowing requirement, fiscally positive even at Trough Oil.
The problem is that they have grown up in an indoctrinal State where every part of their education and media provide an echo chamber for a Paternalist "Britain is Best" view of the world which hasn't had any basis in reality for at least 100 years.
Only IS Fundamentalists, such as yourself, have the insight, clarity and knowledge to protect the interests of Scotland and ensure that the country's destiny is secured.
Despite the Tory lead in last night's YG, Lab retain their slight revival in the "part-ELBOW" for the 9 polls so far this week (with Opinium and the Sunday YG remaining). LDs also edging 8% for the first time in 4 weeks, but Greens lowest since mid-December. And UKIP scoring lowest since August (they've scored 14 or more every week up to this week):
Lab 33.8 Con 33.3 UKIP 13.6 LD 8.0 Green 5.7
Lab lead 0.5% (cf. 0.0% w/e 15th Mar, 0.3% 8th Mar, 0.7% 1st Mar)
It seems to me touch and go whether UKPR will give 33/33 or 33/34 to Labour, with both parties hovering around the 33.5% mark.
Timing when that one was done would be nice to know.
Following on from OGH's drawing to our attention of the 36% of 2010 Lib Dems switching to Labour in the marginals. That kin of swing would probably see them take Sheffield Hallam, though it would be close.
Fieldwork was Wednesday and Thursday.
That's 36% of 2010 Lib Dem switching in the Con/Lab marginals.
They are very different beasts in the Lib Dem held seats.
I'd assume they are doing more work in defending their own seats. However the biggest reason their own seats are different is surely because of tactical voting. But if the Tories cannot win Hallam and they can't I'd think, why should a Labour supporter not vote for who they want? Different scenario to the south west.
The mystery for me is why tories don't appear to want to vote tactically for Clegg. Surely, they'd far prefer to see him returned than see the seat go to Labour? If Tory voters had anything like the propensity of Labour voters to vote tactically there'd be no discussion about this seat - Clegg would be absolutely safe.
LD and Lab voters have two left-wing parties to choose from so the journey between the two is trivial. Conservatives, probably, see little point voting for one left-wing party in order that a different left-wing party that is just as hostile to them wins.
I have myself done so in a LD-Lab marginal, essentially to try to make it stay marginal and lure both objectionable parties into allocating resources to fighting each other. Each then has less resource to fight the Conservatives in seats where it might make a difference.
This is probably pretty unusual though and nor is it really a choice the party can endorse.
I won't be voting in May because I am outraged over the Scotland farce, where essentially Westminster bribed Scotland to stay in the Union using my money. I was not consulted - if that was the deal England should have been asked to vote on it.
It was a huge missed opportunity to get rid of our own little East Germany and instead my money is being spent on keeping it.
In 2010 [the LibDems] got 465,000 votes in Scotland: 186,000 of them across the 11 seats they hold. They are consistently now polling at only 4%, which means only 99,000 votes over the whole of Scotland. In 2010 in the 48 seats they did NOT win, they averaged 5,825 votes. Even if this time round they lose 85% of those votes (surely not even the LDs can do worse than that!), that still leaves only 57,000 votes to spread among the 11 seats they hold, or an average of 5,170.
(Other people have made similar points about Labour's total UK vote after adjusting for Scotland). I think this is a flawed way of looking at it. Of course, arithmetically, what Mike says is correct if you assume that the 4% polling will translate into 99,000 votes. But there's a major problem with that assumption when you combine it with a very lumpy vote distribution in the first place. The problem is this: the pollsters aren't polling LibDem-held seats particularly; by far the largest part of their sample will come from the 48 seats which are not LibDem-held. Since the number of LibDem-held seats is small in comparison with this, any effect of the LibDem vote holding up much better in their strongholds will be heavily diluted. There's a separate problem of small sample sizes as well, of course. Combining these two effects means that subtracting an estimated number of votes in non-LibDem-held seats from the total figure of 4% of the electorate is massively error-prone.
Basically, I think you should be very wary of any calculation which involves subtracting an estimated vote in one area or set of constituencies from an estimated national total, and assuming the the difference must equate to the rest of the country. It's not a valid way of looking at it.
[None of this means that the LibDems aren't in deep do-dah in Scotland, of course!]
I think the best estimate of what's going to happen to the LDs comes from the 2011 Holyrood election - constituency vote.
And that says they will hold Orkney&Shetland and that's it. That seems to mesh with reality and basic vote modelling so that seems a fine assumption to make.
The only difference is that Labour have Previous on destroying the economy - there are only (unfounded) FEARS of the Tories destroying the NHS.
@PickardJE: Not sure how Labour claims that Tories will cut NHS spending tally with Miliband saying re general election: "Fear and smear won’t work."
Would that be the same Ed Miliband who said he would turn his back on photo opportunities and other media gimmicks to focus on the issues at the same time as trying to hire a £80,000 a year television spin doctor?
Timing when that one was done would be nice to know.
Following on from OGH's drawing to our attention of the 36% of 2010 Lib Dems switching to Labour in the marginals. That kin of swing would probably see them take Sheffield Hallam, though it would be close.
Fieldwork was Wednesday and Thursday.
That's 36% of 2010 Lib Dem switching in the Con/Lab marginals.
They are very different beasts in the Lib Dem held seats.
I'd assume they are doing more work in defending their own seats. However the biggest reason their own seats are different is surely because of tactical voting. But if the Tories cannot win Hallam and they can't I'd think, why should a Labour supporter not vote for who they want? Different scenario to the south west.
The mystery for me is why tories don't appear to want to vote tactically for Clegg. Surely, they'd far prefer to see him returned than see the seat go to Labour? If Tory voters had anything like the propensity of Labour voters to vote tactically there'd be no discussion about this seat - Clegg would be absolutely safe.
Tories don't do tactical voting.
Yes, but if ever there was a case for it, it's 2015 in Sheffield Hallam. Personally as a lefty I think Clegg losing his seat would be hilarious - but as I say I just don't understand why tories in the seat wouldn't want to prevent him losing. Arguably, they owe him a certain amount of gratitude ...
I'm tempted to vote tactically for Clegg.
That was never a condition of our agreement, nor was giving Han to this bounty hunter!
I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further.
Does Labour write the BBC articles... today's good debt numbers..
"February's government borrowing totalled £6.9bn, a fall of £3.5bn.
