I have just been warned by Al-Beeb that I need to have a TV-licence to watch a Grand-Prix on the t'Internet. The fact that myself and my Serbian princess are paying for two licences shows what a wankfest the state-propaganda (Gruaniad/Labour) system is.
Time for a cull....
:bunch-of-[MODERATED]s:
Are you still in the Netherlands?
Please do keep up Gaijan....
My bad, for technical reasons I only see your posts on mobile browsers.
Mr. England, cheers, but I'm irked at myself. Misjudgement on Grosjean to be top 6 and, much worse, I lacked the patience to wait a few more hours to try backing Ferrari to top score (I'd guess 5-6 or longer would've been available) and the judgement to back and hedge Vettel at 10.5 for the win.
Still, glad my confidence in Raikkonen was proved justified.
Oh! The amazingly amusing thought that 48 SNP MP's could be sitting in Westminster for 5 years and be totally ignored by all the others. Just like the muppets sitting behind our beloved FM in Holyrood.
Can't see it happening though, but if the polls keep going in Labour's favour, then the SNP vote in Scotland may be vulnerable.
Ha Ha Ha , Labour dreaming will not help. We could send a lorry load of pigs and they would do more than Labour MP's have ever done for Scotland. As for Holyrood , LOL have you ever looked at the dullards they have there. There are none so blind as those who will not see. The merde is about to be flushed.
As the SNP cast the Tay Pearls before the swine of the referendum electorate, and were spurned. What price a copy of Scotland's Future now. And as for the work of the SNP in Holyrood, for the / another referendum, much. Anything else, it's all somebody else's fault.
I have my free copy , so a bargain in anybodys language. Labour all bitter and twisted, you bought your mug from Labour shop yet.
Morning all and I see SKY going overboard on the YouGov poll. No mention of the Opinium poll.
OGH is in full orgasm mode on Twitter predicting "the Tories are fcuked". Suggesting there is a 6% swing in England on the strength of one poll is nonsense.
An interesting thought, Ed has now raised his game in the eyes of the watching public and his groupies in the Islington chatterati. Can he keep it up?
As TSE has reported, at this stage in 2010, OGH, Mark Senior and others were getting carried away with LibDem gains resulting in 80-120 seats. The LibDems even led the polls for a while. We all know how that ended!
It will be interesting to see the effect of this Thursday's 7-way rammy on the viewing, voting public.
As a semi-pro punter but not a political one I simply cannot understand the euphoria and change in betting intentions over one poll, looks like the way to the poorhouse to me.
It is not the single poll, it is the penny finally dropping that the assumed drift to the Tories may not happen and there is nothing inevitable about it. Quite the reverse in fact.
I speculated unreasonably early (thanks to the cricket) on the previous thread that there had to come a point when the complacency bubble burst. Could be a good thing for the Tories in the long run. Bit like that poll in the referendum.
But what you are saying is that the penny has dropped after a single poll, which I struggle with.
I do agree though that it is a good thing for the Tories, I have them to win a minority and I am not unhappy with that bet.
It is counter narrative. And highlights the point that evidence for the narrative is almost non existent. I doubt anyone believes Labour is 4 points ahead but according to the plan the Tories were supposed to be by now.
Cameron has a reputation for being at his best when his back is against the wall and cruising when it isn't. This would be a good time to start living up to that reputation.
It seems to be a common pattern for leaders to do badly on the first debate then rebound. George W Bush did, and so did Obama. (Maybe Brown too, can't remember.) I guess part of this is complacency/practice, but part of it is that faced with a new challenger the media need an "Ooh" before they can do an "Aah".
Looks as though all historic posts under disqUS have been lost. Cannae find the EIU evidence that showed Scotland's fiscal deficit (1980 thro' 2008?) despite "oil, whiskey and whinging".
Can anyone find the link to the t'Economist article please...?
It's been tallied. Since 1980 Scotland paid £222bn to the UK it didn't get back. The UK also borrowed around £1200bn in debt Scotland did not need and asked Scotland to pay debt interest.
Link?
Ms Vance:
Note that the subject is "UK" not "England". A lesson learned me-thinks....
Since Mr Dair is so Coy I've done a bit of digging.
If we make Scotland retrospectively Independent to 1980 then the figures add up ('geographical share of oil'), but then they wouldn't have had Mrs Thatcher either - so where are the assumptions to end?
Is that your way of saying he was telling the truth
No - it was an illustration of the fatuity of the assumption upon which his claim is based.....
Backpeddling now, you inadvertantly printed the truth. massive robbery took place and now the pygmy's down south wail about inequality whilst their pockets are stuffed with our money, you could not make it up.
I have just been warned by Al-Beeb that I need to have a TV-licence to watch a Grand-Prix on the t'Internet. The fact that myself and my Serbian princess are paying for two licences shows what a wankfest the state-propaganda (Gruaniad/Labour) system is.
Time for a cull....
:bunch-of-[MODERATED]s:
Are you still in the Netherlands?
Please do keep up Gaijan....
My bad, for technical reasons I only see your posts on mobile browsers.
Paul I am on YouGov's panel though wasn't asked for a contribution for this poll. I only do it because over the course of a year I complete enough surveys (across a huge range of topics) to earn £100-150. For every 5000 points gained I get a cheque for £50. A typical survey will give between 25 and 150 points depending on length.
It takes me over 2 years to earn £50 with YouGov. I must be too ordinary.
No you are too honest. If you tell You Gov you will vote for party X and did so in 2010 and do so again if they poll you, your political voting surveys will be minimal. YOu gov want floating voters..
The only thing that's floating is their numbers. The change from last Thursday on a programme no one watched is barely credible, but we will soon see when the phone pollsters report
In any event I think all the pollsters are going to get a bloody nose.. Not sure they know how to account for a fourth party ....
As a semi-pro punter but not a political one I simply cannot understand the euphoria and change in betting intentions over one poll, looks like the way to the poorhouse to me.
It is not the single poll, it is the penny finally dropping that the assumed drift to the Tories may not happen and there is nothing inevitable about it. Quite the reverse in fact.
I speculated unreasonably early (thanks to the cricket) on the previous thread that there had to come a point when the complacency bubble burst. Could be a good thing for the Tories in the long run. Bit like that poll in the referendum.
But what you are saying is that the penny has dropped after a single poll, which I struggle with.
I do agree though that it is a good thing for the Tories, I have them to win a minority and I am not unhappy with that bet.
