No one has any evidence for anything until May 8th. You cant say anything about any projection until you can compare it to the actual result. Statistically you can't measure the bias in your sample until you get to compare it to the population, that happens on May 8th. People are free to accept, reject or develop my propositions as they see fit.
Of course there is evidence for those who want to look for it and not go LaLaLa and act as the 3 monkeys . The evidence is :- 1 The continuing loss of votes and seats by UKIP in council by elections showing their support is lower now than in 2013 and 2014 local elections 2 The continual defections to Independents of UKIP councillors elected in 2013 and 2014 over 15% of County councillors elected in 2013 are no longer in place as UKIP councillors . 3 The rush of UKIP councillors in the last few weeks to resign their seats after just 1 or 2 years of their 4 year term of office .
UKIP have won more seats than they've lost. No evidence of declining support there.
Since June 2014 , UKIP have defended 7 seats in council by elections and held just 2 of them and lost 5 . The novelty factor would appear to work in their favour in getting a councillor elected but the reality of having a UKIP councillor creates a rush to not repeat it .
They have won more seats than they have lost.
"In the local by-elections of 2014, UKIP made a net gain of five seats ... They made three gains from the Conservatives, two from the Independents, three from Labour, one from the Lib Dems and one from the Social Democrats for a total of 10 which means that UKIP managed to lose five seats (two to the Conservatives and three to Labour) and both the Conservative gains were in seats that UKIP managed to win in 2013 (on Cornwall and Essex)."
The 2014 figures are as much due to the council election cycle as anything else. UKIP made their council breakthrough in 2013, when they won almost 150 seats compared with seven the year before. For the first five months of the year, the great majority of by-elections would be in seats previously contested when Ukip was doing far worse in the polls than now. Post-May, that changes slightly but I suspect it'd still be the case that most by-elections came from 2011/2 than 2013/4.
Secondly, what happened in 2014 is not what is happening now. There's been a marked decline in the UKIP share, having lost a quarter of their vote since October, when they peaked at 16.4% in the PB Average.
There is one massive opportunity for Miliband in the debate of the 16th. The problem is he might not take it.
Portray Labour as the party that will stay in the EU and let Farage bang on about how bad the EU is . UKIP will then have a field day with the anti EU lot - no other similar comments. All others one way or the other are pro EU.
Miliband could just summarize thus: If you want to stay in the EU, Labour will fight for Britain's interest but we will stay in the EU. If you do want to stay in the EU, you can always vote for UKIP
"The Party of In" was not a big winner for Mr Clegg. The LDs went on to lose 10 of 11 MEPs.
I don't care. Half the population, even before a proper campaign, supports staying in. The opportunity is herding the anti EU audience into Nigel's pen. He will do a good job anyway. He will have no competition - even Cameron's synthetic anti EU posture will not be there !
Yes it will be difficult to cancel TV debates in future general elections but I firmly believe we will usually NOT see head to head debate with 2 major parties.
I am inclined to think that debates in this general election will not be as influential as they probably were in 2010.
The 2014 figures are as much due to the council election cycle as anything else. UKIP made their council breakthrough in 2013, when they won almost 150 seats compared with seven the year before. For the first five months of the year, the great majority of by-elections would be in seats previously contested when Ukip was doing far worse in the polls than now. Post-May, that changes slightly but I suspect it'd still be the case that most by-elections came from 2011/2 than 2013/4.
Secondly, what happened in 2014 is not what is happening now. There's been a marked decline in the UKIP share, having lost a quarter of their vote since October, when they peaked at 16.4% in the PB Average.
I don't think fluctuations in UKIP's poll numbers are significant.
The LDs used to see dips in their numbers between elections, but their May vote share at the local elections was fairly constant. I suspect we'll see the same thing with UKIP.
Their vote is what is it, while their poll numbers are influenced by media attention.
"Lynton Crosby’s polling elves, backed up by what Tory MPs are finding on the doorstep, believe that support for Labour among the C2 skilled working class is “soft”, a phrase you also hear from some Labour MPs."
This is kind of what i was inferring the other day. But you dont seem to be picking it up. We are picking up our vote as been solid and not budging, but getting indecision from traditional Labour voters.
Shall we declare Cameron the victor of the debates already ?
Why is Clegg not in the middle debate ? How could a great party be allowed to be finished by one man and his dog called Alexander ?
The Liberals will be LUCKY to get 20 seats. I wouldn't be surprised the party crumbles after the elections and a rump is left behind like the old Liberal Party. No one is actually sure what this once great party stands for anymore. The Greens might be barmy but the public knows their heart is in the right place.
What do the LD's stand for ? Licking any party's arse to be in government. At least, the Park Ranger will not be there.
So you don't like the Liberal Democrats ? Well, some on here might assert we've been running the country for the last five years so all the positive economic news is down to us...
What should Nick Clegg have done in 2010 - formed an inherently unstable coalition with a failed and discredited Labour Party and a leader who had presided over that party's poorest result in a generation ? Propped up that group of troughers and economic illiterates to finish the job of destroying the country ?
No, hindsight is a wonderful thing and there are plenty of things Nick hasn't done right or well in my view but the Coalition has been broadly positive - it's certainly a different beast from a Conservative majority Government but it has provided a modicum of stability, plenty of gossip and in a few cases worked far better than anyone could have foreseen.
I'd have preferred to seen more of Cameron's inate "liberal conservative" but he has his own party to manage and I realise that's not easy.
As to "what we stand for" go and read the preamble to the Party's constitution - it's well worth a read and I do accept sometimes some of our MPs ought to go and refresh their memories of its content.
Dudley North was on my list of likeliest Ukip victories long ago... The really fancy prices have gone, but 7/2 could still be worth a flutter if the Tory vote deserts and regroups round Ukip after this nonsense
Voters mentioning UKIP on the doorstep have generally done so in quite violently disparaging terms.
I believe you're a Conservative Party activist in Tor Bay.
The recent UKIP conference there said it was in the top four UKIP results in the country at the EU Parliament elections, so I find your assertion unconvincing.
Just telling you what I am experiencing on the ground. Sorry if it isn't what you expected...
The Tories have an energetic local candidate who has been working the seat for nearly two years. The amount of literature delivered by the Tories is way, way ahead of any of the other parties.
An energetic local candidate from Coventry as opposed to Marcus Wood an energetic local candidate who had worked the seat for almost 10 years .?
Kevin Foster, the Tory candidate is very much a local lad to Torbay - local family roots from the region. He went to Coventry because that is where the job was.
And the degree of effort has been significantly upped. We are canvassing places that never got done in those almost ten years.....
"Lynton Crosby’s polling elves, backed up by what Tory MPs are finding on the doorstep, believe that support for Labour among the C2 skilled working class is “soft”, a phrase you also hear from some Labour MPs."
This is kind of what i was inferring the other day. But you dont seem to be picking it up. We are picking up our vote as been solid and not budging, but getting indecision from traditional Labour voters.
I believe C2s is the group where UKIP are competitive with Lab/Con, so Mr Crosby should perhaps be worrying about blue support rather than gloating over reds.
When I ask West Fife’s MP, Thomas Docherty, if he was worried by his prospects, he replies: “The only Scottish Labour MPs who aren’t worried are drunk.”
There is one massive opportunity for Miliband in the debate of the 16th. The problem is he might not take it.
Portray Labour as the party that will stay in the EU and let Farage bang on about how bad the EU is . UKIP will then have a field day with the anti EU lot - no other similar comments. All others one way or the other are pro EU.
Miliband could just summarize thus: If you want to stay in the EU, Labour will fight for Britain's interest but we will stay in the EU. If you do want to stay in the EU, you can always vote for UKIP
And Labour's record in office with regard to "fight[ing] for Britain's interest" in the EU is one that won't fall apart horribly under scrutiny? Rebate, Lisbon, European Constitution and the like?