The government's latest target to borrow £90.2bn in the current fiscal year looks likely but it has failed in its plans to eliminate the deficit by 2015. "
If you haven't realised this by now then where have you been? This is more obvious than most, but watch out for 'Labour says...' reporting on any good news and the political allegiance of any Tory or UKIP politician being named whenever slightly dubious events occur, but not a Labour one. Other examples are think tanks criticising the Coalition, but 'right wing think tanks' praising them (as well as any organisation criticising Labour being described as 'far right' even when they are more socialist than the SWP).
Timing when that one was done would be nice to know.
Following on from OGH's drawing to our attention of the 36% of 2010 Lib Dems switching to Labour in the marginals. That kin of swing would probably see them take Sheffield Hallam, though it would be close.
Fieldwork was Wednesday and Thursday.
That's 36% of 2010 Lib Dem switching in the Con/Lab marginals.
They are very different beasts in the Lib Dem held seats.
I'd assume they are doing more work in defending their own seats. However the biggest reason their own seats are different is surely because of tactical voting. But if the Tories cannot win Hallam and they can't I'd think, why should a Labour supporter not vote for who they want? Different scenario to the south west.
The mystery for me is why tories don't appear to want to vote tactically for Clegg. Surely, they'd far prefer to see him returned than see the seat go to Labour? If Tory voters had anything like the propensity of Labour voters to vote tactically there'd be no discussion about this seat - Clegg would be absolutely safe.
LD and Lab voters have two left-wing parties to choose from so the journey between the two is trivial. Conservatives, probably, see little point voting for one left-wing party in order that a different left-wing party that is just as hostile to them wins.
I have myself done so in a LD-Lab marginal, essentially to try to make it stay marginal and lure both objectionable parties into allocating resources to fighting each other. Each then has less resource to fight the Conservatives in seats where it might make a difference.
This is probably pretty unusual though and nor is it really a choice the party can endorse.
I won't be voting in May because I am outraged over the Scotland farce, where essentially Westminster bribed Scotland to stay in the Union using my money. I was not consulted - if that was the deal England should have been asked to vote on it.
It was a huge missed opportunity to get rid of our own little East Germany and instead my money is being spent on keeping it.
Does Labour write the BBC articles... today's good debt numbers..
"February's government borrowing totalled £6.9bn, a fall of £3.5bn.
The government's latest target to borrow £90.2bn in the current fiscal year looks likely but it has failed in its plans to eliminate the deficit by 2015. "
If you haven't realised this by now then where have you been? This is more obvious than most, but watch out for 'Labour says...' reporting on any good news and the political allegiance of any Tory or UKIP politician being named whenever slightly dubious events occur, but not a Labour one. Other examples are think tanks criticising the Coalition, but 'right wing think tanks' praising them (as well as any organisation criticising Labour being described as 'far right' even when they are more socialist than the SWP).
The other classic one they do is they will paraphrase one sentence of what one politician said, which is often not quite what they said and obviously said with no emotion...then we go to the rebuttal....30s audio clip with the emotional entire critic.
Meanwhile, Labour most seats on Betfair is 3.2. You have to admire the chirpiness of Conservative gamblers.
The market reaction to the budget gives an interesting insight into the psychology of punters currently betting on the GE.
The beauty of betfair is that one or two gamblers with a lot of cash and an irrational conviction can skew the odds. In most sports markets, these punters get weeded out very quickly - there's only so many times you can bet on your team winning at crap odds before you realise your bank balance keeps going down.
In politics, those punters only have one opportunity to lose their shirt every 5 years.
If your theory is correct then those odds may stay in place all the way up until the night itself ?
cf; Romney/Intrade 2012
I think the crazy odds lasted until about 8pm uk time on voting day.
The only difference is that Labour have Previous on destroying the economy - there are only (unfounded) FEARS of the Tories destroying the NHS.
@PickardJE: Not sure how Labour claims that Tories will cut NHS spending tally with Miliband saying re general election: "Fear and smear won’t work."
The only remote chance Labour have of winning this election is by raising fear of the NHS - like the 'You don't want Jones Back' slogan of the pigs in Animal Farm. They will hammer this incessantly on Question Time, they will hammer this on the BBC settees, they will hammer this on Sky, On Channel 4 and Channel 5. They will hammer this on WATO and 5-Live, the One Show, HIGNFY and Wake Up to Money. They will never give up.
All this negative campaigning really is a disaster for the UK. With no-one able to present a vision for a better Britain overall I suspect we're heading in the medium term for pork barrel politics with everyone fighting to gt the best deal for their own constituency or region. We are already seeing it with Scotland, as the SNP are seen as best placed to fight for a good deal for the Scots. No doubt England and Wales will follow. There's something to be said for these city deals, greater decentralisation etc but it also smacks of a nation that has lost all sense of purpose.
Could someone name 3 things the SNP have done since Sturgeon took over to shown they have moved radically to the left?
demanded lots of other people's money, spent it, blamed the Tories.
Next
So you have no example, just made up beliefs only found in your own mind fuelled by hatred of Scotland and Scots.
Yes I hate them, I hate them with a passion, that's why I oppose all of them who want to leave the UK just because I hate them so much. I want them to stay in the UK just so I can hate them even more.
Could someone name 3 things the SNP have done since Sturgeon took over to shown they have moved radically to the left?
demanded lots of other people's money, spent it, blamed the Tories.
Next
So you have no example, just made up beliefs only found in your own mind fuelled by hatred of Scotland and Scots.
Yes I hate them, I hate them with a passion, that's why I oppose all of them who want to leave the UK just because I hate them so much. I want them to stay in the UK just so I can hate them even more.
#madasasanatter
IS Fundamentalists hold all truths. We Loyalists are riven by hate.
The only difference is that Labour have Previous on destroying the economy - there are only (unfounded) FEARS of the Tories destroying the NHS.
@PickardJE: Not sure how Labour claims that Tories will cut NHS spending tally with Miliband saying re general election: "Fear and smear won’t work."
The only remote chance Labour have of winning this election is by raising fear of the NHS - like the 'You don't want Jones Back' slogan of the pigs in Animal Farm. They will hammer this incessantly on Question Time, they will hammer this on the BBC settees, they will hammer this on Sky, On Channel 4 and Channel 5. They will hammer this on WATO and 5-Live, the One Show, HIGNFY and Wake Up to Money. They will never give up.
