Tom Knox has regenerated, Doctor Who style, into S K Tremayne.
Thanks for the tip - I've taken a punt on it and contributed to his beer fund.
What did you think of it? I am not sure the latest would engage someone who didn't care a stuff about kids.
It felt a teeny bit like a Stephen King novel ghostwritten by Frederick Forsyth might feel. Although he is doing well with it, so props to him bigtime.
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.
Take an extreme example, with a hypothetical party which gets 5% of the vote in 58 constituencies but 40% of the vote in one constituency. If the pollsters are doing their job completely perfectly, they'll report a national vote share of just a smidgen over 5%.
Suppose they now report a drop in the national vote share to just a smidgen over 3%. What can you tell about the vote in the one constituency where the party was strong? Nothing whatsoever. The poll is dominated by the 58 non-strongholds. What you very definitely can't do is multiply 59 x constituency size x percentage in polls, to get a national total number of votes for the party, make some assumption about how many of those are in the 58 non-strongholds, and then subtact that assumption to get the figure in the stronghold seat - where the vote might not have changed at all (or for that matter might have collapsed even more, you wouldn't be able to tell).
To be clear, I'm not disagreeing with the conclusion that the LibDems are going to be slaughtered in Scotland. There are, as you say, plenty of reasons for assuming they will be (not least the Ashcroft polls). What I'm saying is that you shouldn't rely on subtracting putative vote shares from one set of seats to get a putative vote share for some other set of seats. Statistically the polling is not sensitive enough to support such a calculation, and in any case it's not weighted to ensure that you have a representative sample for such a calculation.
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.
Nonsense, the case against Rebekah Brooks collapsed because they had no evidence against her, to the extent that the prosecution were reduced to wasting court time with irrelevant nonsense about billet-douxs from Tony Blair years after the alleged events.
Tom Knox has regenerated, Doctor Who style, into S K Tremayne.
Thanks for the tip - I've taken a punt on it and contributed to his beer fund.
What did you think of it? I am not sure the latest would engage someone who didn't care a stuff about kids.
It felt a teeny bit like a Stephen King novel ghostwritten by Frederick Forsyth might feel. Although he is doing well with it, so props to him bigtime.
I haven't read it yet - but I have kids so lets see.
It was interesting reading the Tom Knox books when you know about him as an individual; main characters having a young daughter for example.
Two Labour leaflets through the door in Chipping Norton. No mention or picture of Ed, and only one mention over both of David Cameron which seems a bit odd.
Virtually nothing in the news about it but the Guardian's attempt to get Prince Charles' letters to ministers published is hotting up. The supreme court's judgement on whether the government acted illegally in blocking the letters is due next Thursday.
Admittedly it's the Guardian's own story but the government's defence for not publishing seems outrageous. I thought Dominic Grieve was one of the more sensible Tories but he basically seemed to be saying that publishing would threaten Charles' role as a future king so therefore the correspondence must remain private. Essentially the public must live in ignorance of who their future monarch is because if they knew who he was his position would be in jeopardy.
In a modern democratic nation that tries not to sensor information - unbelieveable.
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.)
Still a mistake IMHO whoever voted for it or not. My old man's golf club 19th hole revenue has plummeted and one of the bar staff is about to get his jotters.
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. snip.
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.
The State is a vested interest. ''once a year, just as his personal ratings and public performances bottom out, he picks a well-judged fight with some passing ogre ... these showdowns only stabilise his position ... the people he calls “vested interests”, are just too obvious. Look at that enemies list again: they are all commercial forces of some kind, and pantomime villains at that ... they will not consider a vote for Mr Miliband until he whacks a few vested interests on his own side ... Teaching unions and other public sector lobby groups of the more-money-less-work variety are vested interests. Municipal government fat cats, such as the bureaucrats who out-earn the prime minister, are vested interests. Tax-funded charities and arts bodies are vested interests. Whitehall is a vested interest of mesmerising guile and tenacity. Even big businesses have a vested interest in the state ... he cleaves to his tribe. They might be vested interests, he sometimes seems to be saying, but they are our vested interests.'' http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/42544d70-b5ce-11e4-b58d-00144feab7de.html#axzz3UvoPJKN5
Virtually nothing in the news about it but the Guardian's attempt to get Prince Charles' letters to ministers published is hotting up. The supreme court's judgement on whether the government acted illegally in blocking the letters is due next Thursday.
Admittedly it's the Guardian's own story but the government's defence for not publishing seems outrageous. I thought Dominic Grieve was one of the more sensible Tories but he basically seemed to be saying that publishing would threaten Charles' role as a future king so therefore the correspondence must remain private. Essentially the public must live in ignorance of who their future monarch is because if they knew who he was his position would be in jeopardy.
In a modern democratic nation that tries not to sensor information - unbelieveable.
Whatever happened to privacy? Can we have published every letter ever written by every editor and executive in the Guardian Group please? They are publishing and filtering content and we need to know where they are coming from. The editor of the Guardian, every editor of every paper and the BBC and ITV censor the news every day. Our own Good Host self censored his comment about the 6 seat lead for the Tories.