"Lynton Crosby’s polling elves, backed up by what Tory MPs are finding on the doorstep, believe that support for Labour among the C2 skilled working class is “soft”, a phrase you also hear from some Labour MPs."
This is kind of what i was inferring the other day. But you dont seem to be picking it up. We are picking up our vote as been solid and not budging, but getting indecision from traditional Labour voters.
I believe C2s is the group where UKIP are competitive with Lab/Con, so Mr Crosby should perhaps be worrying about blue support rather than gloating over reds.
UKIP isnt coming up in canvassing that much. The last UKIP i canvassed the other night was a former Labour voter. (though, people lie. But if they arent interested in your party, they get lumped into the against). At one point UKIP was coming up fairly frequently, but it generally isnt anymore.
There is one massive opportunity for Miliband in the debate of the 16th. The problem is he might not take it.
Portray Labour as the party that will stay in the EU and let Farage bang on about how bad the EU is . UKIP will then have a field day with the anti EU lot - no other similar comments. All others one way or the other are pro EU.
Miliband could just summarize thus: If you want to stay in the EU, Labour will fight for Britain's interest but we will stay in the EU. If you do want to stay in the EU, you can always vote for UKIP
"The Party of In" was not a big winner for Mr Clegg. The LDs went on to lose 10 of 11 MEPs.
I don't care. Half the population, even before a proper campaign, supports staying in. The opportunity is herding the anti EU audience into Nigel's pen. He will do a good job anyway. He will have no competition - even Cameron's synthetic anti EU posture will not be there !
I think it's more likely to repel anti-EU Labour voters than attract pro-EU non-Labour voters.
If I wanted to go out on a limb, given the size of the SNP membership, and the online activism of the cybernats, one might expect a significant overstatement of the Nats polling position if we have the like of our Malcolm and Dair clicking SNP as hard as they can on any VI questionnaire coming to them irrespective of the amount of toothpaste preferences they have to wade through to submit the survey
The Ashcroft polls and enourmous SNP subsamples (And samples even) of the various phone pollsters confirm the SNP) score though. Ipsos Mori in fact had the HIGHEST Nat number of all (Though it was probably a 2 SD high side outlier)
On topic, I wouldn't have thought a lot of undecided voters would watch the one on the 16th. The same people will have already debated with all the parties present, and the other big event will be the Lib/Lab/Con one. So the main issue will be what gets reported _about_ the debate, which will presumably be prepared soundbites the leaders use to pwn each other.
Voters mentioning UKIP on the doorstep have generally done so in quite violently disparaging terms.
I believe you're a Conservative Party activist in Tor Bay.
The recent UKIP conference there said it was in the top four UKIP results in the country at the EU Parliament elections, so I find your assertion unconvincing.
Just telling you what I am experiencing on the ground. Sorry if it isn't what you expected...
The Tories have an energetic local candidate who has been working the seat for nearly two years. The amount of literature delivered by the Tories is way, way ahead of any of the other parties.
An energetic local candidate from Coventry as opposed to Marcus Wood an energetic local candidate who had worked the seat for almost 10 years .?
Good point Mark Senior. Maybe MarqueeMark would like to inform us about the local councillors that are part of the constituency now vs 2010?
Presumably all those who thought it outrageous that Clarkson was suspended over the allegations he hit a co-worker are just as furious that the Tories have suspended their candidate in Dudley over the EDL allegations.
"Lynton Crosby’s polling elves, backed up by what Tory MPs are finding on the doorstep, believe that support for Labour among the C2 skilled working class is “soft”, a phrase you also hear from some Labour MPs."
This is kind of what i was inferring the other day. But you dont seem to be picking it up. We are picking up our vote as been solid and not budging, but getting indecision from traditional Labour voters.
It's interesting that whenever I report that Ed Miliband's unfitness to be Prime Minister is a huge issue on the doorsteps, no-one from Labour ever refutes it....
Voters mentioning UKIP on the doorstep have generally done so in quite violently disparaging terms.
I believe you're a Conservative Party activist in Tor Bay.
The recent UKIP conference there said it was in the top four UKIP results in the country at the EU Parliament elections, so I find your assertion unconvincing.
Just telling you what I am experiencing on the ground. Sorry if it isn't what you expected...
The Tories have an energetic local candidate who has been working the seat for nearly two years. The amount of literature delivered by the Tories is way, way ahead of any of the other parties.
An energetic local candidate from Coventry as opposed to Marcus Wood an energetic local candidate who had worked the seat for almost 10 years .?
Kevin was born in Plymouth and spent his entire childhood in Devon. Get your facts straight.
IDS is a decent chap but irrespective of anything else it was right wing bias that elected him. Clarke was no doubt the best candidate for public appeal but he could not trim his EU tendencies. It was silly of both him and the Tory backbenchers. The wider tory party got it just about right with Cameron. Boris too is a decent chap, but again irrespective of character and policy why should a hearty fellow well met person be any better PM than say a bank manager personality like Atlee?
I'm not sure that these so called debates are any guide. With any luck they will wither away in the future. The interviews are nothing new. The mixed format 'debates' are such a dogs breakfast that they may well be dropped anyway. Possibly what Cameron has achieved is that they may well happen early in the campaign in future.
A further thought - The infamous Nixon Kennedy debates were alleged to have shown up Nixon, but on the radio he was regarded to have won. Only on TV where his lack of make up showed up did he allegedly 'lose'. To me this points up the whole sham of tv debates. I do not understand why voters would want them. Lots of people sneer at the politicians when they try to control their image but then vote them down when superficially they do not like what they see. Based on that I do not see what debates can be expected to prove. For instance they did not expose the essential character flaws of Brown which overwhelmingly made him unsuitable to be PM.
I find it hard to believe that on a Sunday morning there are people who watch political interviews and take to Twitter almost immediately to say what you would expect them to say.
How strange to find pro-Conservative columnists claiming Salmond will be running the country after the next GE.
Anyone would think they were trying to scare people into voting Conservative....
The final debate arrangements may be a bit of a mess, but the final QT is the format I'd have been keenest to see. So to my mind however we got there we have at least one good opportunity to compare the views of the three major parties. I don't have a strong view whether Farage should have been included or not, however certainly the Greens and the regional parties shouldn't.
Shall we declare Cameron the victor of the debates already ?
Why is Clegg not in the middle debate ? How could a great party be allowed to be finished by one man and his dog called Alexander ?
The Liberals will be LUCKY to get 20 seats. I wouldn't be surprised the party crumbles after the elections and a rump is left behind like the old Liberal Party. No one is actually sure what this once great party stands for anymore. The Greens might be barmy but the public knows their heart is in the right place.
What do the LD's stand for ? Licking any party's arse to be in government. At least, the Park Ranger will not be there.
So you don't like the Liberal Democrats ? Well, some on here might assert we've been running the country for the last five years so all the positive economic news is down to us...
What should Nick Clegg have done in 2010 - formed an inherently unstable coalition with a failed and discredited Labour Party and a leader who had presided over that party's poorest result in a generation ? Propped up that group of troughers and economic illiterates to finish the job of destroying the country ?
No, hindsight is a wonderful thing and there are plenty of things Nick hasn't done right or well in my view but the Coalition has been broadly positive - it's certainly a different beast from a Conservative majority Government but it has provided a modicum of stability, plenty of gossip and in a few cases worked far better than anyone could have foreseen.
I'd have preferred to seen more of Cameron's inate "liberal conservative" but he has his own party to manage and I realise that's not easy.
As to "what we stand for" go and read the preamble to the Party's constitution - it's well worth a read and I do accept sometimes some of our MPs ought to go and refresh their memories of its content.
So if you have done so good, how come your party is being demolished in front of our very eyes ! If you say that is the price of being in government, I don't see the same happening to the Tories.