Long time lurker, first time poster: looking at these numbers - bad for Lab, dire for LD - I think Con winning 2+ Scottish seats at 2/1 looks a value bet, which I just put on. Especially with SNP moving so far left under Sturgeon, feels like the Tories have a chance of nicking something in Perth or Angus, as well as Berwickshire from LDs.
Thoughts?
Greetings Mr S. There is a fine balance point in the polling where the SNP do so well that they obliterate Labour, but their writ doesn't quite run to the Borders, where the Tories grab a couple of seats - and actually end up with more seats than Labour in Scotland.
We can only hope the good people of Scotland find that balance point. It would be comedy gold...
Labour. Less seats in Scotland than Loch Ness Monsters....
Timing when that one was done would be nice to know.
Following on from OGH's drawing to our attention of the 36% of 2010 Lib Dems switching to Labour in the marginals. That kin of swing would probably see them take Sheffield Hallam, though it would be close.
Fieldwork was Wednesday and Thursday.
That's 36% of 2010 Lib Dem switching in the Con/Lab marginals.
They are very different beasts in the Lib Dem held seats.
.
The mystery for me is why tories don't appear to want to vote tactically for Clegg. Surely, they'd far prefer to see him returned than see the seat go to Labour? If Tory voters had anything like the propensity of Labour voters to vote tactically there'd be no discussion about this seat - Clegg would be absolutely safe.
Tories don't do tactical voting.
Yes, but if ever there was a case for it, it's 2015 in Sheffield Hallam. Personally as a lefty I think Clegg losing his seat would be hilarious - but as I say I just don't understand why tories in the seat wouldn't want to prevent him losing. Arguably, they owe him a certain amount of gratitude ...
I'm tempted to vote tactically for Clegg.
What it is, but his perfidy over boundary reforms and him vetoing Lord Howard as our next man in Bruxelles when I was on at 25/1 have really pissed me off.
Plus I also want to do everything that the Tories win the popular vote in May.
If I lived in Yeovil I'd vote tactically for the Tories. I haven't seen any odds on them winning it though.
Isnt a vote for David Laws a tactical vote for a Tory? (A Tory who is not too careful about expenses claims at that.)
David Laws making alternative rooming arrangements is one of those political "what ifs" ... no doubt he'd have made a fine CSttT.
Populus better than expected for Labour, though it straddles the budget. I still think we'll be back around level pegging by Monday. To respond to Taffs: polls do tend to oversample Labour and UKIP for some reason. One can read that either way - perhaps these are people who won't vote or aren't even registered, perhaps there really are more and the weighting isn't takinig them sufficiently into account. I doubt if it's a big factor for Labour as the polls have been broadly validated for years by actual elections, but I wouldn't bet on the weighting being accurate either way for UKIP.
The registration issue is interesting, of course. We're not finding that many people not registered in my patch, except for people who absolutely don't give a toss and wouldn't vote anyway. That may well be less true in inner cities, where the question is whether someone who has just moved in (either a mobile young voter or an immigrant) sees it as top priority to register. That will tend not to change the outcome, because inner cities tend to be Labour anyway, but it will change the number of seats in the future, as inner cities ill be downgraded in terms of visible voters.
Crazy odds. The one thing that would concern me about Labour's position is that it's potentially a bit similar to the Lib Dems in 2010. Younger people who didn't vot last time. Miliband's problem remains very clear though. If you look at ICM's figures it's 53% to 21% amongst over 65s. Forget being weird, Ed's problem is pensioners. I'm amazed by the lack of research into why Labour has got such a problem with the over 65s.
It's pretty obvious, isn't it?
1/ Labour patently isn't prepared to wait for them to die to come after their money and is forever eyeing up their homes and pensions.
2/ This demographic is the likeliest to use the NHS and to have noticed that Labour's firehosing money at it actually made it worse - filthier, more dangerous for patients, harder to access, more overcrowded, and so on. So the usual lies simply don't play.
3/ Finally, this demographic is old enough to have seen what Labour is actually like. The likelihood of voting Labour is inversely proportional to the likelihood of having lived through a Labour government. Those who have done so mostly don't vote Labour, whereas those who do vote Labour mostly haven't done so, having not a clue what voting Labour is going to do to them personally and to everyone else as well.
To be fair, neither do most people know that. As I may have hinted, I am unpersuaded of Labour's moral, intellectual, or economic competence. In 1997 though even I wasn't expecting them to fabricate evidence to support an illegal invasion, wreck pensions, double the national debt, inflict lifelong student debts the size of a mortgage on the young, scour Bangladesh for people who could immigrate, go on benefits, and commit voter fraud to Labour advantage, wreck the world's financial system by embedding inept regulation that the world copied, or lose control of the police and watch indulgently as they liquidated Brazilian electricians on the Tube.
I just thought they'd sell a few peerages, cause a recession, lose control of unemployment and inflation, fiddle their mortgages and expenses, fill their boots and their mates' boots, and fatly f>ck their secretaries in the office while wheezing and grunting like pigs - the usual Labour stuff. In the event they did everything on both lists, which shocked even me.
Long time lurker, first time poster: looking at these numbers - bad for Lab, dire for LD - I think Con winning 2+ Scottish seats at 2/1 looks a value bet, which I just put on. Especially with SNP moving so far left under Sturgeon, feels like the Tories have a chance of nicking something in Perth or Angus, as well as Berwickshire from LDs.
Thoughts?
Greetings Mr S. There is a fine balance point in the polling where the SNP do so well that they obliterate Labour, but their writ doesn't quite run to the Borders, where the Tories grab a couple of seats - and actually end up with more seats than Labour in Scotland.
We can only hope the good people of Scotland find that balance point. It would be comedy gold...
Labour. Less seats in Scotland than Loch Ness Monsters....
Black comedy is where given your scenario the English voters give away tory seats to Labour. As Farage would say, it would be 'confusing'.
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB Follow Today's forecast from Oxford's @StephenDFisher has CON lead down to 6 seats.
Wishful thinking on your part I'm afraid Mike - in fact the Tories' lead of 6 seats is precisely the same as in last week's projection. The only change of possible interest, as I pointed out, is that the Yellows are shown as being at an all time low on a miserable 21 seats.
Alistair said: Could someone name 3 things the SNP have done since Sturgeon took over to shown they have moved radically to the left?