David Aaronovitch @DAaronovitch 4m4 minutes ago So Labour will destroy the economy versus the Tories will destroy the NHS. Message from the 2 big parties is clear. Vote for someone else.
The only difference is that Labour have Previous on destroying the economy - there are only (unfounded) FEARS of the Tories destroying the NHS.
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.)
Still a mistake IMHO whoever voted for it or not. My old man's golf club 19th hole revenue has plummeted and one of the bar staff is about to get his jotters.
Its a Norwegian socialist/statist type of law. You can always sail to the shop and bars in Norway - not that you can afford the drinks when you get there. The point is why should a Scottish MP have the right to vote on this in England?
Two Labour leaflets through the door in Chipping Norton. No mention or picture of Ed, and only one mention over both of David Cameron which seems a bit odd.
Probably not - unless you're a rabid socialist it is likely that any mention of Cameron will automatically suggest that the voter consider the merits of the two.
FPT. 'Danny565 Posts: 1,404 7:52AM Time to obligatorily wonder just what on earth people were thinking when they tipped Jim Murphy as the party's saviour.'
Its pretty simple really, Jim Murphy was the politician as Scottish Minister who delivered a resounding victory for Labour in Scotland at the last GE. I really believe that some posters on here from down South continue to underestimate just how much of a driving force he was in the political ground war up here in Scotland in 2010. And I am hard pushed to think of anyone else over the last five years in the Scottish Labour party who comes anywhere close to matching his abilities or previous achievements as a Labour MP or MSP!! Go on, have a go and come up with another elected Scottish Labour politician you think might be making a better job of it right now?
Comments
It felt a teeny bit like a Stephen King novel ghostwritten by Frederick Forsyth might feel. Although he is doing well with it, so props to him bigtime.
Suppose they now report a drop in the national vote share to just a smidgen over 3%. What can you tell about the vote in the one constituency where the party was strong? Nothing whatsoever. The poll is dominated by the 58 non-strongholds. What you very definitely can't do is multiply 59 x constituency size x percentage in polls, to get a national total number of votes for the party, make some assumption about how many of those are in the 58 non-strongholds, and then subtact that assumption to get the figure in the stronghold seat - where the vote might not have changed at all (or for that matter might have collapsed even more, you wouldn't be able to tell).
To be clear, I'm not disagreeing with the conclusion that the LibDems are going to be slaughtered in Scotland. There are, as you say, plenty of reasons for assuming they will be (not least the Ashcroft polls). What I'm saying is that you shouldn't rely on subtracting putative vote shares from one set of seats to get a putative vote share for some other set of seats. Statistically the polling is not sensitive enough to support such a calculation, and in any case it's not weighted to ensure that you have a representative sample for such a calculation.
It was interesting reading the Tom Knox books when you know about him as an individual; main characters having a young daughter for example.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/mar/20/prince-charles-letters-supreme-court-judgment-due
Admittedly it's the Guardian's own story but the government's defence for not publishing seems outrageous. I thought Dominic Grieve was one of the more sensible Tories but he basically seemed to be saying that publishing would threaten Charles' role as a future king so therefore the correspondence must remain private. Essentially the public must live in ignorance of who their future monarch is because if they knew who he was his position would be in jeopardy.
In a modern democratic nation that tries not to sensor information - unbelieveable.
I give you these gems courtesy of the Guardian.
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/mar/20/your-entirely-underwhelming-solar-eclipse-photos
''once a year, just as his personal ratings and public performances bottom out, he picks a well-judged fight with some passing ogre ... these showdowns only stabilise his position ... the people he calls “vested interests”, are just too obvious. Look at that enemies list again: they are all commercial forces of some kind, and pantomime villains at that ... they will not consider a vote for Mr Miliband until he whacks a few vested interests on his own side ... Teaching unions and other public sector lobby groups of the more-money-less-work variety are vested interests. Municipal government fat cats, such as the bureaucrats who out-earn the prime minister, are vested interests. Tax-funded charities and arts bodies are vested interests. Whitehall is a vested interest of mesmerising guile and tenacity. Even big businesses have a vested interest in the state ... he cleaves to his tribe. They might be vested interests, he sometimes seems to be saying, but they are our vested interests.''
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/42544d70-b5ce-11e4-b58d-00144feab7de.html#axzz3UvoPJKN5
Time to obligatorily wonder just what on earth people were thinking when they tipped Jim Murphy as the party's saviour.'
Its pretty simple really, Jim Murphy was the politician as Scottish Minister who delivered a resounding victory for Labour in Scotland at the last GE. I really believe that some posters on here from down South continue to underestimate just how much of a driving force he was in the political ground war up here in Scotland in 2010. And I am hard pushed to think of anyone else over the last five years in the Scottish Labour party who comes anywhere close to matching his abilities or previous achievements as a Labour MP or MSP!! Go on, have a go and come up with another elected Scottish Labour politician you think might be making a better job of it right now?