The truth is no one but yourselves think you are the party of government. Everyone knows it the Tories who are in power and you helped them stay there.
The deficit reduction plan of 2010: The government is "off" about £60bn from that. Remember we would have been in surplus this year. The Tuition fees would have cost an extra billion.
But, of course, we couldn't afford that ! But we can be £60bn adrift. The world has not caved in as a result.
The party built by Steel, Ashdown , Kennedy now lies in ruins. My local MP, Davey, could not even bring himself to use the word "disproportionate" on Israel's inhuman attack on Gaza. These are the cowards you have in your party !
A Tory Scot writing for a Tory English newspaper seems to have a very strong dislike for many of his fellow countrymen. It's no great surprise. You can read similar expressions of dislike and contempt on here every day of the week about Labour voters: they hate the UK and its history, they are nothing more than immigrant, sponging, public sector Labour party clients, they are stupid and believe in the magic money tree, they lack any morality, and so on.
"Lynton Crosby’s polling elves, backed up by what Tory MPs are finding on the doorstep, believe that support for Labour among the C2 skilled working class is “soft”, a phrase you also hear from some Labour MPs."
This is kind of what i was inferring the other day. But you dont seem to be picking it up. We are picking up our vote as been solid and not budging, but getting indecision from traditional Labour voters.
I've actually always found C2 voting to be soft - it's a reason why Labour tends to underperform in council by-elections, since C2 voters often feel they've honestly got more pressing issues, and lots of it is intermittently Tory. It doesn't seem softer than usual, but the C2 sample is relatively small in my patch, so I could be wrong. The biggest Labour lead is actually in the AB group, see table 3 here:
@ScottyNational: Complaints:BBC receive millions of emails starting with 'I was boycotting your channel whilst watching your biased interview with Salmond..'
ICM Wisdom Index: Tories hold slim lead over Labour
Ed Miliband's Labour party loses its lead among women as David Cameron prepares to visit the Queen before launching the formal General Election campaign
How did we get to a situation where someone rejected by his own people could come back a year later to control the whole union?
Salmond could yet be the Tories' best hope.
Because they are a very efficient political party with a clever message. Their goal is still the same. The only difference is that they would not need to seek independence. After May, the Tories will want to push them towards independence !
Sure, there's an election campaign on and he's getting horrible headlines, but that doesn't tell us anything either way about whether the allegations are true.
For me the truth of the details is irrelevant. Its crazy holding meeting with the EDF even if all you are talking about is the mothers union sewing circle. It would seem that the footage of 57 hours of meetings was shot secretly by Robinson and only parts passed to the Mail. I'm not sure what it says about the Mail to be honest that it is willing to be a party to that without seeing all the footage. Its quite possible the accusations were only bits of speculation or 'fantasy' but as I say all of that is irellevant. Meeting with them in the first place is pathetic on Amin's part.
Ed Miliband wants people to take a second look at him. The opposition debate isn't the best format for him but it should be ok. He can reasonably hope to look like the only sane one among the crazies. The danger for him is that he will cement SNP support.
Morning all and boy do I wish Anna Soubry is my MP. The way she bitch slapped Alex Salmond on Marr was superb. The people of Broxtowe have a feisty MP.
Meanwhile back at the ranch can't believe what an arse the Tory candidate in Dudley North has made of himself. That will be a safe Labour hold. I thought Farage was sounding less than 100% confident this morning about Thanet South.
Shall we declare Cameron the victor of the debates already ?
Why is Clegg not in the middle debate ? How could a great party be allowed to be finished by one man and his dog called Alexander ?
The Liberals will be LUCKY to get 20 seats. I wouldn't be surprised the party crumbles after the elections and a rump is left behind like the old Liberal Party. No one is actually sure what this once great party stands for anymore. The Greens might be barmy but the public knows their heart is in the right place.
What do the LD's stand for ? Licking any party's arse to be in government. At least, the Park Ranger will not be there.
So you don't like the Liberal Democrats ? Well, some on here might assert we've been running the country for the last five years so all the positive economic news is down to us...
What should Nick Clegg have done in 2010 - formed an inherently unstable coalition with a failed and discredited Labour Party and a leader who had presided over that party's poorest result in a generation ? Propped up that group of troughers and economic illiterates to finish the job of destroying the country ?
No, hindsight is a wonderful thing and there are plenty of things Nick hasn't done right or well in my view but the Coalition has been broadly positive - it's certainly a different beast from a Conservative majority Government but it has provided a modicum of stability, plenty of gossip and in a few cases worked far better than anyone could have foreseen.
I'd have preferred to seen more of Cameron's inate "liberal conservative" but he has his own party to manage and I realise that's not easy.
As to "what we stand for" go and read the preamble to the Party's constitution - it's well worth a read and I do accept sometimes some of our MPs ought to go and refresh their memories of its content.
ICM Wisdom Index: Tories hold slim lead over Labour
Ed Miliband's Labour party loses its lead among women as David Cameron prepares to visit the Queen before launching the formal General Election campaign
I have to say tim timed his exit well, he wouldn't have looked too clever this week defending his theses that Dave has a woman problem ("they can spot a phoney") and that this operation Elveden farce was going to wipe the tories off the map.
Morning all and boy do I wish Anna Soubry is my MP. The way she bitch slapped Alex Salmond on Marr was superb. The people of Broxtowe have a feisty MP.
Meanwhile back at the ranch can't believe what an arse the Tory candidate in Dudley North has made of himself. That will be a safe Labour hold. I thought Farage was sounding less than 100% confident this morning about Thanet South.
I'd have thought Dudley was more likely to go UKIP this morning.
Farage has to be careful to not starting coming across as some old whino. Whilst the victim mentality might appeal to a smallish slice of the electorate, most are looking for a more positive message about how their politicians are going to govern them for the next five years. UKIP is the party of sucking air through teeth and muttering "oh, I wouldn't do that..."
Seeing no evidence on the ground that the polls are understating UKIP. If anything, quite the reverse. Voters mentioning UKIP on the doorstep have generally done so in quite violently disparaging terms.
Maybe that should be Dis-Faraging.....
People who did not vote in the past are likely not to do so this time either. This is going to be a low turnout apathy/CBA election for most people.
LOL
New party comes along resulting in people who have felt disenfranchised since the 1990s having someone to vote for again results in them not voting, hmm
Whereas UKIP seems to be drawing a lot of its support from people not in the habit of voting.
The BES say UKIP supporters vote.
"UKIP is picking up support from those who distrust politicians, but crucially, this support is significantly higher among those distrusting of MPs and who tend to vote in general elections.
The lesson we can take away from the BES internet panel is therefore that UKIP’s support is coming from those people who are politically engaged but disillusioned, much more than from those people who are politically disengaged and disillusioned. "
Today's YouGov has 181 UKIP voters, whose votes in 2010 were: Tories 74 Labour 30 Lib Dem 28 UKIP 39 (assuming 100% retention of 3% in 2010) BNP 13 (assuming 50% of BNP vote in 2010) Non-voters -3 (Ooops, my assumptions were wrong)
Other pollsters seem to give more 2010 non-voters in the UKIP total, but UKIP can get a long way without them.
"Lynton Crosby’s polling elves, backed up by what Tory MPs are finding on the doorstep, believe that support for Labour among the C2 skilled working class is “soft”, a phrase you also hear from some Labour MPs."
This is kind of what i was inferring the other day. But you dont seem to be picking it up. We are picking up our vote as been solid and not budging, but getting indecision from traditional Labour voters.
It's interesting that whenever I report that Ed Miliband's unfitness to be Prime Minister is a huge issue on the doorsteps, no-one from Labour ever refutes it....
Im picking it up a lot. So much so, that you shudder and wonder how well labour might be doing if they had actually chosen someone else!