Well, dropping the Corporation Tax cut seems like a pretty big step, symbolically shifts the Nats away from a low-tax, Irish style economic model. Didn't mean this as criticism btw, seems to be working well for them in terms of knocking lumps out of SLab. Just wonder if they are not vulnerable on the right at some point.
Cheers for all the welcomes, and I am well used to a bit of cybernat abuse
Populus better than expected for Labour, though it straddles the budget. I still think we'll be back around level pegging by Monday. To respond to Taffs: polls do tend to oversample Labour and UKIP for some reason. One can read that either way - perhaps these are people who won't vote or aren't even registered, perhaps there really are more and the weighting isn't takinig them sufficiently into account. I doubt if it's a big factor for Labour as the polls have been broadly validated for years by actual elections, but I wouldn't bet on the weighting being accurate either way for UKIP.
The registration issue is interesting, of course. We're not finding that many people not registered in my patch, except for people who absolutely don't give a toss and wouldn't vote anyway. That may well be less true in inner cities, where the question is whether someone who has just moved in (either a mobile young voter or an immigrant) sees it as top priority to register. That will tend not to change the outcome, because inner cities tend to be Labour anyway, but it will change the number of seats in the future, as inner cities ill be downgraded in terms of visible voters.
I think Populus have moved from weighting down UKIP too harshly, to weighting them too generously, which is why they haven't given a Conservative lead since August.
Another unsuccessful prosecution by the CPS in relation to Operation Elveden. Either the CPS are utterly useless or they keep taking to trial innocent people.
Clarkson 1 million petition delivered to BBC in a tank driven by Top Gear driver. Tank currently parked facing BBC with its gun pointed straight at it. What symbolism!
Morning all. I've been thinking for a while about the kind of analysis made upthread by MikeGreene:
SNIP
(Other people have made similar points about Labour's total UK vote after adjusting for Scotland). I think this is a flawed way of looking at it. Of course, arithmetically, what Mike says is correct if you assume that the 4% polling will translate into 99,000 votes. But there's a major problem with that assumption when you combine it with a very lumpy vote distribution in the first place. The problem is this: the pollsters aren't polling LibDem-held seats particularly; by far the largest part of their sample will come from the 48 seats which are not LibDem-held. Since the number of LibDem-held seats is small in comparison with this, any effect of the LibDem vote holding up much better in their strongholds will be heavily diluted. There's a separate problem of small sample sizes as well, of course. Combining these two effects means that subtracting an estimated number of votes in non-LibDem-held seats from the total figure of 4% of the electorate is massively error-prone.
Basically, I think you should be very wary of any calculation which involves subtracting an estimated vote in one area or set of constituencies from an estimated national total, and assuming the the difference must equate to the rest of the country. It's not a valid way of looking at it.
[None of this means that the LibDems aren't in deep do-dah in Scotland, of course!]
I'm afraid I don't follow this logic. The Lib Dems hold 11 out of 59 Scottish seats. If the pollsters are doing their job properly, they should be ensuring that voters in Lib Dem-held seats comprise more than a sixth of their sample. So any lumpiness should show up to some extent in the polls, which it doesn't seem to at all.
I could accept your point as a possibility if we were talking about just one poll. But the Lib Dems have been flat on the canvas in poll after poll.
Very occasionally, subsamples have their uses. Survation reports its subsamples via Scottish Parliamentary electoral regions. "Highlands & Islands" covers seven Westminster constituencies, five of which are held by the Lib Dems - Argyll & Bute, Orkney & Shetland, Ross Skye & Lochaber, Inverness Nairn Badenoch & Strathspey and Caithness Sutherland & Easter Ross. In its poll yesterday, it found Lib Dem support in this area at 8.4%. Not much sign of lumpiness there.
Could someone name 3 things the SNP have done since Sturgeon took over to shown they have moved radically to the left?
Apart from abandoning the pledge to cut corporation tax ??
Reduced the drink driving limit to zero (authoritarian left) - screwing golf clubs and other small enterprises.
Urging English voters to vote for the communist Green party.
This would be the change to the drink driving limit that was voted for unanimously?
Yes, and not opposed by the Tories and other authoritarian lefties in the final vote.
Ad the limit wasn't reduced to zero, so no marks to Mr ex-Flashman for accuracy. (In practical terms, it has much the same effect, admittedly: but that's not the same thing.)
Alistair said: Could someone name 3 things the SNP have done since Sturgeon took over to shown they have moved radically to the left?
Well, dropping the Corporation Tax cut seems like a pretty big step, symbolically shifts the Nats away from a low-tax, Irish style economic model. Didn't mean this as criticism btw, seems to be working well for them in terms of knocking lumps out of SLab. Just wonder if they are not vulnerable on the right at some point.
Cheers for all the welcomes, and I am well used to a bit of cybernat abuse
The Corp tax cut in an independent Scotland was couched with so many ifs buts and maybes in the white paper as to be completely useless as a policy promise.
It was to be phased in 1p at a time over a period of years and only if economic conditions were right - what those conditions were wasn't even hinted at.
Meanwhile, Labour most seats on Betfair is 3.2. You have to admire the chirpiness of Conservative gamblers.
The market reaction to the budget gives an interesting insight into the psychology of punters currently betting on the GE.
The beauty of betfair is that one or two gamblers with a lot of cash and an irrational conviction can skew the odds. In most sports markets, these punters get weeded out very quickly - there's only so many times you can bet on your team winning at crap odds before you realise your bank balance keeps going down.
In politics, those punters only have one opportunity to lose their shirt every 5 years.
If your theory is correct then those odds may stay in place all the way up until the night itself ?
cf; Romney/Intrade 2012
I think the crazy odds lasted until about 8pm uk time on voting day.
Indeed, although we now know the situation was deliberately contrived by Romney-backers.
There's no formal research into this matter that I know of, but a fair bit of anecdotal evidence. This includes the stories of how Mike and I first became devotees of betting on politics back in 1997 when punters on the Tories seemed to be in denial about the impending tsunami.
Does Labour write the BBC articles... today's good debt numbers..
"February's government borrowing totalled £6.9bn, a fall of £3.5bn.
