How did it go on the Sunday politics East Midlands? I was at work so missed it.
A hyperactive interviewer had only 20 minutes for 6 candidates so she asked us all 3 questions (HS2, UKIP impact, young voters) and constantly cut each of us off in mid-sentence: it wasn't a very inspiring programme! Everyone thinks they won and I did get a couple of people on the doorstep later saying they'd been swayed to me as "the most reasonable candidate", but I think a chaotic goalless draw is probably nearer the mark. Ironically, the two people who couldn't participate (UKIP and Men & Boys) and were given two-minute interviews pre-recorded got a much easier ride. That's show business...
I think most debates and campaigning do work out as score draws.
I see some leaflets are about; Hunchman linked to an interesting site:
She's doomed. She's old, she's past it, and the email server is a scandal too far. It's probably a really good idea to see if there are any interesting second alternative candidates. (Bernie Saunders doesn't count.)
And if she did win, I think she'd lose to any sensible Republican. Really, 2016 is the Republicans to lose. Unfortunately, the Republicans seem to prefer ideological purity to power.
I enjoy a political scandal as much as the next man but I don't see the email server scandal as having that much of an impact on her campaign.
What time is tonights YG allegedly with a LAB 3pt lead due out?
Why on earth does it matter? nothing has happened bar the contemptible Harperson slagging off the Tories.. You think that's going to switch 3% of votes when about no one watched it or could have and been polled.
If any readers have had delays getting their trains at London Bridge this year (especially in the evening), then they might be interested in knowing the reasons:
The Clinton age thing doesn't matter at all. Age is relative, people are living and working a lot longer than even 25 years ago, never mind 50 or 100. Older political leaders are going to happen.
65 today is like 50 in the 80s., it's no drama. The bulk of the population that votes is in an older demographic too.
rcs1000 No Democrat other than Sanders is likely to challenge her, they would be swamped, and even if they did she beats the GOP top tier, no other named Democrat does
What time is tonights YG allegedly with a LAB 3pt lead due out?
Why on earth does it matter? nothing has happened bar the contemptible Harperson slagging off the Tories.. You think that's going to switch 3% of votes when about no one watched it or could have and been polled.
If you are not interested in polling perhaps you are on the wrong site
Don't know if anyone else had noticed this but UKIP seats at SPIN has a stop-loss of 10. Accordingly I have sold 4.5 - feels high, I assumed this was because there is so much upside in the potential of a result, but it would appear not.
There is no stop loss at 10, you'd better recheck the market.
Fwiw I think the correct spread price is about 5 1/4.
I have taken a screen grab just in case there is some dispute at a later stage. It says "Stop loss 10 seat", in the same place at it says Stop loss 200 seat for the major parties. It does not appear in the info but does when placing a bet.
No it really doesn't, I've just sold at 4.5 for a penny a seat as a proof of concept
Don't know if anyone else had noticed this but UKIP seats at SPIN has a stop-loss of 10. Accordingly I have sold 4.5 - feels high, I assumed this was because there is so much upside in the potential of a result, but it would appear not.
There is no stop loss at 10, you'd better recheck the market.
Fwiw I think the correct spread price is about 5 1/4.
I have taken a screen grab just in case there is some dispute at a later stage. It says "Stop loss 10 seat", in the same place at it says Stop loss 200 seat for the major parties. It does not appear in the info but does when placing a bet.
No it really doesn't, I've just sold at 4.5 for a penny a seat as a proof of concept
What time is tonights YG allegedly with a LAB 3pt lead due out?
Why on earth does it matter? nothing has happened bar the contemptible Harperson slagging off the Tories.. You think that's going to switch 3% of votes when about no one watched it or could have and been polled.
If you are not interested in polling perhaps you are on the wrong site
Only in passing with You Gov.. best stick to the Gold standard ICM.
Andrew NeilVerified account @afneil Tory mixed messages: we need two more years hard pounding, chaps, but here's a bunch of tax cuts and spending increases to be going on with.
Why do you want the state to take the decision on how money that you have earned is spent?
Because I value public services and fairness more than personal wealth. I like taxation on those like me who can afford it without any real hardship
Surprised you took early retirement to maximise your pension in that case. We remember you happily telling us that's why you went early, even if you don't.
Not working for Lansley was my prime reason.
My pension would have been much higher if I had stayed as i was protected on the 1995 scheme.
So afraid you are talking boll*** if you think i went for financial gain
No its you who is talking the spheroids. 'not working for Lansley' What a load of cobblers. Millions of us had to work for sodding Brown. What a load of snivelling sanctimonious rubbish you spout.
Thanks whereas you regard yourself as a well respected poster i assume
Nothing takes away your sanctimonious 'I did not want to work for Lansley' rubbish. You inflicted 13 years of Blair, Brown and an endless parade of tossers like Mandelson, Campbell and McBride on us. Most of us did not have the luxury of choosing to retire from the coalface. Not least because Brown single handedly ruined the pensions industry from which you were exempt. Get lost. I hope I continue to live up (or down, I don't care which) to your expectations.