You do tend to find your own supporters are more open to telling you what their beef is. Cameron's support for gay marriage is quite an issue amongst older supporters, but generally Cameron as PM isnt a doorstep problem. Supporters seem to like him, maybe more than party activists do! Milliband and Balls, fairly or otherwise have morphed into pantomime type villains for some. Two that should never be once again let near the levers of power. They are a drag on their party's support.
I had been thinking of doing a piece on whether Salmond will prove to be a Charles Parnell for the 21st century but decided it would get sidetracked to easily and in any case, the answer's obvious.
He's having an affair, getting divorced & setting back the cause of independence by 20 years?
Presumably all those who thought it outrageous that Clarkson was suspended over the allegations he hit a co-worker are just as furious that the Tories have suspended their candidate in Dudley over the EDL allegations.
Presumably all those who find apples disgusting, will now also consider oranges as vile.
1) 5 bn is chicken feed in the context. He should have gone for a 2% cut in the basic rate. Election winner.
...
But it wasn't. The message was 'Britain's walking tall again'. A rosier picture could hardly have been painted. Which is another reason people may turn to Labour.
A tax cut would've won them the election. As it is, I think there's little chance of that now.
The nature of the coalition would not have permitted a game changer and it was a responsible budget in the circumstances - the manifesto is a very different matter and it would be expected to gave several eye catching commitments that could yet see the the voters respond positively to the conservatives
I can understand them being upbeat, but there are some massively difficult decisions to come next parliament. If we imagine the scenario of someone losing weight. They have five stone to lose. This parliament they've managed to lose about ten pounds. But next parliament they've planned to lose another sixty.
Having announced their intention to do so, they are congratulating themselves on their weightloss and putting into place plans to eat large amounts of chocolate cake and biscuits at the end of the next parliament.
But they havent actually lost the weight yet.
Your analysis is wide of the mark David Smiths analysis says... ''Even on the OBR’s cautious forecasts, it is quite likely that the lion’s share of austerity is already behind us, given the positive effects of lower inflation and lower interest rates on government debt. Osborne’s claim in the budget that Britain is “walking tall again” chimes with most of the data.''
The OBR will not commit to the future because the policies announced were not agreed by the coalition. The LDs were desperate for their 'alternative budget'. Even my non political sister last night said poor Danny 'looked stupid' with his yellow box.
BTW At the time of the Autumn Statement David Smith also pointed out this in respect of government spending ''Now, using those same OBR figures, updated following last month’s autumn statement, what is in prospect? This is what might surprise you. Osborne’s overall aim over the 10 years 2010-2020 is to reduce total managed expenditure from £737.3bn in 2009-10, again in real terms, to £703.7bn in 2019-20. That is a reduction of 4.6% over 10 years, less than a single year’s increase during the splurge years. How much of this has already been done? Slightly more than half. Total managed expenditure in 2013-14, £719.9bn, was 2.4% down on its 2009-10 level.''
Those 'surge years' he refers to were 2000 to 2010 where Brown increased spending in real terms by 50%.
I've always thought the reason the Tories are generally disliked has far more to do with their supporters than their policies. Which is why I believe stories like the Clarkson affair resonate more than the budget.
Many children will break up for Easter school holidays on March 27th and not return to school until April 13th. A lot of parents will have other things on their minds than election debates and so the 2015 election campaign may really begin on April 14th.
There is one massive opportunity for Miliband in the debate of the 16th. The problem is he might not take it.
Portray Labour as the party that will stay in the EU and let Farage bang on about how bad the EU is . UKIP will then have a field day with the anti EU lot - no other similar comments. All others one way or the other are pro EU.
Miliband could just summarize thus: If you want to stay in the EU, Labour will fight for Britain's interest but we will stay in the EU. If you do want to stay in the EU, you can always vote for UKIP
"The Party of In" was not a big winner for Mr Clegg. The LDs went on to lose 10 of 11 MEPs.
No the point is to gift Farage with as many anti-EU votes as he can muster, because Labour would much rather they voted for Farage than Cameron.
The key difference I've noticed is that with UKIP miscreants, the first we get to hear about it is that UKIP have suspended a member, then later the reason gets out in the media.
With the big three, the first we hear is the media story, followed by a minor story somewhere that they have been suspended (if they are suspended)
So if you have done so good, how come your party is being demolished in front of our very eyes ! If you say that is the price of being in government, I don't see the same happening to the Tories.
The truth is no one but yourselves think you are the party of government. Everyone knows it the Tories who are in power and you helped them stay there.
The deficit reduction plan of 2010: The government is "off" about £60bn from that. Remember we would have been in surplus this year. The Tuition fees would have cost an extra billion.
But, of course, we couldn't afford that ! But we can be £60bn adrift. The world has not caved in as a result.
The party built by Steel, Ashdown , Kennedy now lies in ruins. My local MP, Davey, could not even bring himself to use the word "disproportionate" on Israel's inhuman attack on Gaza. These are the cowards you have in your party !
I do concede (and have done here many times) that tuition fees was a huge mistake. It destroyed Nick's credibility and that's something we have to live with. Given the number on the roll at Kingston University is the highest ever, the fee rise perhaps didn't have the downside some of its detractors claimed either but it was terrible politics.
I joined the then Liberal Party in 1980 (12 seats back then) so we've come a long way. To have even imagined then there would have been a Liberal as Deputy Prime Minister was to be told you were on the funny baccy.
Yes, May will likely be a bad result for the Party and for Nick personally but "ruins" - I don't think so. The Conservatives came back from 1997 and Labour from 1983 and now it's our turn but these things are cyclical and the LDs will be back as a force in the future.
How did we get to a situation where someone rejected by his own people could come back a year later to control the whole union?
Salmond could yet be the Tories' best hope.
Because they are a very efficient political party with a clever message. Their goal is still the same. The only difference is that they would not need to seek independence. After May, the Tories will want to push them towards independence !
It is quite amazing how stupid many people are and just want to see what their prejudices tell them should be happening. What Salmond has achieved is pretty spectacular and he is not finished yet. Given the paucity of talent in the establishment parties it is far from over. How this poster can imagine that YES getting 45% of the vote was Salmond being rejected is just jaw dropping given there had never before been any support above the 20% mark at best. Now that the establishment have had the Smith farce and kicked their promised home rule into the long grass, expect more fireworks ahead.
"Lynton Crosby’s polling elves, backed up by what Tory MPs are finding on the doorstep, believe that support for Labour among the C2 skilled working class is “soft”, a phrase you also hear from some Labour MPs."
This is kind of what i was inferring the other day. But you dont seem to be picking it up. We are picking up our vote as been solid and not budging, but getting indecision from traditional Labour voters.
It's interesting that whenever I report that Ed Miliband's unfitness to be Prime Minister is a huge issue on the doorsteps, no-one from Labour ever refutes it....
Im picking it up a lot. So much so, that you shudder and wonder how well labour might be doing if they had actually chosen someone else!
You do tend to find your own supporters are more open to telling you what their beef is. Cameron's support for gay marriage is quite an issue amongst older supporters, but generally Cameron as PM isnt a doorstep problem. Supporters seem to like him, maybe more than party activists do! Milliband and Balls, fairly or otherwise have morphed into pantomime type villains for some. Two that should never be once again let near the levers of power. They are a drag on their party's support.
Balls is one of those people who justs generates a visceral dislike in some people. Considering the vilification Miliband has received I think he holds up reasonably well, compared to say Hague or IDS. Cameron has a mildly positive image but is undermined by his poor judgment and lack of political nous.
So if you have done so good, how come your party is being demolished in front of our very eyes ! If you say that is the price of being in government, I don't see the same happening to the Tories.
The truth is no one but yourselves think you are the party of government. Everyone knows it the Tories who are in power and you helped them stay there.
The deficit reduction plan of 2010: The government is "off" about £60bn from that. Remember we would have been in surplus this year. The Tuition fees would have cost an extra billion.