The government's latest target to borrow £90.2bn in the current fiscal year looks likely but it has failed in its plans to eliminate the deficit by 2015. "
If you haven't realised this by now then where have you been? This is more obvious than most, but watch out for 'Labour says...' reporting on any good news and the political allegiance of any Tory or UKIP politician being named whenever slightly dubious events occur, but not a Labour one. Other examples are think tanks criticising the Coalition, but 'right wing think tanks' praising them (as well as any organisation criticising Labour being described as 'far right' even when they are more socialist than the SWP).
Everything about the BBC's story is wrong. Which makes its claim to be an objective reporter of record a load of rubbish. The government plans were not to eliminate 'the deficit' by 2015, it was 'the structural deficit'. Because this deficit turned out to be bigger the government extended its plans by two years. The govt is not behind in its plans. A plain lie by the BBC.
Timing when that one was done would be nice to know.
Following on from OGH's drawing to our attention of the 36% of 2010 Lib Dems switching to Labour in the marginals. That kin of swing would probably see them take Sheffield Hallam, though it would be close.
Fieldwork was Wednesday and Thursday.
That's 36% of 2010 Lib Dem switching in the Con/Lab marginals.
They are very different beasts in the Lib Dem held seats.
I'd assume they are doing more work in defending their own seats. However the biggest reason their own seats are different is surely because of tactical voting. But if the Tories cannot win Hallam and they can't I'd think, why should a Labour supporter not vote for who they want? Different scenario to the south west.
The mystery for me is why tories don't appear to want to vote tactically for Clegg. Surely, they'd far prefer to see him returned than see the seat go to Labour? If Tory voters had anything like the propensity of Labour voters to vote tactically there'd be no discussion about this seat - Clegg would be absolutely safe.
Tories don't do tactical voting.
Yes, but if ever there was a case for it, it's 2015 in Sheffield Hallam. Personally as a lefty I think Clegg losing his seat would be hilarious - but as I say I just don't understand why tories in the seat wouldn't want to prevent him losing. Arguably, they owe him a certain amount of gratitude ...
Tactical voting is a classic case of borrowing from the future. If the Tories vote tactically for Clegg in Sheffield Hallam they lose any future hope of winning the seat themselves. If they vote Tory then they have a chance of coming second behind Labour, which would put them in the best position for winning the seat in the election afterwards.
Labour show the danger of what happens if you tactically vote yourself to extinction in vast swathes of the country.
The chance of the Tories maybe getting to second then first place in Sheffield Hallam in some future elections should be balanced by the much more likely and imminent possibility of the Tories requiring a coalition partner to retain power in a few weeks time. If Clegg loses they can give up any idea of a coalition with the Lib Dems 20 to 30 MPs. Frankly they'd be handing that bargaining chip to Labour.
Morning all. I've been thinking for a while about the kind of analysis made upthread by MikeGreene:
SNIP
(Other people have made similar points about Labour's total UK vote after adjusting for Scotland). I think this is a flawed way of looking at it. Of course, arithmetically, what Mike says is correct if you assume that the 4% polling will translate into 99,000 votes. But there's a major problem with that assumption when you combine it with a very lumpy vote distribution in the first place. The problem is this: the pollsters aren't polling LibDem-held seats particularly; by far the largest part of their sample will come from the 48 seats which are not LibDem-held. Since the number of LibDem-held seats is small in comparison with this, any effect of the LibDem vote holding up much better in their strongholds will be heavily diluted. There's a separate problem of small sample sizes as well, of course. Combining these two effects means that subtracting an estimated number of votes in non-LibDem-held seats from the total figure of 4% of the electorate is massively error-prone.
Basically, I think you should be very wary of any calculation which involves subtracting an estimated vote in one area or set of constituencies from an estimated national total, and assuming the the difference must equate to the rest of the country. It's not a valid way of looking at it.
[None of this means that the LibDems aren't in deep do-dah in Scotland, of course!]
I'm afraid I don't follow this logic. The Lib Dems hold 11 out of 59 Scottish seats. If the pollsters are doing their job properly, they should be ensuring that voters in Lib Dem-held seats comprise more than a sixth of their sample. So any lumpiness should show up to some extent in the polls, which it doesn't seem to at all.
I could accept your point as a possibility if we were talking about just one poll. But the Lib Dems have been flat on the canvas in poll after poll.
Very occasionally, subsamples have their uses. Survation reports its subsamples via Scottish Parliamentary electoral regions. "Highlands & Islands" covers seven Westminster constituencies, five of which are held by the Lib Dems - Argyll & Bute, Orkney & Shetland, Ross Skye & Lochaber, Inverness Nairn Badenoch & Strathspey and Caithness Sutherland & Easter Ross. In its poll yesterday, it found Lib Dem support in this area at 8.4%. Not much sign of lumpiness there.
And the betfair market most seats market continues to move to the Tories- Labour now at 2.2, and with buckets of liquidity. I don't think I can remember there ever being such value in a betfair political market when you compare the actual betting and liquidity (i.e. people putting money in) against the polls. Either someone with big resources knows something we don't- private polls perhaps, or I don't know. People just think the Tories are really heavy favourites to win most seats- based I guess on a feeling in their bones.
I have switched back to laying the Tories at a small gain, but I cannot bring myself to go heavily in. I've just bought a Cartier for my wife for putting up with me for over the years so I feel a bit skint.
Clarkson 1 million petition delivered to BBC in a tank driven by Top Gear driver. Tank currently parked facing BBC with its gun pointed straight at it. What symbolism!
Was it actually a tank? To journalists everything with tracks is a tank and every naval ship is a battleship. It's as irritating as the French referring to the British as les Anglais.
I'm afraid I don't follow this logic. The Lib Dems hold 11 out of 59 Scottish seats. If the pollsters are doing their job properly, they should be ensuring that voters in Lib Dem-held seats comprise more than a sixth of their sample. So any lumpiness should show up to some extent in the polls, which it doesn't seem to at all.
I could accept your point as a possibility if we were talking about just one poll. But the Lib Dems have been flat on the canvas in poll after poll.
Very occasionally, subsamples have their uses. Survation reports its subsamples via Scottish Parliamentary electoral regions. "Highlands & Islands" covers seven Westminster constituencies, five of which are held by the Lib Dems - Argyll & Bute, Orkney & Shetland, Ross Skye & Lochaber, Inverness Nairn Badenoch & Strathspey and Caithness Sutherland & Easter Ross. In its poll yesterday, it found Lib Dem support in this area at 8.4%. Not much sign of lumpiness there.