It is counter narrative. And highlights the point that evidence for the narrative is almost non existent. I doubt anyone believes Labour is 4 points ahead but according to the plan the Tories were supposed to be by now.
Cameron has a reputation for being at his best when his back is against the wall and cruising when it isn't. This would be a good time to start living up to that reputation.
It seems to be a common pattern for leaders to do badly on the first debate then rebound. George W Bush did, and so did Obama. (Maybe Brown too, can't remember.) I guess part of this is complacency/practice, but part of it is that faced with a new challenger the media need an "Ooh" before they can do an "Aah".
You may well be right Edmund. I also think that the more likely an Ed win becomes the more he will be subject to scrutiny. And he has not prepared well for that in policy terms.
But there is no doubt at all that Tory supporters such as myself are stretching for straws at the moment. The Yougov panel is unrepresentative. The public aren't paying attention yet. Those that aren't don't think much of Ed. Ed Balls scares people. No PM ahead on popularity and the economy has lost. Would people really risk this great recovery?
Plenty of straws but those who say the polls are wrong usually lose money.
Morning all and I see SKY going overboard on the YouGov poll. No mention of the Opinium poll.
OGH is in full orgasm mode on Twitter predicting "the Tories are fcuked". Suggesting there is a 6% swing in England on the strength of one poll is nonsense.
Is that really the language used by Mike Smithson?
Morning all and I see SKY going overboard on the YouGov poll. No mention of the Opinium poll.
OGH is in full orgasm mode on Twitter predicting "the Tories are fcuked". Suggesting there is a 6% swing in England on the strength of one poll is nonsense.
An interesting thought, Ed has now raised his game in the eyes of the watching public and his groupies in the Islington chatterati. Can he keep it up?
As TSE has reported, at this stage in 2010, OGH, Mark Senior and others were getting carried away with LibDem gains resulting in 80-120 seats. The LibDems even led the polls for a while. We all know how that ended!
It will be interesting to see the effect of this Thursday's 7-way rammy on the viewing, voting public.
As a semi-pro punter but not a political one I simply cannot understand the euphoria and change in betting intentions over one poll, looks like the way to the poorhouse to me.
It is not the single poll, it is the penny finally dropping that the assumed drift to the Tories may not happen and there is nothing inevitable about it. Quite the reverse in fact.
I speculated unreasonably early (thanks to the cricket) on the previous thread that there had to come a point when the complacency bubble burst. Could be a good thing for the Tories in the long run. Bit like that poll in the referendum.
With the benefit of hindsight it does look like the Conservative high command were expecting an inevitable drift to them as election day got closer.
It's almost like they've repeated the SLab 2011 'do nothing say nothing' campaign mistake - but at least SLab had massive lead in the polls first.
You may well be right Edmund. I also think that the more likely an Ed win becomes the more he will be subject to scrutiny. And he has not prepared well for that in policy terms.
But there is no doubt at all that Tory supporters such as myself are stretching for straws at the moment. The Yougov panel is unrepresentative. The public aren't paying attention yet. Those that aren't don't think much of Ed. Ed Balls scares people. No PM ahead on popularity and the economy has lost. Would people really risk this great recovery?
Plenty of straws but those who say the polls are wrong usually lose money.
Yup, I'd agree with that. I guess a lot of the pro-Tory narrative was based on the idea that Ed Miliband would have a hard time surviving contact with the voters, so the narrative really needed the first debate not only to stay level, but actually to swing a few voters to Con. It's only one poll, but the probability of what should (on that theory) be a +1 or +2 move to Con coming out at -4 takes you into the roguer territory of rogue polling.
Since the demise of Epoch - and the rise of Andriod and WE - there are no mobile-browsers. This may be too much for a clown.
In the old-days there were WAP and Eriksons - with the esoteric canvases and what-not - but that was so 2-G it died. [Nae two Glasgae teams: Hoops and loopies!]
Internet via 3/4-G is - mainly - UNIX based (on AMD processors) packaged via Linux. No more cult-software: Just C and Java.
EiT's javascript is not deployed: It is a choice. As was Scotland's IndyRef.
Among the alienated, says the Independent on Sunday, are young people. At the last election, only 44% of 18-to-24-year-olds voted, compared with 76% of people aged 65 and over, it says. "Sharp rises in student fees, cuts to youth services and uncertainties over housing and jobs have left young people feeling overlooked and ignored by the political climate. Fears are mounting this election that still fewer young people will make the effort to register before 20 April."
Very puzzling. I'm far from young myself, but do young people not see some correlation between not voting/ not registering to vote and 'feeling overlooked and ignored'?
Morning all and I see SKY going overboard on the YouGov poll. No mention of the Opinium poll.
OGH is in full orgasm mode on Twitter predicting "the Tories are fcuked". Suggesting there is a 6% swing in England on the strength of one poll is nonsense.
Is that really the language used by Mike Smithson?
No, but he does seem a bit over-excited. This is one poll, boys and girls, and so uninteresting in itself that the dear old BBC can't be bothered to report it anywhere at all as far as I can see. Lots of dancing to the tune of the Sunday Times from people who should know better.
Morning all and I see SKY going overboard on the YouGov poll. No mention of the Opinium poll.
OGH is in full orgasm mode on Twitter predicting "the Tories are fcuked". Suggesting there is a 6% swing in England on the strength of one poll is nonsense.
Is that really the language used by Mike Smithson?
Thank you Peter. I find @Easterross 's comments offensive.
Looks as though all historic posts under disqUS have been lost. Cannae find the EIU evidence that showed Scotland's fiscal deficit (1980 thro' 2008?) despite "oil, whiskey and whinging".
Can anyone find the link to the t'Economist article please...?
It's been tallied. Since 1980 Scotland paid £222bn to the UK it didn't get back. The UK also borrowed around £1200bn in debt Scotland did not need and asked Scotland to pay debt interest.
Link?
Ms Vance:
Note that the subject is "UK" not "England". A lesson learned me-thinks....
Since Mr Dair is so Coy I've done a bit of digging.
If we make Scotland retrospectively Independent to 1980 then the figures add up ('geographical share of oil'), but then they wouldn't have had Mrs Thatcher either - so where are the assumptions to end?
Is that your way of saying he was telling the truth
No - it was an illustration of the fatuity of the assumption upon which his claim is based.....
Backpeddling now, you inadvertantly printed the truth. massive robbery took place and now the pygmy's down south wail about inequality whilst their pockets are stuffed with our money, you could not make it up.