Why do you want the state to take the decision on how money that you have earned is spent?
Because I value public services and fairness more than personal wealth. I like taxation on those like me who can afford it without any real hardship
Surprised you took early retirement to maximise your pension in that case. We remember you happily telling us that's why you went early, even if you don't.
Not working for Lansley was my prime reason.
My pension would have been much higher if I had stayed as i was protected on the 1995 scheme.
So afraid you are talking boll*** if you think i went for financial gain
No its you who is talking the spheroids. 'not working for Lansley' What a load of cobblers. Millions of us had to work for sodding Brown. What a load of snivelling sanctimonious rubbish you spout.
Thanks whereas you regard yourself as a well respected poster i assume
Get lost. I hope I continue to live up (or down, I don't care which) to your expectations.
You should know by now, only the private sector, or the rich, are allowed to arrange their finances and lives to suit themselves. The justification is that they "have earned it", because only they are clever and work hard, apparently. Don't ask me, I have heart, bone and kidney problems.... (I am heart lazy, bone idle, and "kidney" be bothered)
Mr. Owls, cheers [whilst it's only a minor irritant, it perplexes me when regulars make that mistake].
Hodges is wrong.
The party sitting prettiest is the SNP, though it's hard to judge their campaign from here. Labour's campaign (on air, at least) is much better than the Conservatives, although the IHT hand-out policy does suggest they may have woken up.
Edited extra bit: the Lib Dems seem to be getting a bit less coverage than I would expect.
You should know by now, only the private sector, or the rich, are allowed to arrange their finances and lives to suit themselves. The justification is that they "have earned it", because only they are clever and work hard, apparently. Don't ask me, I have heart, bone and kidney problems.... (I am heart lazy, bone idle, and "kidney" be bothered)
Spot on Excellent might steal that.
Water off a ducks back to me though. In fact quite amusing.
You should know by now, only the private sector, or the rich, are allowed to arrange their finances and lives to suit themselves. The justification is that they "have earned it", because only they are clever and work hard, apparently. Don't ask me, I have heart, bone and kidney problems.... (I am heart lazy, bone idle, and "kidney" be bothered)
Spot on Excellent might steal that.
I don't believe this (not least because I think the right-left spectrum is nonsense), but I cannot help but feel someone will feel that statement itself is a reflection of the Left's view of other peoples' wealth.
Mr. Owls, cheers [whilst it's only a minor irritant, it perplexes me when regulars make that mistake].
Hodges is wrong.
The party sitting prettiest is the SNP, though it's hard to judge their campaign from here. Labour's campaign (on air, at least) is much better than the Conservatives, although the IHT hand-out policy does suggest they may have woken up.
Edited extra bit: the Lib Dems seem to be getting a bit less coverage than I would expect.
Mr. Owls, cheers [whilst it's only a minor irritant, it perplexes me when regulars make that mistake].
Hodges is wrong.
The party sitting prettiest is the SNP, though it's hard to judge their campaign from here. Labour's campaign (on air, at least) is much better than the Conservatives, although the IHT hand-out policy does suggest they may have woken up.
Edited extra bit: the Lib Dems seem to be getting a bit less coverage than I would expect.
Honestly you didn't really expect the BBC and Channel 4 to give extra publicity to the one party that might take away votes from their dear Labour would you?
Apologies [as it's a straightforward question] but the answer's a bit long: Temple's getting a (traditionally published) re-release, later this year [almost certainly]. Treasure, the second story (similar length) should be released shortly thereafter (off-chance it might be this year, probably 2016).
Kingdom [working title] I'm hammering away at, done about 2/3 of the first draft. It should be about as long as both previous works put together (ie novel length). No idea of ETA for that.
Edited extra bit: and thanks
Edited extra bit 2 (Edit Harder): goodnight, everyone.
It's that time of the week again - the Sunil on Sunday ELBOW (Electoral Leader-Board Of the Week), week-ending 12th April!
Labour bounce back into the lead in this week's ELBOW, after a Tory lead of 0.4% last week.
12 polls with fieldwork end-dates 5th-11th April, sample 14,570
Lab 34.3% (+0.5) Con 33.1 (-1.0) UKIP 13.7 (nc) LD 8.2 (+0.2) Green 4.9 (+0.1)
Lab lead 1.2% (+1.6)
* Biggest Lab lead since 15th February, and their highest ELBOW score since Xmas week - another holiday period! * Lowest Con ELBOW score since 9th March! * Biggest LD score since 24th August 2014! * UKIP's slow decline halted for now (13.7 two weeks in a row), but still below where they were at end of August 2014 * Greens' decline also halted, but still below where they were in late October 2014
Will this post-Easter bounce for Lab last, or will the previous trend of ever-smaller Lab leads and nascent Tory lead return next week?