But, of course, we couldn't afford that ! But we can be £60bn adrift. The world has not caved in as a result.
The party built by Steel, Ashdown , Kennedy now lies in ruins. My local MP, Davey, could not even bring himself to use the word "disproportionate" on Israel's inhuman attack on Gaza. These are the cowards you have in your party !
The party lies in ruins in no small part because of the lazy and opportunistic path taken by Ashdown and Kennedy, first cosying up to New Labour and then trying to outflank them on the left while nominally attacking the Tories who, at the time, were the weaker of the two main parties. That strategy was always bound to end in disaster because it had no coherence and was not based on ideological principle; they sold their party's soul for a few election gains.
Ultimately, the chickens were always going to come home to roost. Those MPs gained meant it was likely that at some point they'd end up holding the balance of power, and then what? All the contradictions in policy and local electoral stance would be exposed and undo all the effort of the previous 15-20 years. Furthermore, anyone with any foresight (and patience) would have foreseen that it was highly likely that it would be a Conservative government they'd be supporting: in part because of their stance on fair votes and in part because of the electoral momentum. With 80+ non-Con/Lab MPs, the first election that Labour lost was always likely to be hung and the option would be to prop up a tired-out Labour Party which had just lost a load of seats, or a Conservative Party which had gained them.
But such foresight raised to many difficult questions which could be ignored until they were asked directly and in the meantime there'd be the golden glow of by-election successes - and Ashdown and Kennedy were distracted by the shiny things in front of them sufficiently to ignore the cliff edge they were driving towards.
Morning all and boy do I wish Anna Soubry is my MP. The way she bitch slapped Alex Salmond on Marr was superb. The people of Broxtowe have a feisty MP.
Meanwhile back at the ranch can't believe what an arse the Tory candidate in Dudley North has made of himself. That will be a safe Labour hold. I thought Farage was sounding less than 100% confident this morning about Thanet South.
My point is proven , Tory surgers immediately on talking mince. Ed has more kitchens than the Tories have support in Scotland, still they are getting giddy at the thought of having , maybe , 2 MP's.
Today's YouGov surveys extensively on the Budget and confirms its "meh" status. There's a 1% rise in people who think the Government is handling the economy well (46% say yes, 45% say no). There's no change in preference for Cameron/Osborne vs Miliband/Balls on the economy. 22% think it'll make them better off, 17% worse off. Asked about the individual changes, people mildly approve, with lots of don't knows. The only non-MOE change is a bounce in Osborne's personal rating (+7 net: Miliband is +3, Cameron +1). Perhaps that's what he primarily had in mind?
I agree - its tough to be positive when you inherited a £160 billion deficit and on top of that you have to control runaway spending and a structural deficit created by increasing unfunded spending in real terms by 50% between 2000 and 2010. This being the biggest increase in peace time spending in British history. Given the massive irresponsible nature of that spending, spending which almost literally bankrupted the nation as part of Brown's campaign to become PM, can you explain why you feel justified in standing yet again as a Labour candidate?
@May2015NS: Key q with SNP is turnout—4 of Glasgow's seats were among lowest turnout in 2010, but now 70-80% intend to vote there http://t.co/yYutM6SarQ
Presumably all those who thought it outrageous that Clarkson was suspended over the allegations he hit a co-worker are just as furious that the Tories have suspended their candidate in Dudley over the EDL allegations.
Slightly different. One was an allegation (you know, no evidence, that sort of thing) and the other has a video of him making the deal on the Daily Mail website.
I had been thinking of doing a piece on whether Salmond will prove to be a Charles Parnell for the 21st century but decided it would get sidetracked to easily and in any case, the answer's obvious.
He's having an affair, getting divorced & setting back the cause of independence by 20 years?
That aspect of it was another reason why it didn't get written. In fact, the first line was going to be something like "no historical parallel is perfect ..."
Even so, if Politics Was Ireland for Gladstone, in no small way has it been - and will it be - Scotland for his successors today.
So if you have done so good, how come your party is being demolished in front of our very eyes ! If you say that is the price of being in government, I don't see the same happening to the Tories.
The truth is no one but yourselves think you are the party of government. Everyone knows it the Tories who are in power and you helped them stay there.
The deficit reduction plan of 2010: The government is "off" about £60bn from that. Remember we would have been in surplus this year. The Tuition fees would have cost an extra billion.
But, of course, we couldn't afford that ! But we can be £60bn adrift. The world has not caved in as a result.
The party built by Steel, Ashdown , Kennedy now lies in ruins. My local MP, Davey, could not even bring himself to use the word "disproportionate" on Israel's inhuman attack on Gaza. These are the cowards you have in your party !
I do concede (and have done here many times) that tuition fees was a huge mistake. It destroyed Nick's credibility and that's something we have to live with. Given the number on the roll at Kingston University is the highest ever, the fee rise perhaps didn't have the downside some of its detractors claimed either but it was terrible politics.
I joined the then Liberal Party in 1980 (12 seats back then) so we've come a long way. To have even imagined then there would have been a Liberal as Deputy Prime Minister was to be told you were on the funny baccy.
...
Although there was a time just 18 months or so after you joined when it looked entirely possible that there could be a Liberal PM, never mind deputy, when the Alliance polled around 40% for about three months.
I had been thinking of doing a piece on whether Salmond will prove to be a Charles Parnell for the 21st century but decided it would get sidetracked to easily and in any case, the answer's obvious.
He's having an affair, getting divorced & setting back the cause of independence by 20 years?
That aspect of it was another reason why it didn't get written. In fact, the first line was going to be something like "no historical parallel is perfect ..."
Even so, if Politics Was Ireland for Gladstone, in no small way has it been - and will it be - Scotland for his successors today.
First, they may or may not be the only candidates and second, I've no strong preference. I'd like to see what they set out as the vision for the party and how they would achieve it.
Presumably all those who thought it outrageous that Clarkson was suspended over the allegations he hit a co-worker are just as furious that the Tories have suspended their candidate in Dudley over the EDL allegations.
Presumably most Labour supporters would be better at trolling than this dire attempt.
C-
I mean SO, what's happened to you? Has your decision to vote for Miliband (which you essentially said passim you would never do) sent you over the edge?
Morning all and boy do I wish Anna Soubry is my MP. The way she bitch slapped Alex Salmond on Marr was superb. The people of Broxtowe have a feisty MP.
Meanwhile back at the ranch can't believe what an arse the Tory candidate in Dudley North has made of himself. That will be a safe Labour hold. I thought Farage was sounding less than 100% confident this morning about Thanet South.
My point is proven , Tory surgers immediately on talking mince. Ed has more kitchens than the Tories have support in Scotland, still they are getting giddy at the thought of having , maybe , 2 MP's.
Well, in fairness, it would be an increase of 100%. When you've done as poorly as they have done, in particular with MPs, the possibility of improving that, even to what is still a small number, must be intoxicating.
You can read similar expressions of dislike and contempt on here every day of the week about Labour voters: they hate the UK and its history, they are nothing more than immigrant, sponging, public sector Labour party clients, they are stupid and believe in the magic money tree, they lack any morality, and so on.
That's true, and unfortunate. Luckily no-one ever makes those lack-of-morality claims in the opposite direction though, and part of the national strategy, right? Wait...
"Many good posts on here today about why the polls may be pretty unreliable."
Can I second that and add one of my own.
It's showing the Tories trailing
But everyone knows that because the Tories deserve to be ahead, and because the public are not stupid (as they would be insulting to them), then they must be ahead, really, even if the polls do always show it. Stands to reason.
@May2015NS: Key q with SNP is turnout—4 of Glasgow's seats were among lowest turnout in 2010, but now 70-80% intend to vote there http://t.co/yYutM6SarQ
I believe, but am not sure, that Scotland underperformed the polled "likely to vote" figure the most in the 2010 GE.