Oh Dear 8.4% in that subsample is beyond awful.
It is on a subsample of 60. So no real weight should be put on it. But it does illustrate that strong Lib Dem areas are being polled and not being too much diluted by sandalphobic areas.
Does Labour write the BBC articles... today's good debt numbers..
"February's government borrowing totalled £6.9bn, a fall of £3.5bn.
The government's latest target to borrow £90.2bn in the current fiscal year looks likely but it has failed in its plans to eliminate the deficit by 2015. "
If you haven't realised this by now then where have you been? This is more obvious than most, but watch out for 'Labour says...' reporting on any good news and the political allegiance of any Tory or UKIP politician being named whenever slightly dubious events occur, but not a Labour one. Other examples are think tanks criticising the Coalition, but 'right wing think tanks' praising them (as well as any organisation criticising Labour being described as 'far right' even when they are more socialist than the SWP).
Everything about the BBC's story is wrong. Which makes its claim to be an objective reporter of record a load of rubbish. The government plans were not to eliminate 'the deficit' by 2015, it was 'the structural deficit'. Because this deficit turned out to be bigger the government extended its plans by two years. The govt is not behind in its plans. A plain lie by the BBC.
A lot of it about do you ever think it might be you?
Another unsuccessful prosecution by the CPS in relation to Operation Elveden. Either the CPS are utterly useless or they keep taking to trial innocent people.
Francis- did you read amount about the amount of resources Brooks put into her defence compared against the minimal resources available to the CPS to prosecute? The CPS are not useless- they are just outgunned and outwitted by the very best that money can by.
'Stig' delivers million signature petition to the BBC in a tank
We haven't heard from SeanT for a few days, just saying like....
"Some say he moonlights as a successful thiller writer, and that he enjoys frequent travel to various exotic locales. All we know is, he's called the Sean Stig!"
Clarkson 1 million petition delivered to BBC in a tank driven by Top Gear driver. Tank currently parked facing BBC with its gun pointed straight at it. What symbolism!
Was it actually a tank? To journalists everything with tracks is a tank and every naval ship is a battleship. It's as irritating as the French referring to the British as les Anglais.
Looks like an Abbot SPG to me but photon isn't great.
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB Follow Today's forecast from Oxford's @StephenDFisher has CON lead down to 6 seats.
Wishful thinking on your part I'm afraid Mike - in fact the Tories' lead of 6 seats is precisely the same as in last week's projection. The only change of possible interest, as I pointed out, is that the Yellows are shown as being at an all time low on a miserable 21 seats.
A fact that was not deemed worth of a mention.
Funny old world........
The talk about how many Lib Dem seats they are likely to hold seems to be around 24-25 now, when it was 30 earlier this year.
'Stig' delivers million signature petition to the BBC in a tank
We haven't heard from SeanT for a few days, just saying like....
"Some say he moonlights as a successful thiller writer, and that he enjoys frequent travel to various exotic locales. All we know is, he's called the Sean Stig!"
Morning all. I've been thinking for a while about the kind of analysis made upthread by MikeGreene:
SNIP
snap
Basically, I think you should be very wary of any calculation which involves subtracting an estimated vote in one area or set of constituencies from an estimated national total, and assuming the the difference must equate to the rest of the country. It's not a valid way of looking at it.
[None of this means that the LibDems aren't in deep do-dah in Scotland, of course!]
I'm afraid I don't follow this logic. The Lib Dems hold 11 out of 59 Scottish seats. If the pollsters are doing their job properly, they should be ensuring that voters in Lib Dem-held seats comprise more than a sixth of their sample. So any lumpiness should show up to some extent in the polls, which it doesn't seem to at all.
I could accept your point as a possibility if we were talking about just one poll. But the Lib Dems have been flat on the canvas in poll after poll.
Very occasionally, subsamples have their uses. Survation reports its subsamples via Scottish Parliamentary electoral regions. "Highlands & Islands" covers seven Westminster constituencies, five of which are held by the Lib Dems - Argyll & Bute, Orkney & Shetland, Ross Skye & Lochaber, Inverness Nairn Badenoch & Strathspey and Caithness Sutherland & Easter Ross. In its poll yesterday, it found Lib Dem support in this area at 8.4%. Not much sign of lumpiness there.
If you have decided you hate the LDs ('if') then surely you would be more not less energised to vote against them in a marginal seat.
Clarkson 1 million petition delivered to BBC in a tank driven by Top Gear driver. Tank currently parked facing BBC with its gun pointed straight at it. What symbolism!
Was it actually a tank? To journalists everything with tracks is a tank and every naval ship is a battleship. It's as irritating as the French referring to the British as les Anglais.
Looks like an Abbot SPG to me but photon isn't great.
EDIT: Definitely an Abbot Self propelled gun.
Still in service in the Indian Army Regiment of Artillery. They currently operate around 80 guns
Nick- I know you probably consider me to be a bit of a disloyal so and so, but it took me a long time to accept Ed as leader. But I have been swayed these last months by his pluckiness and sheer resilience. He is clearly much more able than I have ever given him credit for. Anyway, I'll be keeping a keen eye on Broxtowe- all my best wishes for you and your family personally and for your GE prospects.
Nick- I know you probably consider me to be a bit of a disloyal so and so, but it took me a long time to accept Ed as leader. But I have been swayed these last months by his pluckiness and sheer resilience. He is clearly much more able than I have ever given him credit for. Anyway, I'll be keeping a keen eye on Broxtowe- all my best wishes for you and your family personally and for your GE prospects.
Well, Ed is what gives a Jedi his power. He is an energy field created by all living things. Ed surrounds us and penetrates us. He binds the Galaxy together.
Sun journalists cleared of illegal payments to public officials. Although unknown to the jury a public official, Bettina Jordan-Barber, was convicted and jailed a few weeks ago for ''misconduct in public office''.
Morning all. I've been thinking for a while about the kind of analysis made upthread by MikeGreene:
SNIP
snap
Basically, I think you should be very wary of any calculation which involves subtracting an estimated vote in one area or set of constituencies from an estimated national total, and assuming the the difference must equate to the rest of the country. It's not a valid way of looking at it.
[None of this means that the LibDems aren't in deep do-dah in Scotland, of course!]