NZ not managing to make a match of this final. If I buy Ashes tickets this year I am going to make sure they are for days 1,2 or 3. Beyond that very little chance of much cricket I fear.
Many thanks to Morris Dancer for another superb tip, I took Raikkonen top six finish on his recommendation yesterday at 1.85.
Yes. Many thanks. I was a bit late and got 1.76 but a great spot from MorrisDancer. I am not a Ferrari fan but a solid performance in China could see their price for the Constructors now look very good value ....
The self selection in on-line surveys is more than just on the sort of people that can be bothered to fill in a survey for a few pence, there is a secondary and I suspect rather more powerful self selection on the current mood of the respondent, ie. how they feel, especially about their politics, at the time of the survey. If you had been watching the debates and were feeling fired up about your leaders slightly above average and borderline credible performance you might feel rather more incline to go an tell the world about it, than if, to take a hypothetical example, you felt your leader had been rather complacent and caught on the hop, and generally given an indifferent performance.
My money would still be on the pollsters getting a serious bloody nose this election, especially the on-line ones.
Have ordered three of those mugs from Labour, ought to be enough to wind up a niece. With any luck she and her parents will be so disgusted with Labour that they will vote for LDs or Greens in a Lab/Tory marginal seat.
* Of those who say they are voting tactically in Scotland, an overwhelming 55% say they are doing it to stop the SNP. This may relate to the continued narrowing of the Lab-SNP gap in the subsamples (usual caveats)
The self selection in on-line surveys is more than just on the sort of people that can be bothered to fill in a survey for a few pence, there is a secondary and I suspect rather more powerful self selection on the current mood of the respondent, ie. how they feel, especially about their politics, at the time of the survey. If you had been watching the debates and were feeling fired up about your leaders slightly above average and borderline credible performance you might feel rather more incline to go an tell the world about it, than if, to take a hypothetical example, you felt your leader had been rather complacent and caught on the hop, and generally given an indifferent performance.
This is true, but for it to skew the results it needs to happen independently of the things that YouGov weight for, like demographics, past vote, newspaper readership or whatever. If it correlates with those then the weightings should fix it.
I think what's more probable here than a big systematic polling failure is that we're just seeing statistical noise around a dead heat. When do we get some moar polling?
Mr. Greene, was tempted by Ferrari at 6.6 on Betfair [for the title].
Then saw them at 9 with Ladbrokes. I've put a little on.
Edited extra bit: and thanks for the kind words, but I must stress I made a loss on this race. You should check my F1 articles, and then see what Mr. M recommends in the comments (I think he's green on both races so far).
* Of those who say they are voting tactically in Scotland, an overwhelming 55% say they are doing it to stop the SNP. This may relate to the continued narrowing of the Lab-SNP gap in the subsamples (usual caveats)
An account of the failure of Oxford Social Services to protect a child of 2 from grooming and sexual exploitation may be worth a read.
You Can’t Have My Daughter by Elizabeth McDonnell will be published by Macmillan on 9 April, priced £7.99.
Yet I read yesterday of another social services who have had children put in a children's home because their father had smacked them. Is this place guaranteed safe from paedophiles?
Looks as though all historic posts under disqUS have been lost. Cannae find the EIU evidence that showed Scotland's fiscal deficit (1980 thro' 2008?) despite "oil, whiskey and whinging".
Can anyone find the link to the t'Economist article please...?
It's been tallied. Since 1980 Scotland paid £222bn to the UK it didn't get back. The UK also borrowed around £1200bn in debt Scotland did not need and asked Scotland to pay debt interest.
Link?
Ms Vance:
Note that the subject is "UK" not "England". A lesson learned me-thinks....
Since Mr Dair is so Coy I've done a bit of digging.
If we make Scotland retrospectively Independent to 1980 then the figures add up ('geographical share of oil'), but then they wouldn't have had Mrs Thatcher either - so where are the assumptions to end?
Is that your way of saying he was telling the truth
No - it was an illustration of the fatuity of the assumption upon which his claim is based.....
Backpeddling now, you inadvertantly printed the truth. massive robbery took place and now the pygmy's down south wail about inequality whilst their pockets are stuffed with our money, you could not make it up.
What about RBS and HBOS?
Those London run UK banks, and your point is?
They are either London run, so on independence you lose all those jobs, or they are Edinburgh based and you take all the liabilities.
Morning all and I see SKY going overboard on the YouGov poll. No mention of the Opinium poll.
OGH is in full orgasm mode on Twitter predicting "the Tories are fcuked". Suggesting there is a 6% swing in England on the strength of one poll is nonsense.
An interesting thought, Ed has now raised his game in the eyes of the watching public and his groupies in the Islington chatterati. Can he keep it up?
As TSE has reported, at this stage in 2010, OGH, Mark Senior and others were getting carried away with LibDem gains resulting in 80-120 seats. The LibDems even led the polls for a while. We all know how that ended!
It will be interesting to see the effect of this Thursday's 7-way rammy on the viewing, voting public.
As a semi-pro punter but not a political one I simply cannot understand the euphoria and change in betting intentions over one poll, looks like the way to the poorhouse to me.
It is not the single poll, it is the penny finally dropping that the assumed drift to the Tories may not happen and there is nothing inevitable about it. Quite the reverse in fact.
I speculated unreasonably early (thanks to the cricket) on the previous thread that there had to come a point when the complacency bubble burst. Could be a good thing for the Tories in the long run. Bit like that poll in the referendum.
With the benefit of hindsight it does look like the Conservative high command were expecting an inevitable drift to them as election day got closer.
Indeed, though they have no excuse as plenty including even some among the Tories have raised the risks with that for a while. The problem for them is they seem to feel they deserve to be rewarded on the economy, that people will return to reward them, that people will obviously dislike Ed M and will return to them, and soon and so forth.
All the reasons they think they should be doing better with the public than the polls suggest could be true, and could end up having an impact even at a very late stage, but there is no reason that it will. To paraphrase DavidL, just because something could happen, and maybe one feels should happen, doesn't mean it will. The public can be like that sometimes.
Tory hopes were already slim and reliant on polls being understated and Lab underperforming, and big changes happening very late on to a significant enough degree of them to not only be largest party, but largest by a distance - if this sort of poll becomes 'normal' again, even with overall the picture being mostly tied, then they have no chance.
An account of the failure of Oxford Social Services to protect a child of 2 from grooming and sexual exploitation may be worth a read.