I've always thought the reason the Tories are generally disliked has far more to do with their supporters than their policies. Which is why I believe stories like the Clarkson affair resonate more than the budget.
Roger- I think you are onto something there. Seeing Staines (guido) yesterday on the news with his tank stunt; he just comes across as an unpleasant man. The Tories are struggling with the female vote, so what does Cameron do? He publicly backs Clarkson. How ill advised is that? I doubt very much that Lynton Crosby, a product of the macho fuelled politics of Australia understands how the Tories can connect with females.
I had been thinking of doing a piece on whether Salmond will prove to be a Charles Parnell for the 21st century but decided it would get sidetracked to easily and in any case, the answer's obvious.
He's having an affair, getting divorced & setting back the cause of independence by 20 years?
That aspect of it was another reason why it didn't get written. In fact, the first line was going to be something like "no historical parallel is perfect ..."
Even so, if Politics Was Ireland for Gladstone, in no small way has it been - and will it be - Scotland for his successors today.
Would be a good Saturday thread for sure David
Thanks. I may still do it dependent on events. It's unlikely to appear before May 7 now as there should be too much happening week by week to respond to and I did a Scotland piece yesterday so don't want to become overly focussed on that particular post-election 'what if' when there so much else going on.
If, however, the 'what if' becomes an 'is now', then it'll be a question well worth looking at (and history revisiting).
That's a monster "if" - in general when people are accused of something by the Daily Mail the working assumption shouldn't be that it's true.
Only exception being if it's a smear on UKIP, eh!
No - I'm not a fan of the Tories, but the Mail is not a reliable information source. From time to time they write things that are true, but that's not a good working assumption.
Presumably all those who thought it outrageous that Clarkson was suspended over the allegations he hit a co-worker are just as furious that the Tories have suspended their candidate in Dudley over the EDL allegations.
I still don't get all the outrage over the Clarkson business. If he'd been sacked outright maybe, but an incident was reported - by him apparently - and he was suspended pending an investigation. That's not the BBC doing anything at all, even if it presages it, it's what you do whether you are going to actually do something or not.. What the hell else were they supposed to do? Not investigate it?
I've always thought the reason the Tories are generally disliked has far more to do with their supporters than their policies. Which is why I believe stories like the Clarkson affair resonate more than the budget.
Roger- I think you are onto something there. Seeing Staines (guido) yesterday on the news with his tank stunt; he just comes across as an unpleasant man. The Tories are struggling with the female vote, so what does Cameron do? He publicly backs Clarkson. How ill advised is that? I doubt very much that Lynton Crosby, a product of the macho fuelled politics of Australia understands how the Tories can connect with females.
I've always thought the reason the Tories are generally disliked has far more to do with their supporters than their policies. Which is why I believe stories like the Clarkson affair resonate more than the budget.
Roger- I think you are onto something there. Seeing Staines (guido) yesterday on the news with his tank stunt; he just comes across as an unpleasant man. The Tories are struggling with the female vote, so what does Cameron do? He publicly backs Clarkson. How ill advised is that? I doubt very much that Lynton Crosby, a product of the macho fuelled politics of Australia understands how the Tories can connect with females.
Guido is an anarchist and a republican with Irish roots. He favours ukip, not the Tories.
Presumably all those who thought it outrageous that Clarkson was suspended over the allegations he hit a co-worker are just as furious that the Tories have suspended their candidate in Dudley over the EDL allegations.
I still don't get all the outrage over the Clarkson business. If he'd been sacked outright maybe, but an incident was reported - by him apparently - and he was suspended pending an investigation. That's not the BBC doing anything at all, even if it presages it, it's what you do whether you are going to actually do something or not.. What the hell else were they supposed to do? Not investigate it?
Woger is convinced that Clarkson is guilty and should have been sacked on the spot. He clearly has access to confidential sources that he has not seen fit to share with us, and when challenged to say why he thinks Clarkson did what the allegations suggest, even though there is no evidence yet in the public domain to support it, goes all coy. The rather sensible suggestion of waiting until the investigation reports appears to repel him, presumably because it waste endless opportunities to rant about nasty environmentally unsound Tories working for the beloved BBC
First, they may or may not be the only candidates and second, I've no strong preference. I'd like to see what they set out as the vision for the party and how they would achieve it.
Like the SDP will the LDP actually announce it's closure ?
The party lies in ruins in no small part because of the lazy and opportunistic path taken by Ashdown and Kennedy, first cosying up to New Labour and then trying to outflank them on the left while nominally attacking the Tories who, at the time, were the weaker of the two main parties. That strategy was always bound to end in disaster because it had no coherence and was not based on ideological principle; they sold their party's soul for a few election gains.
Ultimately, the chickens were always going to come home to roost. Those MPs gained meant it was likely that at some point they'd end up holding the balance of power, and then what? All the contradictions in policy and local electoral stance would be exposed and undo all the effort of the previous 15-20 years. Furthermore, anyone with any foresight (and patience) would have foreseen that it was highly likely that it would be a Conservative government they'd be supporting: in part because of their stance on fair votes and in part because of the electoral momentum. With 80+ non-Con/Lab MPs, the first election that Labour lost was always likely to be hung and the option would be to prop up a tired-out Labour Party which had just lost a load of seats, or a Conservative Party which had gained them.
But such foresight raised to many difficult questions which could be ignored until they were asked directly and in the meantime there'd be the golden glow of by-election successes - and Ashdown and Kennedy were distracted by the shiny things in front of them sufficiently to ignore the cliff edge they were driving towards.
I've argued on here before that Charles Kennedy had huge good fortune in his time as leader since he faced a weak and ineffective Conservative Party but in Iraq found an issue around which he could draw many who were not naturally sympathetic to the LDs.
It's no secret that policy development atrophied in his time as leader so that when Cameron became Conservative leader in 2005, the LDs simply had no response to his new approach.
In many ways, that inability to respond to Cameron has framed British politics since. Once Kennedy was deemed expendable, the party responded by choosing gravitas in the shape of Sir Menzies Campbell and that wasn't a bad idea. An older leader to appeal to an ageing electorate was probably the most sensible move but unfortunately excellent though Sir Menzies was in the Court room, he didn't shine in the modern televisual world.
One thing Campbell did begin was to re-formulate policy and sharpen the differences with Labour but the election of Nick Clegg was a conscious effort to out-Cameron the Conservatives in terms of youth and televisual appeal.
UKIP are the big losers. No place for Farage at the top table with Clegg, Miliband and Cameron. Indeed, in the debates between the opposition leaders I can see Farage directing his fire on Miliband and the record of the Labour Party in the North, rather than the Tories. This could be the most interesting debate and a risky one for Labour, with Miliband under pressure from the SNP in Scotland and UKIP in England, and as Clegg experienced in the euro elections these populist nostrums can be difficult to refute. Also, I hadn’t appreciated that Clegg was absent on April 16th, along with Cameron. It is almost as if they wanted the coalition to continue.
I've always thought the reason the Tories are generally disliked has far more to do with their supporters than their policies. Which is why I believe stories like the Clarkson affair resonate more than the budget.
Roger- I think you are onto something there. Seeing Staines (guido) yesterday on the news with his tank stunt; he just comes across as an unpleasant man. The Tories are struggling with the female vote, so what does Cameron do? He publicly backs Clarkson. How ill advised is that? I doubt very much that Lynton Crosby, a product of the macho fuelled politics of Australia understands how the Tories can connect with females.
Guido is an anarchist and a republican with Irish roots. He favours ukip, not the Tories.
Presumably all those who thought it outrageous that Clarkson was suspended over the allegations he hit a co-worker are just as furious that the Tories have suspended their candidate in Dudley over the EDL allegations.