I'm afraid I don't follow this logic. The Lib Dems hold 11 out of 59 Scottish seats. If the pollsters are doing their job properly, they should be ensuring that voters in Lib Dem-held seats comprise more than a sixth of their sample. So any lumpiness should show up to some extent in the polls, which it doesn't seem to at all.
I could accept your point as a possibility if we were talking about just one poll. But the Lib Dems have been flat on the canvas in poll after poll.
Very occasionally, subsamples have their uses. Survation reports its subsamples via Scottish Parliamentary electoral regions. "Highlands & Islands" covers seven Westminster constituencies, five of which are held by the Lib Dems - Argyll & Bute, Orkney & Shetland, Ross Skye & Lochaber, Inverness Nairn Badenoch & Strathspey and Caithness Sutherland & Easter Ross. In its poll yesterday, it found Lib Dem support in this area at 8.4%. Not much sign of lumpiness there.
If you have decided you hate the LDs ('if') then surely you would be more not less energised to vote against them in a marginal seat.
Morning all. I've been thinking for a while about the kind of analysis made upthread by MikeGreene:
SNIP
(Other people have made similar points about Labour's total UK vote after adjusting for Scotland). I think this is a flawed way of looking at it. Of course, arithmetically, what Mike says is correct if you assume that the 4% polling will translate into 99,000 votes. But there's a major problem with that assumption when you combine it with a very lumpy vote distribution in the first place. The problem is this: the pollsters aren't polling LibDem-held seats particularly; by far the largest part of their sample will come from the 48 seats which are not LibDem-held. Since the number of LibDem-held seats is small in comparison with this, any effect of the LibDem vote holding up much better in their strongholds will be heavily diluted. There's a separate problem of small sample sizes as well, of course. Combining these two effects means that subtracting an estimated number of votes in non-LibDem-held seats from the total figure of 4% of the electorate is massively error-prone.
Basically, I think you should be very wary of any calculation which involves subtracting an estimated vote in one area or set of constituencies from an estimated national total, and assuming the the difference must equate to the rest of the country. It's not a valid way of looking at it.
[None of this means that the LibDems aren't in deep do-dah in Scotland, of course!]
I'm afraid I don't follow this logic. The Lib Dems hold 11 out of 59 Scottish seats. If the pollsters are doing their job properly, they should be ensuring that voters in Lib Dem-held seats comprise more than a sixth of their sample. So any lumpiness should show up to some extent in the polls, which it doesn't seem to at all.
I could accept your point as a possibility if we were talking about just one poll. But the Lib Dems have been flat on the canvas in poll after poll.
Very occasionally, subsamples have their uses. Survation reports its subsamples via Scottish Parliamentary electoral regions. "Highlands & Islands" covers seven Westminster constituencies, five of which are held by the Lib Dems - Argyll & Bute, Orkney & Shetland, Ross Skye & Lochaber, Inverness Nairn Badenoch & Strathspey and Caithness Sutherland & Easter Ross. In its poll yesterday, it found Lib Dem support in this area at 8.4%. Not much sign of lumpiness there.
This indicates that things are starting to look bad even in Orkney and Zetland. Complete Lib Dem wipe out seems to be on the cards.
In 2010, Osborne laid out spending plans he forecast would reduce the overall ‘structural deficit’ to 0.8 per cent of GDP by 2014-15. But the UK grew more slowly than expected and, in 2011, the OBR revised up how much of the deficit it thought was structural – the implication being that more spending cuts would be needed to eliminate it. By this year’s Budget, the forecast for the 2014-15 structural deficit was 4.5 per cent of GDP.
I love that article, but the Lib Dem efficiency is helped when you're getting one man and his dog voting for them in Motherwell and Wishaw and his dog isn't too sure.
Nick- I know you probably consider me to be a bit of a disloyal so and so, but it took me a long time to accept Ed as leader. But I have been swayed these last months by his pluckiness and sheer resilience. He is clearly much more able than I have ever given him credit for. Anyway, I'll be keeping a keen eye on Broxtowe- all my best wishes for you and your family personally and for your GE prospects.
Thank you very much, Tyson! Ed will do well if he gets in - his willingness to take on vested interests is unusual, though he's accumulated a lot of them gunning for him right now.
I've suggested a PB gathering in Broxtowe during the election, with supporters of different candidates helping out their preferred people and getting together for a late drink afterwards. Haven't had any takers, though PtP has kindly offered to revisit. If anyone else wants to come up and take part in the fun, I can arrange accommodation for Labour people, and expect that other candidates would oblige for their fans.
Comments
Next
I have myself done so in a LD-Lab marginal, essentially to try to make it stay marginal and lure both objectionable parties into allocating resources to fighting each other. Each then has less resource to fight the Conservatives in seats where it might make a difference.
This is probably pretty unusual though and nor is it really a choice the party can endorse.
I won't be voting in May because I am outraged over the Scotland farce, where essentially Westminster bribed Scotland to stay in the Union using my money. I was not consulted - if that was the deal England should have been asked to vote on it.
It was a huge missed opportunity to get rid of our own little East Germany and instead my money is being spent on keeping it.
And that says they will hold Orkney&Shetland and that's it. That seems to mesh with reality and basic vote modelling so that seems a fine assumption to make.
I just know the Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys will annoy proud Englishmen like me tomorrow, like they have done for centuries.
It seems to be the defauly PB Tory position if they don't like something or someone - make accusations of loony left and died in the wool socialist.
But this is hardly surprising given the financial illiteracy they demonstrate whenever Scotland is mentioned.
Apart from abandoning the pledge to cut corporation tax ??
Reduced the drink driving limit to zero (authoritarian left) - screwing golf clubs and other small enterprises.
Urging English voters to vote for the communist Green party.
Looks like being closer than I was hoping!!
because deep down you're french, I'll bet you have no snails in your garden and the pond is a trap for innocent amphibians.
I think the crazy odds lasted until about 8pm uk time on voting day.
Rivoli?
Marengo?
Austerlitz?
Ulm?
Yorktown?
Wagram?
Friedland?
#madasasanatter
I don't think my bank would be very happy with me taking advantage of this one.
France have a long history of teaming up with the Scots to shaft the English.
That's a name I've not heard for a long time.
Labour MP's think unpaid interns are ok too.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/apr/11/labour-cancer-postcards-vince-cable
We can only hope the good people of Scotland find that balance point. It would be comedy gold...
Labour. Less seats in Scotland than Loch Ness Monsters....