You Can’t Have My Daughter by Elizabeth McDonnell will be published by Macmillan on 9 April, priced £7.99.
Yet I read yesterday of another social services who have had children put in a children's home because their father had smacked them. Is this place guaranteed safe from paedophiles?
Christopher Bookers column has had a litany of such stories as your last paragraph over the last few years.
It is fairly obvious to me that the balance of probability decision to take children away from parents due to risk of neglect or minor abuse dosen't take into account the high risk of major abuse in council care.
Its also noticeable to me that the same crop of councils regularly comes up in such reports while of most councils you hear nothign (certain inner city boroughs and certain shires - so not related to any one political party).
But it is fairly normal mentality for socialist systems. USSR put children of dissidents in hellhole orphanages and East Germany had the children of dissidents forcibly adopted.
This is one poll, boys and girls, and so uninteresting in itself that the dear old BBC can't be bothered to report it anywhere at all as far as I can see. Lots of dancing to the tune of the Sunday Times from people who should know better.
BBC policy is not to comment on opinion polls of voting intention.
If you tell You Gov you will vote for party X and did so in 2010 and do so again if they poll you, your political voting surveys will be minimal. YOu gov want floating voters..
Nonsense on stilts, and libellous nonsense at that. YG frequently select people like Easterross who answer lots of surveys. I agree they might be different in some way we don't know from average voters, but that's not the same as saying they select people who change their opinion often, which would seriosly damage their reputation as a polling company.
Moreover, the thing that's really struck us all about YG lately is how little their polls change. The current one is unusual in that respect (and I agree may be a bounce that will settle).
Looks as though all historic posts under disqUS have been lost. Cannae find the EIU evidence that showed Scotland's fiscal deficit (1980 thro' 2008?) despite "oil, whiskey and whinging".
Can anyone find the link to the t'Economist article please...?
It's been tallied. Since 1980 Scotland paid £222bn to the UK it didn't get back. The UK also borrowed around £1200bn in debt Scotland did not need and asked Scotland to pay debt interest.
Link?
Ms Vance:
Note that the subject is "UK" not "England". A lesson learned me-thinks....
Since Mr Dair is so Coy I've done a bit of digging.
If we make Scotland retrospectively Independent to 1980 then the figures add up ('geographical share of oil'), but then they wouldn't have had Mrs Thatcher either - so where are the assumptions to end?
Is that your way of saying he was telling the truth
No - it was an illustration of the fatuity of the assumption upon which his claim is based.....
Backpeddling now, you inadvertantly printed the truth. massive robbery took place and now the pygmy's down south wail about inequality whilst their pockets are stuffed with our money, you could not make it up.
What about RBS and HBOS?
Those London run UK banks, and your point is?
They are either London run, so on independence you lose all those jobs, or they are Edinburgh based and you take all the liabilities.
Yawn, you can keep Halifax and Nat West etc, ie the 90% of the crap that is not Scottish.
* Of those who say they are voting tactically in Scotland, an overwhelming 55% say they are doing it to stop the SNP. This may relate to the continued narrowing of the Lab-SNP gap in the subsamples (usual caveats)
Looks like SNP are trying very hard to out Labour Labour. Just steam rollered through all women lists. Not a good move , if they are not good enough they should not be there. Beginning of the decline for SNP I reckon.
* Of those who say they are voting tactically in Scotland, an overwhelming 55% say they are doing it to stop the SNP. This may relate to the continued narrowing of the Lab-SNP gap in the subsamples (usual caveats)
* 51% of people plan to watch the 7-party debate.
11 people
I was not far away, Labour and being economical with reality come to mind
Morning all and I see SKY going overboard on the YouGov poll. No mention of the Opinium poll.
OGH is in full orgasm mode on Twitter predicting "the Tories are fcuked". Suggesting there is a 6% swing in England on the strength of one poll is nonsense.
An interesting thought, Ed has now raised his game in the eyes of the watching public and his groupies in the Islington chatterati. Can he keep it up?
As TSE has reported, at this stage in 2010, OGH, Mark Senior and others were getting carried away with LibDem gains resulting in 80-120 seats. The LibDems even led the polls for a while. We all know how that ended!
It will be interesting to see the effect of this Thursday's 7-way rammy on the viewing, voting public.
As a semi-pro punter but not a political one I simply cannot understand the euphoria and change in betting intentions over one poll, looks like the way to the poorhouse to me.
It is not the single poll, it is the penny finally dropping that the assumed drift to the Tories may not happen and there is nothing inevitable about it. Quite the reverse in fact.
I speculated unreasonably early (thanks to the cricket) on the previous thread that there had to come a point when the complacency bubble burst. Could be a good thing for the Tories in the long run. Bit like that poll in the referendum.
With the benefit of hindsight it does look like the Conservative high command were expecting an inevitable drift to them as election day got closer.
It's almost like they've repeated the SLab 2011 'do nothing say nothing' campaign mistake - but at least SLab had massive lead in the polls first.
There has been drift to the tories, over the long term. But what we also have had is the sudden ramping up of tory cuts being nasty and labour's being cuddly. That is more effective than interviews which nobody watched. We are re running 2010 with Sturgeon replacing Clegg. UKIP have drifted down, but the fact remains that any UKIP vote helps Labour. Perversely, high expectations of Labour helps SNP and high expectations of SNP hinder Labour in England. Through all this we see voters quite sceptical of everybody and the leaks of so called official policy could easily be quite effective for labour even if it has nothing to do with tories.
Looks like SNP are trying very hard to out Labour Labour. Just steam rollered through all women lists. Not a good move , if they are not good enough they should not be there. Beginning of the decline for SNP I reckon.
You all wear skirts up there any way why will it make any difference ?
This is one poll, boys and girls, and so uninteresting in itself that the dear old BBC can't be bothered to report it anywhere at all as far as I can see. Lots of dancing to the tune of the Sunday Times from people who should know better.
BBC policy is not to comment on opinion polls of voting intention.
If you tell You Gov you will vote for party X and did so in 2010 and do so again if they poll you, your political voting surveys will be minimal. YOu gov want floating voters..
Nonsense on stilts, and libellous nonsense at that. YG frequently select people like Easterross who answer lots of surveys. I agree they might be different in some way we don't know from average voters, but that's not the same as saying they select people who change their opinion often, which would seriosly damage their reputation as a polling company.
Moreover, the thing that's really struck us all about YG lately is how little their polls change. The current one is unusual in that respect (and I agree may be a bounce that will settle).