I still don't get all the outrage over the Clarkson business. If he'd been sacked outright maybe, but an incident was reported - by him apparently - and he was suspended pending an investigation. That's not the BBC doing anything at all, even if it presages it, it's what you do whether you are going to actually do something or not.. What the hell else were they supposed to do? Not investigate it?
So if you have done so good, how come your party is being demolished in front of our very eyes ! If you say that is the price of being in government, I don't see the same happening to the Tories.
The truth is no one but yourselves think you are the party of government. Everyone knows it the Tories who are in power and you helped them stay there.
The deficit reduction plan of 2010: The government is "off" about £60bn from that. Remember we would have been in surplus this year. The Tuition fees would have cost an extra billion.
But, of course, we couldn't afford that ! But we can be £60bn adrift. The world has not caved in as a result.
The party built by Steel, Ashdown , Kennedy now lies in ruins. My local MP, Davey, could not even bring himself to use the word "disproportionate" on Israel's inhuman attack on Gaza. These are the cowards you have in your party !
The party lies in ruins in no small part because of the lazy and opportunistic path taken by Ashdown and Kennedy, first cosying up to New Labour and then trying to outflank them on the left while nominally attacking the Tories who, at the time, were the weaker of the two main parties. That strategy was always bound to end in disaster because it had no coherence and was not based on ideological principle; they sold their party's soul for a few election gains.
Ultimately, the chickens were always going to come home to roost. Those MPs gained meant it was likely that at some point they'd end up holding the balance of power, and then what? All the contradictions in policy and local electoral stance would be exposed and undo all the effort of the previous 15-20 years. Furthermore, anyone with any foresight (and patience) would have foreseen that it was highly likely that it would be a Conservative government they'd be supporting: in part because of their stance on fair votes and in part because of the electoral momentum. With 80+ non-Con/Lab MPs, the first election that Labour lost was always likely to be hung and the option would be to prop up a tired-out Labour Party which had just lost a load of seats, or a Conservative Party which had gained them.
But such foresight raised to many difficult questions which could be ignored until they were asked directly and in the meantime there'd be the golden glow of by-election successes - and Ashdown and Kennedy were distracted by the shiny things in front of them sufficiently to ignore the cliff edge they were driving towards.
So those two Tories, Clegg & Alexander are off the hook then ?
I've argued on here before that Charles Kennedy had huge good fortune in his time as leader since he faced a weak and ineffective Conservative Party but in Iraq found an issue around which he could draw many who were not naturally sympathetic to the LDs.
It's no secret that policy development atrophied in his time as leader so that when Cameron became Conservative leader in 2005, the LDs simply had no response to his new approach.
In many ways, that inability to respond to Cameron has framed British politics since. Once Kennedy was deemed expendable, the party responded by choosing gravitas in the shape of Sir Menzies Campbell and that wasn't a bad idea. An older leader to appeal to an ageing electorate was probably the most sensible move but unfortunately excellent though Sir Menzies was in the Court room, he didn't shine in the modern televisual world.
One thing Campbell did begin was to re-formulate policy and sharpen the differences with Labour but the election of Nick Clegg was a conscious effort to out-Cameron the Conservatives in terms of youth and televisual appeal.
In many ways the problem for the LDs is that Cameron is in essence an LD, and he is pulling the Conservative Party into the centre ground. If your politics was broadly the same as Alexander or Clegg you might feel that there was more to be gained by voting for Cameron to keep Miliband out than voting for Clegg and potentially letting Miliband in. Both would give you pretty much the same policies, especially if you are most interested in social policies where you could hardly put a cigarette paper between them.
I've always thought the reason the Tories are generally disliked has far more to do with their supporters than their policies. Which is why I believe stories like the Clarkson affair resonate more than the budget.
Roger- I think you are onto something there. Seeing Staines (guido) yesterday on the news with his tank stunt; he just comes across as an unpleasant man. The Tories are struggling with the female vote, so what does Cameron do? He publicly backs Clarkson. How ill advised is that? I doubt very much that Lynton Crosby, a product of the macho fuelled politics of Australia understands how the Tories can connect with females.
Guido is an anarchist and a republican with Irish roots. He favours ukip, not the Tories.
Though he does get invited to Tory events that are off limits to all members of the press and all other political bloggers:
Comments
The 2014 figures are as much due to the council election cycle as anything else. UKIP made their council breakthrough in 2013, when they won almost 150 seats compared with seven the year before. For the first five months of the year, the great majority of by-elections would be in seats previously contested when Ukip was doing far worse in the polls than now. Post-May, that changes slightly but I suspect it'd still be the case that most by-elections came from 2011/2 than 2013/4.
Secondly, what happened in 2014 is not what is happening now. There's been a marked decline in the UKIP share, having lost a quarter of their vote since October, when they peaked at 16.4% in the PB Average.
I'm talking about the notion the SNP will only have 30 MPs come the election!
So by right thinking people I mean people with stacks of Scottish Constituency bets.
@JamesTapsfield: Tories will be absolutely rubbing their hands at this Salmond turn on Marr
Yup
@CCHQPress: Salmond talking up 'a vote by vote arrangement’ with Labour. Miliband's only way into No10 is if he's carried there in Salmond's pocket.
The LDs used to see dips in their numbers between elections, but their May vote share at the local elections was fairly constant. I suspect we'll see the same thing with UKIP.
Their vote is what is it, while their poll numbers are influenced by media attention.
This is kind of what i was inferring the other day. But you dont seem to be picking it up. We are picking up our vote as been solid and not budging, but getting indecision from traditional Labour voters.
What should Nick Clegg have done in 2010 - formed an inherently unstable coalition with a failed and discredited Labour Party and a leader who had presided over that party's poorest result in a generation ? Propped up that group of troughers and economic illiterates to finish the job of destroying the country ?
No, hindsight is a wonderful thing and there are plenty of things Nick hasn't done right or well in my view but the Coalition has been broadly positive - it's certainly a different beast from a Conservative majority Government but it has provided a modicum of stability, plenty of gossip and in a few cases worked far better than anyone could have foreseen.
I'd have preferred to seen more of Cameron's inate "liberal conservative" but he has his own party to manage and I realise that's not easy.
As to "what we stand for" go and read the preamble to the Party's constitution - it's well worth a read and I do accept sometimes some of our MPs ought to go and refresh their memories of its content.
And the degree of effort has been significantly upped. We are canvassing places that never got done in those almost ten years.....
FFS
'The rape of the South'
@iainmartin1: Wow. Anna Soubry 5 - Salmond 0. Cameron, Miliband take note. That, is how to debate him. #Marr
I'm in favour!
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/snp-boost-as-membership-soars-past-100k-mark.1427009904
As far as I can tell the rest of the Scottish media don't consider this to be newsworthy !!
Lab 35, Con 33, UKIP 14, LD 8, Grn 5
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/ao7qcdoada/YG-Archive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-200315.pdf
Message to Scott P's programmer. Please give the guy time off you're not getting the best out of him.
I'm not sure that these so called debates are any guide. With any luck they will wither away in the future. The interviews are nothing new. The mixed format 'debates' are such a dogs breakfast that they may well be dropped anyway. Possibly what Cameron has achieved is that they may well happen early in the campaign in future.
A further thought - The infamous Nixon Kennedy debates were alleged to have shown up Nixon, but on the radio he was regarded to have won. Only on TV where his lack of make up showed up did he allegedly 'lose'.
To me this points up the whole sham of tv debates. I do not understand why voters would want them. Lots of people sneer at the politicians when they try to control their image but then vote them down when superficially they do not like what they see. Based on that I do not see what debates can be expected to prove. For instance they did not expose the essential character flaws of Brown which overwhelmingly made him unsuitable to be PM.
How strange to find pro-Conservative columnists claiming Salmond will be running the country after the next GE.
Anyone would think they were trying to scare people into voting Conservative....
Ed's in a bizarre place with his minnows debate.