Please note, that wasn't a suggestion, politicalbetting.com encourages responsible betting.
http://www.gambleaware.co.uk/
I think I'm right, but on Monday, it is PB's 11th Birthday
The registration issue is interesting, of course. We're not finding that many people not registered in my patch, except for people who absolutely don't give a toss and wouldn't vote anyway. That may well be less true in inner cities, where the question is whether someone who has just moved in (either a mobile young voter or an immigrant) sees it as top priority to register. That will tend not to change the outcome, because inner cities tend to be Labour anyway, but it will change the number of seats in the future, as inner cities ill be downgraded in terms of visible voters.
1/ Labour patently isn't prepared to wait for them to die to come after their money and is forever eyeing up their homes and pensions.
2/ This demographic is the likeliest to use the NHS and to have noticed that Labour's firehosing money at it actually made it worse - filthier, more dangerous for patients, harder to access, more overcrowded, and so on. So the usual lies simply don't play.
3/ Finally, this demographic is old enough to have seen what Labour is actually like. The likelihood of voting Labour is inversely proportional to the likelihood of having lived through a Labour government. Those who have done so mostly don't vote Labour, whereas those who do vote Labour mostly haven't done so, having not a clue what voting Labour is going to do to them personally and to everyone else as well.
To be fair, neither do most people know that. As I may have hinted, I am unpersuaded of Labour's moral, intellectual, or economic competence. In 1997 though even I wasn't expecting them to fabricate evidence to support an illegal invasion, wreck pensions, double the national debt, inflict lifelong student debts the size of a mortgage on the young, scour Bangladesh for people who could immigrate, go on benefits, and commit voter fraud to Labour advantage, wreck the world's financial system by embedding inept regulation that the world copied, or lose control of the police and watch indulgently as they liquidated Brazilian electricians on the Tube.
I just thought they'd sell a few peerages, cause a recession, lose control of unemployment and inflation, fiddle their mortgages and expenses, fill their boots and their mates' boots, and fatly f>ck their secretaries in the office while wheezing and grunting like pigs - the usual Labour stuff. In the event they did everything on both lists, which shocked even me.
"Err yes"
"Home improvements, Mr Pulpstar ?"
"Err No"
"I'm ensuring I can't lose £20 if the French don't achieve a miracle"
"Errm"
Tbh the interest I'd lose would probably cost me a few quid anyway.
Edited to prevent identity fraud :P
Funny old world........
Could someone name 3 things the SNP have done since Sturgeon took over to shown they have moved radically to the left?
Well, dropping the Corporation Tax cut seems like a pretty big step, symbolically shifts the Nats away from a low-tax, Irish style economic model. Didn't mean this as criticism btw, seems to be working well for them in terms of knocking lumps out of SLab. Just wonder if they are not vulnerable on the right at some point.
Cheers for all the welcomes, and I am well used to a bit of cybernat abuse
We haven't heard from SeanT for a few days, just saying like....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31986754
Another unsuccessful prosecution by the CPS in relation to Operation Elveden. Either the CPS are utterly useless or they keep taking to trial innocent people.
She is my new favorite http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/player/260229.html
Clarkson 1 million petition delivered to BBC in a tank driven by Top Gear driver. Tank currently parked facing BBC with its gun pointed straight at it. What symbolism!
I could accept your point as a possibility if we were talking about just one poll. But the Lib Dems have been flat on the canvas in poll after poll.
Very occasionally, subsamples have their uses. Survation reports its subsamples via Scottish Parliamentary electoral regions. "Highlands & Islands" covers seven Westminster constituencies, five of which are held by the Lib Dems - Argyll & Bute, Orkney & Shetland, Ross Skye & Lochaber, Inverness Nairn Badenoch & Strathspey and Caithness Sutherland & Easter Ross. In its poll yesterday, it found Lib Dem support in this area at 8.4%. Not much sign of lumpiness there.
Ad the limit wasn't reduced to zero, so no marks to Mr ex-Flashman for accuracy. (In practical terms, it has much the same effect, admittedly: but that's not the same thing.)
I moved up to Colchester from South Woodham coming up to 2 years ago now.
I get a few more trains an hour from here ;-)
It was to be phased in 1p at a time over a period of years and only if economic conditions were right - what those conditions were wasn't even hinted at.
Bismah Maroof 30 not out
I managed to avoid hedging too
There's no formal research into this matter that I know of, but a fair bit of anecdotal evidence. This includes the stories of how Mike and I first became devotees of betting on politics back in 1997 when punters on the Tories seemed to be in denial about the impending tsunami.
The government plans were not to eliminate 'the deficit' by 2015, it was 'the structural deficit'.
Because this deficit turned out to be bigger the government extended its plans by two years. The govt is not behind in its plans. A plain lie by the BBC.
Frankly they'd be handing that bargaining chip to Labour.
I have switched back to laying the Tories at a small gain, but I cannot bring myself to go heavily in. I've just bought a Cartier for my wife for putting up with me for over the years so I feel a bit skint.
EDIT: Definitely an Abbot Self propelled gun.
The talk about how many Lib Dem seats they are likely to hold seems to be around 24-25 now, when it was 30 earlier this year.
@thomasknox: My Timeline is full of people complaining about how their timelines are full of people complaining about #Clarkson
Nick- I know you probably consider me to be a bit of a disloyal so and so, but it took me a long time to accept Ed as leader. But I have been swayed these last months by his pluckiness and sheer resilience. He is clearly much more able than I have ever given him credit for.
Anyway, I'll be keeping a keen eye on Broxtowe- all my best wishes for you and your family personally and for your GE prospects.
unlucky. Again.
Although unknown to the jury a public official, Bettina Jordan-Barber, was convicted and jailed a few weeks ago for ''misconduct in public office''.
http://www.libdemvoice.org/the-liberal-democrats-could-well-be-on-course-to-improve-our-seat-to-vote-share-bangs-for-the-buck-45073.html
More than 260 people charged following National Crime Agency operation targeting suspected paedophiles
8% of the vote and 21 seats.
A triumph !
I've suggested a PB gathering in Broxtowe during the election, with supporters of different candidates helping out their preferred people and getting together for a late drink afterwards. Haven't had any takers, though PtP has kindly offered to revisit. If anyone else wants to come up and take part in the fun, I can arrange accommodation for Labour people, and expect that other candidates would oblige for their fans.