They report them when they think they are interesting and important, though. Which is rather my point.
If Yougov target floating voters as suggested, that seems to me a rather sensible and useful thing to do. A bit like polling in marginal constituencies. Where's the libel?
Looks as though all historic posts under disqUS have been lost. Cannae find the EIU evidence that showed Scotland's fiscal deficit (1980 thro' 2008?) despite "oil, whiskey and whinging".
Can anyone find the link to the t'Economist article please...?
It's been tallied. Since 1980 Scotland paid £222bn to the UK it didn't get back. The UK also borrowed around £1200bn in debt Scotland did not need and asked Scotland to pay debt interest.
Link?
Ms Vance:
Note that the subject is "UK" not "England". A lesson learned me-thinks....
Since Mr Dair is so Coy I've done a bit of digging.
If we make Scotland retrospectively Independent to 1980 then the figures add up ('geographical share of oil'), but then they wouldn't have had Mrs Thatcher either - so where are the assumptions to end?
Is that your way of saying he was telling the truth
No - it was an illustration of the fatuity of the assumption upon which his claim is based.....
Backpeddling now, you inadvertantly printed the truth. massive robbery took place and now the pygmy's down south wail about inequality whilst their pockets are stuffed with our money, you could not make it up.
What about RBS and HBOS?
Those London run UK banks, and your point is?
They are either London run, so on independence you lose all those jobs, or they are Edinburgh based and you take all the liabilities.
Yawn, you can keep Halifax and Nat West etc, ie the 90% of the crap that is not Scottish.
Blimey, you lot really do want your cake and eat it.
I couldn't care less mind you and look forward to the day when you piss off.
Looks like SNP are trying very hard to out Labour Labour. Just steam rollered through all women lists. Not a good move , if they are not good enough they should not be there. Beginning of the decline for SNP I reckon.
You all wear skirts up there any way why will it make any difference ?
Contents below are different Alan, well in many cases at least ,some debatable
Looks as though all historic posts under disqUS have been lost. Cannae find the EIU evidence that showed Scotland's fiscal deficit (1980 thro' 2008?) despite "oil, whiskey and whinging".
Can anyone find the link to the t'Economist article please...?
It's been tallied. Since 1980 Scotland paid £222bn to the UK it didn't get back. The UK also borrowed around £1200bn in debt Scotland did not need and asked Scotland to pay debt interest.
Link?
Ms Vance:
Note that the subject is "UK" not "England". A lesson learned me-thinks....
Since Mr Dair is so Coy I've done a bit of digging.
If we make Scotland retrospectively Independent to 1980 then the figures add up ('geographical share of oil'), but then they wouldn't have had Mrs Thatcher either - so where are the assumptions to end?
Is that your way of saying he was telling the truth
No - it was an illustration of the fatuity of the assumption upon which his claim is based.....
Backpeddling now, you inadvertantly printed the truth. massive robbery took place and now the pygmy's down south wail about inequality whilst their pockets are stuffed with our money, you could not make it up.
What about RBS and HBOS?
Those London run UK banks, and your point is?
They are either London run, so on independence you lose all those jobs, or they are Edinburgh based and you take all the liabilities.
Yawn, you can keep Halifax and Nat West etc, ie the 90% of the crap that is not Scottish.
Blimey, you lot really do want your cake and eat it.
I couldn't care less mind you and look forward to the day when you piss off.
what a sour bitter twisted little englander turnip. Go bother someone who cares.
Backpeddling now, you inadvertantly printed the truth. massive robbery took place and now the pygmy's down south wail about inequality whilst their pockets are stuffed with our money, you could not make it up.
What about RBS and HBOS?
Those London run UK banks, and your point is?
They are either London run, so on independence you lose all those jobs, or they are Edinburgh based and you take all the liabilities.
Yawn, you can keep Halifax and Nat West etc, ie the 90% of the crap that is not Scottish.
And RBS, Lloyds, Prudential, Aviva, Clydesdale/Yorkshire and rumours have it that recently Standard Life may have been looking at Newcastle for their potential HQ. Then look at all the Corporate Legal activity, very little in Scotland mostly all in London showing how important Scotland is not in the big name plate companies plans.
So no Scottish Banks, very little major service providers HO's, all major companies name plated in London or off shore, and specifically paying taxes and probably employing people elsewhere.
Watched an interesting programme the other day on Keillers Marmalade. Seems that to avoid paying UK taxes at one time, they set up a large subsidiary factory in Jersey. Then cut and run from there when the laws were changed again.
Do you really think business owners will want to stay in a Scotland with a problematical future?
Looks as though all historic posts under disqUS have been lost. Cannae find the EIU evidence that showed Scotland's fiscal deficit (1980 thro' 2008?) despite "oil, whiskey and whinging".
Can anyone find the link to the t'Economist article please...?
It's been tallied. Since 1980 Scotland paid £222bn to the UK it didn't get back. The UK also borrowed around £1200bn in debt Scotland did not need and asked Scotland to pay debt interest.
Link?
Ms Vance:
Note that the subject is "UK" not "England". A lesson learned me-thinks....
Since Mr Dair is so Coy I've done a bit of digging.
If we make Scotland retrospectively Independent to 1980 then the figures add up ('geographical share of oil'), but then they wouldn't have had Mrs Thatcher either - so where are the assumptions to end?
Is that your way of saying he was telling the truth
No - it was an illustration of the fatuity of the assumption upon which his claim is based.....
Backpeddling now, you inadvertantly printed the truth. massive robbery took place and now the pygmy's down south wail about inequality whilst their pockets are stuffed with our money, you could not make it up.
What about RBS and HBOS?
Those London run UK banks, and your point is?
They are either London run, so on independence you lose all those jobs, or they are Edinburgh based and you take all the liabilities.
Yawn, you can keep Halifax and Nat West etc, ie the 90% of the crap that is not Scottish.
Blimey, you lot really do want your cake and eat it.
I couldn't care less mind you and look forward to the day when you piss off.
what a sour bitter twisted little englander turnip. Go bother someone who cares.
Backpeddling now, you inadvertantly printed the truth. massive robbery took place and now the pygmy's down south wail about inequality whilst their pockets are stuffed with our money, you could not make it up.
What about RBS and HBOS?
Those London run UK banks, and your point is?
They are either London run, so on independence you lose all those jobs, or they are Edinburgh based and you take all the liabilities.
Yawn, you can keep Halifax and Nat West etc, ie the 90% of the crap that is not Scottish.