@ScottyNational: TV: Evil BBC taint Salmond interview by also showing an interview with an evil nationalist who wants to break away from a Union.
Salmond could yet be the Tories' best hope.
The truth is no one but yourselves think you are the party of government. Everyone knows it the Tories who are in power and you helped them stay there.
The deficit reduction plan of 2010: The government is "off" about £60bn from that. Remember we would have been in surplus this year. The Tuition fees would have cost an extra billion.
But, of course, we couldn't afford that ! But we can be £60bn adrift. The world has not caved in as a result.
The party built by Steel, Ashdown , Kennedy now lies in ruins. My local MP, Davey, could not even bring himself to use the word "disproportionate" on Israel's inhuman attack on Gaza. These are the cowards you have in your party !
"Many good posts on here today about why the polls may be pretty unreliable."
Can I second that and add one of my own.
It's showing the Tories trailing
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Broxtowe.pdf
ELBOW for week-ending 15th was a Tory/Lab lead of 0.0%!
Ed Miliband's Labour party loses its lead among women as David Cameron prepares to visit the Queen before launching the formal General Election campaign
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11488052/ICM-Wisdom-Index-Tories-hold-slim-lead-over-Labour.html
It would seem that the footage of 57 hours of meetings was shot secretly by Robinson and only parts passed to the Mail. I'm not sure what it says about the Mail to be honest that it is willing to be a party to that without seeing all the footage. Its quite possible the accusations were only bits of speculation or 'fantasy' but as I say all of that is irellevant. Meeting with them in the first place is pathetic on Amin's part.
Meanwhile back at the ranch can't believe what an arse the Tory candidate in Dudley North has made of himself. That will be a safe Labour hold. I thought Farage was sounding less than 100% confident this morning about Thanet South.
Note I said exactly the same thing the other way round quite a few times in 2013.
Looks level or Tories just ahead to me.
BTW, both UKIP and LD are sinking. UKIP Now 6 -8. The correct spread should b e 3 - 5. LD 20 -22.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/the-tories-are-on-to-a-loser-if-the-election-comes-down-to-horse-trading-10125139.html
He overstates Lib Dem willingness to support the Conservatives, mind.
Tories 74
Labour 30
Lib Dem 28
UKIP 39 (assuming 100% retention of 3% in 2010)
BNP 13 (assuming 50% of BNP vote in 2010)
Non-voters -3 (Ooops, my assumptions were wrong)
Other pollsters seem to give more 2010 non-voters in the UKIP total, but UKIP can get a long way without them.
You do tend to find your own supporters are more open to telling you what their beef is. Cameron's support for gay marriage is quite an issue amongst older supporters, but generally Cameron as PM isnt a doorstep problem. Supporters seem to like him, maybe more than party activists do!
Milliband and Balls, fairly or otherwise have morphed into pantomime type villains for some. Two that should never be once again let near the levers of power. They are a drag on their party's support.
David Smiths analysis says... ''Even on the OBR’s cautious forecasts, it is quite likely that the lion’s share of austerity is already behind us, given the positive effects of lower inflation and lower interest rates on government debt. Osborne’s claim in the budget that Britain is “walking tall again” chimes with most of the data.''
The OBR will not commit to the future because the policies announced were not agreed by the coalition. The LDs were desperate for their 'alternative budget'. Even my non political sister last night said poor Danny 'looked stupid' with his yellow box.
BTW At the time of the Autumn Statement David Smith also pointed out this in respect of government spending
''Now, using those same OBR figures, updated following last month’s autumn statement, what is in prospect? This is what might surprise you. Osborne’s overall aim over the 10 years 2010-2020 is to reduce total managed expenditure from £737.3bn in 2009-10, again in real terms, to £703.7bn in 2019-20. That is a reduction of 4.6% over 10 years, less than a single year’s increase during the splurge years.
How much of this has already been done? Slightly more than half. Total managed expenditure in 2013-14, £719.9bn, was 2.4% down on its 2009-10 level.''
Those 'surge years' he refers to were 2000 to 2010 where Brown increased spending in real terms by 50%.
With the big three, the first we hear is the media story, followed by a minor story somewhere that they have been suspended (if they are suspended)
I joined the then Liberal Party in 1980 (12 seats back then) so we've come a long way. To have even imagined then there would have been a Liberal as Deputy Prime Minister was to be told you were on the funny baccy.
Yes, May will likely be a bad result for the Party and for Nick personally but "ruins" - I don't think so. The Conservatives came back from 1997 and Labour from 1983 and now it's our turn but these things are cyclical and the LDs will be back as a force in the future.
Of that, I'm certain.
Now that the establishment have had the Smith farce and kicked their promised home rule into the long grass, expect more fireworks ahead.
Ultimately, the chickens were always going to come home to roost. Those MPs gained meant it was likely that at some point they'd end up holding the balance of power, and then what? All the contradictions in policy and local electoral stance would be exposed and undo all the effort of the previous 15-20 years. Furthermore, anyone with any foresight (and patience) would have foreseen that it was highly likely that it would be a Conservative government they'd be supporting: in part because of their stance on fair votes and in part because of the electoral momentum. With 80+ non-Con/Lab MPs, the first election that Labour lost was always likely to be hung and the option would be to prop up a tired-out Labour Party which had just lost a load of seats, or a Conservative Party which had gained them.
But such foresight raised to many difficult questions which could be ignored until they were asked directly and in the meantime there'd be the golden glow of by-election successes - and Ashdown and Kennedy were distracted by the shiny things in front of them sufficiently to ignore the cliff edge they were driving towards.
Given the massive irresponsible nature of that spending, spending which almost literally bankrupted the nation as part of Brown's campaign to become PM, can you explain why you feel justified in standing yet again as a Labour candidate?
Even so, if Politics Was Ireland for Gladstone, in no small way has it been - and will it be - Scotland for his successors today.
C-
I mean SO, what's happened to you? Has your decision to vote for Miliband (which you essentially said passim you would never do) sent you over the edge?
Roger- I think you are onto something there. Seeing Staines (guido) yesterday on the news with his tank stunt; he just comes across as an unpleasant man.
The Tories are struggling with the female vote, so what does Cameron do? He publicly backs Clarkson. How ill advised is that? I doubt very much that Lynton Crosby, a product of the macho fuelled politics of Australia understands how the Tories can connect with females.
If, however, the 'what if' becomes an 'is now', then it'll be a question well worth looking at (and history revisiting).
It's no secret that policy development atrophied in his time as leader so that when Cameron became Conservative leader in 2005, the LDs simply had no response to his new approach.
In many ways, that inability to respond to Cameron has framed British politics since. Once Kennedy was deemed expendable, the party responded by choosing gravitas in the shape of Sir Menzies Campbell and that wasn't a bad idea. An older leader to appeal to an ageing electorate was probably the most sensible move but unfortunately excellent though Sir Menzies was in the Court room, he didn't shine in the modern televisual world.
One thing Campbell did begin was to re-formulate policy and sharpen the differences with Labour but the election of Nick Clegg was a conscious effort to out-Cameron the Conservatives in terms of youth and televisual appeal.
Also, I hadn’t appreciated that Clegg was absent on April 16th, along with Cameron. It is almost as if they wanted the coalition to continue.
Lay Labour at 8-1 in Dumfriesshire Clydesdale and Tweeddale by backing
Tories @ 4-5 (William Hills)
SNP @ 2-1 (Ladbrokes)
Place the Tory bets first
Shadsy makes them a 25-1 chance (Labour) and that's probably generous so this should return 12% in 40 days:
DYOR
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jul/01/tory-bash-city-billionaires-ministers-bubbly-banned
Pretty close to BoJo too.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2804173/SEBASTIAN-SHAKESPEARE-PM-fawns-Guy-Fawkes-blogger-destroyed-minister.html