You should know by now, only the private sector, or the rich, are allowed to arrange their finances and lives to suit themselves. The justification is that they "have earned it", because only they are clever and work hard, apparently. Don't ask me, I have heart, bone and kidney problems.... (I am heart lazy, bone idle, and "kidney" be bothered)
The Rich, don't you just love them? Allowed to pay tax at 40% for 13 years under Labour. Given massive IHT concession by Brown and allowed to avoid billions in taxes via dubious means throughout all that time.
"Fans of electoral trivia maybe interested to know that the last time the Republican Party won a Presidential Election without a Bush or a Nixon on the ticket was 1928"
Comments
I see some leaflets are about; Hunchman linked to an interesting site:
https://electionleaflets.org/constituencies/65849/broxtowe/
If any readers have had delays getting their trains at London Bridge this year (especially in the evening), then they might be interested in knowing the reasons:
http://www.londonreconnections.com/2015/a-perfect-storm-the-story-behind-the-london-bridge-delays/
One of the problems highlights the perils of modelling, and presuming a previously-tested model will work in different circumstances.
65 today is like 50 in the 80s., it's no drama. The bulk of the population that votes is in an older demographic too.
Follow
Andrew NeilVerified account
@afneil
Tory mixed messages: we need two more years hard pounding, chaps, but here's a bunch of tax cuts and spending increases to be going on with.
Bloody Leftie
You inflicted 13 years of Blair, Brown and an endless parade of tossers like Mandelson, Campbell and McBride on us. Most of us did not have the luxury of choosing to retire from the coalface. Not least because Brown single handedly ruined the pensions industry from which you were exempt.
Get lost.
I hope I continue to live up (or down, I don't care which) to your expectations.
Some of us [who have been called a PB Tory now and then] made similar comments this very day
The campaign has so much horse shit we'd need Heracles to clean it up.
You should know by now, only the private sector, or the rich, are allowed to arrange their finances and lives to suit themselves.
The justification is that they "have earned it", because only they are clever and work hard, apparently.
Don't ask me, I have heart, bone and kidney problems....
(I am heart lazy, bone idle, and "kidney" be bothered)
The term is aimed at well you know which posters its aimed at I think.
BTW Dan Hodges still scores the Tory campaign as the best.
Hodges is wrong.
The party sitting prettiest is the SNP, though it's hard to judge their campaign from here. Labour's campaign (on air, at least) is much better than the Conservatives, although the IHT hand-out policy does suggest they may have woken up.
Edited extra bit: the Lib Dems seem to be getting a bit less coverage than I would expect.
Spot on Excellent might steal that.
Water off a ducks back to me though. In fact quite amusing.
Or is it the same thing?
I shall be purchasing
John Curtice projection that LAB could win 302 seats making SNP irrelevant
I must have missed this.
Apologies [as it's a straightforward question] but the answer's a bit long:
Temple's getting a (traditionally published) re-release, later this year [almost certainly]. Treasure, the second story (similar length) should be released shortly thereafter (off-chance it might be this year, probably 2016).
Kingdom [working title] I'm hammering away at, done about 2/3 of the first draft. It should be about as long as both previous works put together (ie novel length). No idea of ETA for that.
Edited extra bit: and thanks
Edited extra bit 2 (Edit Harder): goodnight, everyone.
Curtice story is here
http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/snp-faces-irrelevance-as-lib-lab-deal-looms-1-3743115
Labour bounce back into the lead in this week's ELBOW, after a Tory lead of 0.4% last week.
12 polls with fieldwork end-dates 5th-11th April, sample 14,570
Lab 34.3% (+0.5)
Con 33.1 (-1.0)
UKIP 13.7 (nc)
LD 8.2 (+0.2)
Green 4.9 (+0.1)
Lab lead 1.2% (+1.6)
* Biggest Lab lead since 15th February, and their highest ELBOW score since Xmas week - another holiday period!
* Lowest Con ELBOW score since 9th March!
* Biggest LD score since 24th August 2014!
* UKIP's slow decline halted for now (13.7 two weeks in a row), but still below where they were at end of August 2014
* Greens' decline also halted, but still below where they were in late October 2014
Will this post-Easter bounce for Lab last, or will the previous trend of ever-smaller Lab leads and nascent Tory lead return next week?
Would that have been the Express or the Daily Mail type of editorial judgement?
It will be hilarious if, after all the bluster, we get a Lib-Lab government with the SNP in opposition. Especially if it's only by a few seats!
43% of voters said that the health service would get worse under a Tory government, compared with 25% for Labour.
39% said that it would improve under Labour, while 24 % disagreed.
So on a net basis
+14% say the NHS would improve under Lab, -19% for the Tories
Wasn't Eisenhower a Republican?