And RBS, Lloyds, Prudential, Aviva, Clydesdale/Yorkshire and rumours have it that recently Standard Life may have been looking at Newcastle for their potential HQ. Then look at all the Corporate Legal activity, very little in Scotland mostly all in London showing how important Scotland is not in the big name plate companies plans.
So no Scottish Banks, very little major service providers HO's, all major companies name plated in London or off shore, and specifically paying taxes and probably employing people elsewhere.
Watched an interesting programme the other day on Keillers Marmalade. Seems that to avoid paying UK taxes at one time, they set up a large subsidiary factory in Jersey. Then cut and run from there when the laws were changed again.
Do you really think business owners will want to stay in a Scotland with a problematical future?
You really are a typical Labour supporter. Why would only Scotland in the world not be able to keep businesses. What could be so incredibly different in an independent Scotland to make it so different from any other country in the world. Are you really as stupid as your post suggests.
I've seen this YG poll somehow also have Lab ahead of Con on the economic management question too.... where we know the blues normally have a strong lead.
I'm calling it a rogue with an iffy sample as explained by Wells UKPR!
Andrew Neil drilled into Labour's deficit reduction plans with Lucy Powell to find that their tax rise will raise a maximum of £2bn and their cuts a maximum of £1bn. Yet she just blandly retorts "we will deal the deficit"
Look at the detail and it's absolutely clear they won't.
I've seen this YG poll somehow also have Lab ahead of Con on the economic management question too.... where we know the blues normally have a strong lead.
I'm calling it a rogue with an iffy sample as explained by Wells UKPR!
And yes I don't like it either....
@Dannythefink: UK Polling Report:"Looking at the YouGov data, 31% of pple who voted Labour in 2010 watched the debate, only 15% of people who voted Tory...
@Dannythefink: …so the sub-sample of people who watched the debate was actually a very Laboury group of people to begin with." I am just quoting them.
"Christopher Bookers column has had a litany of such stories as your last paragraph over the last few years.
It is fairly obvious to me that the balance of probability decision to take children away from parents due to risk of neglect or minor abuse dosen't take into account the high risk of major abuse in council care.
Its also noticeable to me that the same crop of councils regularly comes up in such reports while of most councils you hear nothign (certain inner city boroughs and certain shires - so not related to any one political party).
But it is fairly normal mentality for socialist systems. USSR put children of dissidents in hellhole orphanages and East Germany had the children of dissidents forcibly adopted."
Until you start reading stuff on the net you really don't realize the amount of ignorance that is out there
"Christopher Bookers column has had a litany of such stories as your last paragraph over the last few years.
It is fairly obvious to me that the balance of probability decision to take children away from parents due to risk of neglect or minor abuse dosen't take into account the high risk of major abuse in council care.
Its also noticeable to me that the same crop of councils regularly comes up in such reports while of most councils you hear nothign (certain inner city boroughs and certain shires - so not related to any one political party).
But it is fairly normal mentality for socialist systems. USSR put children of dissidents in hellhole orphanages and East Germany had the children of dissidents forcibly adopted."
Until you start reading stuff on the net you really don't realize the amount of ignorance that is out there
Do we have enough checks and balances in the system to stop us going down the route of the USSR. The case of the UKIP foster parents in Rotherham and the case in the link is very troubling.
Labour's new less than 1% strategy, illustrates their flawed maths. In an economy with 30m+ workers, the Labour party's key strategy to boost wages is to tackle the problem of the less than 0.3m workers on zero hours contracts who want more hours.... According to Lucy at Labour.
50p rate coming back from the SNP - that'll cost them votes in London and the South Eas.. OH WAIT
I think we are seeing a change under Sturgeon from what we saw with Salmond. Under Salmond the model was always "bang on about austerity and inequality, but never actually advocate progressive tax rises because we want business/the middle class onside". A lot of the key pledges in the run up to the referendum were actually for tax cuts/freezes - reduce corporation tax, abolish air passenger duty, resist the 50p tax rate, freeze the Council Tax, etc. Of course we've also seen them advocating huge tax breaks for the oil industry recently.
Sturgeon has already got rid of the corporation tax pledge and backed the 50p tax rate. There's also a pretty clear difference in how Sturgeon is trying to woo over English Labour voters while Salmond seems intent on baiting them and stirring up English nationalism. Whether that's going to be successful for her long-term is a different question - my instinct is that even though Salmond's campaigning was completely dishonest (arguing that we could raise public spending and cut taxes while also cutting borrowing) it was still wildly successful from an electoral perspective.
Peter Hitchen's dislike of Cameron is such that he is considering voting Labour!
Also includes Cameron's house that we helped pay for, and Dave wiping his nose on his hand while preparing dinner (I agree that if Ed had done so, it would have been all over the media)
I'm doing a little research for fun, and I am looking for a handful of three- or four-way marginals, preferably where the incumbent is standing down.
Thanks in advance. ;-)
Portsmouth South, might even be a 4 way.
More likely a two way Con/LD. Tory candidate was thrown off Winchester council for non-attendance for 6 months. It's well known in this area and is a bit of a handicap.
50p rate coming back from the SNP - that'll cost them votes in London and the South Eas.. OH WAIT
I think we are seeing a change under Sturgeon from what we saw with Salmond. Under Salmond the model was always "bang on about austerity and inequality, but never actually advocate progressive tax rises because we want business/the middle class onside". A lot of the key pledges in the run up to the referendum were actually for tax cuts/freezes - reduce corporation tax, abolish air passenger duty, resist the 50p tax rate, freeze the Council Tax, etc. Of course we've also seen them advocating huge tax breaks for the oil industry recently.
Sturgeon has already got rid of the corporation tax pledge and backed the 50p tax rate. There's also a pretty clear difference in how Sturgeon is trying to woo over English Labour voters while Salmond seems intent on baiting them and stirring up English nationalism. Whether that's going to be successful for her long-term is a different question - my instinct is that even though Salmond's campaigning was completely dishonest (arguing that we could raise public spending and cut taxes while also cutting borrowing) it was still wildly successful from an electoral perspective.
From the standpoint of this election though a shift to the left is good for the SNP as they are trying to take places like Coatsbridge, Motherwell, Kirkcaldy, Aidrie & Shotts - places that have monolithically voted Labour for generations. You don't get these places by being Tory lite ...one or two votes in Perth & North Perthshire may seep away around the margins but I'm happy enough with the SNP's tone as a broad backer.
Peter Hitchen's dislike of Cameron is such that he is considering voting Labour!
Also includes Cameron's house that we helped pay for, and Dave wiping his nose on his hand while preparing dinner (I agree that if Ed had done so, it would have been all over the media)
Sorry about that. I hit the button too soon! I was merely going to remark that Mr Palmer should stop clutching at the straws of tactical Tory votes. If the SNP hit 45 as they do today the there are not enough Tories or pandas in Scotland to come to your aid Nick.
Not really my area, although I follow it a little. One of Mrs J's old friends did his postdoc on graphene, and her sister has done some research into it.
Sorry about that. I hit the button too soon! I was merely going to remark that Mr Palmer should stop clutching at the straws of tactical Tory votes. If the SNP hit 45 as they do today the there are not enough Tories or pandas in Scotland to come to your aid Nick.
Any idea when the actual statistically significant Scots poll is out >?
I'm doing a little research for fun, and I am looking for a handful of three- or four-way marginals, preferably where the incumbent is standing down.
Thanks in advance. ;-)
Portsmouth South, might even be a 4 way.
More likely a two way Con/LD. Tory candidate was thrown off Winchester council for non-attendance for 6 months. It's well known in this area and is a bit of a handicap.
Hancock has now said on TV that he is standing again. So that will F up the LD chances.
Not really my area, although I follow it a little. One of Mrs J's old friends did his postdoc on graphene, and her sister has done some research into it.
I can't help but feel the hype's a little overdone. But people tell me I'm wrong about that. ;-)
I noticed this and look forward to being able to buy one a B&Q at some stage. Most of my lights are now LED, but it would be good to buy one that's made in Manchester rather than China. Credit to GO, not my favourite politician, but good at supporting UK technology.
Andrew Neil drilled into Labour's deficit reduction plans with Lucy Powell to find that their tax rise will raise a maximum of £2bn and their cuts a maximum of £1bn. Yet she just blandly retorts "we will deal the deficit"
Look at the detail and it's absolutely clear they won't.
Thats right. They will not raise taxes they will not cut spending but don't worry they will cut the deficit. Standard Labour promises. One of them is at least half right of course. They would not cut spending, it would increase in real terms as always. Is this what the electorate want - a free lunch?
Comments
Despite starting 11th on the grid and getting a puncture in the first two laps he finished a comfortable fourth.
Brilliant stuff, many thanks once again.
Mr. England, cheers, but I'm irked at myself. Misjudgement on Grosjean to be top 6 and, much worse, I lacked the patience to wait a few more hours to try backing Ferrari to top score (I'd guess 5-6 or longer would've been available) and the judgement to back and hedge Vettel at 10.5 for the win.
Still, glad my confidence in Raikkonen was proved justified.
Best
Not
Comment
:thanks:
The only thing that's floating is their numbers. The change from last Thursday on a programme no one watched is barely credible, but we will soon see when the phone pollsters report
In any event I think all the pollsters are going to get a bloody nose.. Not sure they know how to account for a fourth party ....
But there is no doubt at all that Tory supporters such as myself are stretching for straws at the moment. The Yougov panel is unrepresentative. The public aren't paying attention yet. Those that aren't don't think much of Ed. Ed Balls scares people. No PM ahead on popularity and the economy has lost. Would people really risk this great recovery?
Plenty of straws but those who say the polls are wrong usually lose money.
Somehow, there is a massive swing in a small number of subsets - pensioners and the south.
It implies that a load of southern pensioners have decided that they will go and vote Lib Dem, Green etc at the Tories expense.
Yet the pattern isn't replicated in the Tory defector numbers.
Explain why this group (southern pensioners) would be uniquely susceptible to change.
Only thing I can think of, is that they've sampled a lot more leftie pensioners than they normally do. Which would explain the outcomes.
How do they decide who they will sample on any given day?
It's almost like they've repeated the SLab 2011 'do nothing say nothing' campaign mistake - but at least SLab had massive lead in the polls first.
"Mobile browser"....
Since the demise of Epoch - and the rise of Andriod and WE - there are no mobile-browsers. This may be too much for a clown.
In the old-days there were WAP and Eriksons - with the esoteric canvases and what-not - but that was so 2-G it died. [Nae two Glasgae teams: Hoops and loopies!]
Internet via 3/4-G is - mainly - UNIX based (on AMD processors) packaged via Linux. No more cult-software: Just C and Java.
EiT's javascript is not deployed: It is a choice. As was Scotland's IndyRef.
:new-processes-and-procedures:
Among the alienated, says the Independent on Sunday, are young people. At the last election, only 44% of 18-to-24-year-olds voted, compared with 76% of people aged 65 and over, it says. "Sharp rises in student fees, cuts to youth services and uncertainties over housing and jobs have left young people feeling overlooked and ignored by the political climate. Fears are mounting this election that still fewer young people will make the effort to register before 20 April."
Very puzzling. I'm far from young myself, but do young people not see some correlation between not voting/ not registering to vote and 'feeling overlooked and ignored'?
Let us entertain the resident Jockanese clowns:
RBS grandeur:
http://www.economist.com/node/15579813
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0N9Fzv7bYCM
My money would still be on the pollsters getting a serious bloody nose this election, especially the on-line ones.
What time do the Yougov polls usually come out? And any other polls?
Especially coming to the election and increased liquidity on most seats, I might set up camp around those times to try and take advantage
Any info gratefully recieved!
* Of those who say they are voting tactically in Scotland, an overwhelming 55% say they are doing it to stop the SNP. This may relate to the continued narrowing of the Lab-SNP gap in the subsamples (usual caveats)
* 51% of people plan to watch the 7-party debate.
I think what's more probable here than a big systematic polling failure is that we're just seeing statistical noise around a dead heat. When do we get some moar polling?
Then saw them at 9 with Ladbrokes. I've put a little on.
Edited extra bit: and thanks for the kind words, but I must stress I made a loss on this race. You should check my F1 articles, and then see what Mr. M recommends in the comments (I think he's green on both races so far).
Spot the Tory...
You Can’t Have My Daughter by Elizabeth McDonnell will be published by Macmillan on 9 April, priced £7.99.
Yet I read yesterday of another social services who have had children put in a children's home because their father had smacked them. Is this place guaranteed safe from paedophiles?
All the reasons they think they should be doing better with the public than the polls suggest could be true, and could end up having an impact even at a very late stage, but there is no reason that it will. To paraphrase DavidL, just because something could happen, and maybe one feels should happen, doesn't mean it will. The public can be like that sometimes.
Tory hopes were already slim and reliant on polls being understated and Lab underperforming, and big changes happening very late on to a significant enough degree of them to not only be largest party, but largest by a distance - if this sort of poll becomes 'normal' again, even with overall the picture being mostly tied, then they have no chance.
It is fairly obvious to me that the balance of probability decision to take children away from parents due to risk of neglect or minor abuse dosen't take into account the high risk of major abuse in council care.
Its also noticeable to me that the same crop of councils regularly comes up in such reports while of most councils you hear nothign (certain inner city boroughs and certain shires - so not related to any one political party).
But it is fairly normal mentality for socialist systems. USSR put children of dissidents in hellhole orphanages and East Germany had the children of dissidents forcibly adopted.
Moreover, the thing that's really struck us all about YG lately is how little their polls change. The current one is unusual in that respect (and I agree may be a bounce that will settle).
Con 15%
LD 16%
Lab 31%
More self selection and sample bias at work.
Miliband won with 2015 LDs, Cameron won with 2015 Kippers.
https://shop.labour.org.uk/products/pledge-4-mug-controls-on-immigration-551/
Will Ed or any of his candidates be seen with one of these mugs before the election ends?
Perversely, high expectations of Labour helps SNP and high expectations of SNP hinder Labour in England.
Through all this we see voters quite sceptical of everybody and the leaks of so called official policy could easily be quite effective for labour even if it has nothing to do with tories.
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/malaysia-post-race-analysis.html
If Yougov target floating voters as suggested, that seems to me a rather sensible and useful thing to do. A bit like polling in marginal constituencies. Where's the libel?
I couldn't care less mind you and look forward to the day when you piss off.
Now who is most likely PM with level polls ?
Those London run UK banks, and your point is?
They are either London run, so on independence you lose all those jobs, or they are Edinburgh based and you take all the liabilities.
Yawn, you can keep Halifax and Nat West etc, ie the 90% of the crap that is not Scottish.
And RBS, Lloyds, Prudential, Aviva, Clydesdale/Yorkshire and rumours have it that recently Standard Life may have been looking at Newcastle for their potential HQ. Then look at all the Corporate Legal activity, very little in Scotland mostly all in London showing how important Scotland is not in the big name plate companies plans.
So no Scottish Banks, very little major service providers HO's, all major companies name plated in London or off shore, and specifically paying taxes and probably employing people elsewhere.
Watched an interesting programme the other day on Keillers Marmalade. Seems that to avoid paying UK taxes at one time, they set up a large subsidiary factory in Jersey. Then cut and run from there when the laws were changed again.
Do you really think business owners will want to stay in a Scotland with a problematical future?
They are either London run, so on independence you lose all those jobs, or they are Edinburgh based and you take all the liabilities.
Yawn, you can keep Halifax and Nat West etc, ie the 90% of the crap that is not Scottish.
And RBS, Lloyds, Prudential, Aviva, Clydesdale/Yorkshire and rumours have it that recently Standard Life may have been looking at Newcastle for their potential HQ. Then look at all the Corporate Legal activity, very little in Scotland mostly all in London showing how important Scotland is not in the big name plate companies plans.
So no Scottish Banks, very little major service providers HO's, all major companies name plated in London or off shore, and specifically paying taxes and probably employing people elsewhere.
Watched an interesting programme the other day on Keillers Marmalade. Seems that to avoid paying UK taxes at one time, they set up a large subsidiary factory in Jersey. Then cut and run from there when the laws were changed again.
Do you really think business owners will want to stay in a Scotland with a problematical future?
You really are a typical Labour supporter. Why would only Scotland in the world not be able to keep businesses. What could be so incredibly different in an independent Scotland to make it so different from any other country in the world. Are you really as stupid as your post suggests.
I'm calling it a rogue with an iffy sample as explained by Wells UKPR!
And yes I don't like it either....
Look at the detail and it's absolutely clear they won't.
@Dannythefink: …so the sub-sample of people who watched the debate was actually a very Laboury group of people to begin with." I am just quoting them.
Alan Duncans face was a picture as it dawned on him.
Populus on Mondays and Friday published in the morning - no fixed time.
Ashcroft - Monday afternoons 4pm
ComRes online - Saturdays 7.30pm
ComRes phone for Mail - 0001 Wednesdays
"Christopher Bookers column has had a litany of such stories as your last paragraph over the last few years.
It is fairly obvious to me that the balance of probability decision to take children away from parents due to risk of neglect or minor abuse dosen't take into account the high risk of major abuse in council care.
Its also noticeable to me that the same crop of councils regularly comes up in such reports while of most councils you hear nothign (certain inner city boroughs and certain shires - so not related to any one political party).
But it is fairly normal mentality for socialist systems. USSR put children of dissidents in hellhole orphanages and East Germany had the children of dissidents forcibly adopted."
Until you start reading stuff on the net you really don't realize the amount of ignorance that is out there
I'm doing a little research for fun, and I am looking for a handful of three- or four-way marginals, preferably where the incumbent is standing down.
Thanks in advance. ;-)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-32100071
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2957368/Judge-slams-social-engineering-council-took-baby-away-father-ties-racist-EDL-teenage-sex-caution.html
Sturgeon has already got rid of the corporation tax pledge and backed the 50p tax rate. There's also a pretty clear difference in how Sturgeon is trying to woo over English Labour voters while Salmond seems intent on baiting them and stirring up English nationalism. Whether that's going to be successful for her long-term is a different question - my instinct is that even though Salmond's campaigning was completely dishonest (arguing that we could raise public spending and cut taxes while also cutting borrowing) it was still wildly successful from an electoral perspective.
"and how much is taken in income tax..."
Aren't they all Monegasques?
Also includes Cameron's house that we helped pay for, and Dave wiping his nose on his hand while preparing dinner (I agree that if Ed had done so, it would have been all over the media)
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/
Edit: Except for Blair, but then I never liked or voted for that creep anyway.
Sorry about that. I hit the button too soon! I was merely going to remark that Mr Palmer should stop clutching at the straws of tactical Tory votes. If the SNP hit 45 as they do today the there are not enough Tories or pandas in Scotland to come to your aid Nick.
44 hours 44 minutes 44 seconds
http://www.graphene.cam.ac.uk/
I can't help but feel the hype's a little overdone. But people tell me I'm wrong about that. ;-)
Thanks Mike!