The only literature I've received has been from Simon Marcus, the Conservative candidate - and we've gotten about three or pieces (one personalised) from him.
There are exactly zero posters for any political parties anywhere in Hampstead, as far as I can tell.
I can confirm the same, Robert, though naturally my observations are confined to the posher bits around The High Street and Vale of Wealth.
The only literature I've received has been from Simon Marcus, the Conservative candidate - and we've gotten about three or pieces (one personalised) from him.
There are exactly zero posters for any political parties anywhere in Hampstead, as far as I can tell.
F1: P3 finishes at the rather more civilised hour of 2pm on Saturday, so the pre-qualifying piece will be up then, rather than Friday.
May have a look at the first three qualifying sessions this year and see if any patterns emerge. Sauber seem pretty good (I think 4 out of a possibly 6 Q3 appearances have been achieved).
Mr. Me, ah. But... dark energy isn't the same as dark matter. I'm sure you know that, but it would make sense as an explanation of the rather unclear sentence.
The only literature I've received has been from Simon Marcus, the Conservative candidate - and we've gotten about three or pieces (one personalised) from him.
There are exactly zero posters for any political parties anywhere in Hampstead, as far as I can tell.
When I drove into Cambridge the other day, I saw just one sign for Labour. Nothing else. I was not in the area for the 2010 GE, but my perhaps faulty memory remembers many more for the 2005 and even locals. It surprised me considering Cambridge is a marginal.
I might take a long walk around the village later to see how many signs are out in this non-marginal.
If Ashcroft is correct, Cambridge is not a marginal...
If Oxford hadn't been gerrymandered into two seats it wouldn't have been marginal either.
True, ratification wouldn't be complete within two years but there's no reason there can't be something agreed and signed on within that time.
Could you have a referendum on that basis ? What happens if someone, like Greece, refuses to ratifiy?
I don't see the problem with having a referendum based on a signed treaty. The prospect of a foreign government willingly opting not to ratify a treaty it had signed is not a realistic one (there is a possibility of a new government not ratifying a treaty a previous one had signed, as - ironically - would have been the case here had Lisbon not already been in place by 2010).
If another country fails to ratify despite its government's efforts (with no prospect of a re-run as in Ireland or Denmark in the past), then there would be an irrevocable swing towards exit within the Conservative Party. Cameron's position as leader would depend on whether or not he chose to join that movement.
The problem there being there won't be a signed treaty - ratified or not - by 2017. According to Juncker there won't even be one by the end of the next Parliament.
Poster count anecdote. The only one that I have seen in Leicester is a Tory one for the council (3 hindu candidates btw) and several Labour ones outside Keith Vaz's office. Apathy rules in Leicezter East!
I have seen one field full of Robert Halfon posters near the M11 in Harlow and that is literally all. Not a one, even on a drive through about 4 or 5 miles of NE London at the weekend.
In 2010 I got mildly obsessive about it and started driving home from work different ways, and still failed to spot any posters at all more or less - a couple of generic "conservative" ones in farmers fields, and a Lib Dem poster on what transpired to be the Lib Dem candidate's own house! (Erstwhile PB poster and amusingly now Labour party member Andrew Lewin).
And that was it! Pretty dull when the local MP has a 15K+ majority in both my home and work constituencies.
I cycle through four different constituencies on my way to and from work. This morning I saw exactly zero election posters. There was a lot of fog, though!
20 odd days to go and negative canvassing reports still on zero
Didn't shadsy have a good line on canvass returns?
He did, he said last week, based on the canvass reports he'd seen on twitter, he was expecting the big 4 parties to have a combined vote share of 270% on election day.
Not surprising.
However, canvas returns can be used to make a reasonable prediction of your party's expected vote in a seat - but only through comparison with other canvas returns and voter tallies from previous years in that seat. Given the decline in party memberships, I doubt there's many seats where there has been enough canvassing where that could be done.
The only literature I've received has been from Simon Marcus, the Conservative candidate - and we've gotten about three or pieces (one personalised) from him.
There are exactly zero posters for any political parties anywhere in Hampstead, as far as I can tell.
When I drove into Cambridge the other day, I saw just one sign for Labour. Nothing else. I was not in the area for the 2010 GE, but my perhaps faulty memory remembers many more for the 2005 and even locals. It surprised me considering Cambridge is a marginal.
I might take a long walk around the village later to see how many signs are out in this non-marginal.
If Ashcroft is correct, Cambridge is not a marginal...
That's a rather big conditional. ;-)
I'm hoping Huppert hangs on, even if I often don't agree with him.
Oh, and I should add that here in South Cambs, we've just had a leaflet from the Labour candidate. I think we've had two from the Conservatives over the last couple of months, and one earlier in the year. Nothing from UKIP or the Lib Dems that I can recall.
If UKIP are on 10% or less, the Conservatives will be back in government. If they're on 13% or more, they won't be.
Crushing Labour at this election is arguably less important for Conservatives than crushing UKIP. Given the choice between any given poll share that includes the likes of UKIP, or the same poll share based on a coalition of the centre right, it is abundantly obvious what any Conservative leader would choose.
Cameron's main achievement may very well turn out to be getting rid of these bloody awful people for good. Like Kinnock getting rid of Militant, it comes at short term cost, but nobody in Labour in 1995 can seriously have looked back at Labour in 1985 and wished there had been some way to keep Militant onside.
The only literature I've received has been from Simon Marcus, the Conservative candidate - and we've gotten about three or pieces (one personalised) from him.
There are exactly zero posters for any political parties anywhere in Hampstead, as far as I can tell.
I can confirm the same, Robert, though naturally my observations are confined to the posher bits around The High Street and Vale of Wealth.
Isn't the Vale of Health one of the poorer/cheaper parts of Hampstead? (Although that still means it's 10x as expensive as the rest of the country...)
Is Plaid's failure to set the valley's alight down to a lack of a charismatic leader like Salmond - or is just that much more difficult to cultivate a separate political Welsh identity?
I think it's largely because it's been much more difficult for them to force Labour from power for all sorts of reasons, in the way the SNP didn't find it too difficult. In 2007, the SNP took power at Holyrood in a minority government. However, although a rainbow coalition nearly came about in Wales, the LibDems couldn't agree to it and Plaid had to govern with Labour. So they don't have the 'insurgent' status that the SNP have managed to gain and that has hampered them. Remember, at the moment they are the third largest party in both WEstminster and Cardiff behind Labour and the Tories.
Had a rainbow coalition taken power in 2007, maybe things would be different now. However, it should also not be forgotten that the electoral system in Wales is so heavily biased in favour of Labour that there are almost no circumstances where they get more than 20% of the vote and fail to be the largest party. In Scotland, which is much larger and more politically diverse, that could never happen. (Again, in 2007 Labour got less than one-third of votes, but 27 out of 60 seats, making it very hard to form a viable non-Labour government.)
That may change next year, but we will see. I think increasingly from now on Labour will be pinned back on the Valleys, certainly in assembly elections, possibly increasingly at WEstminster too - but they represent 60% of the population and a large chunk of the seats, so that still leaves them in a strong position on a narrow base.
In terms of poster spotting it's all "Still" Yes posters and SNP round my way.
Lewis James Blackburn Conservative 843 Diane Charles Labour 2507 Roger Anthony Hall Conservative 813 Brian Ridgway Labour 2436 Charles David Rae Watson UKIP 1262 David Stanley Rae Watson UKIP 1065
Those are the results for where I live (Local Election) yet not a single Labour poster up. It does make you wonder if Labour could be heading sub 250 to be honest.
Regarding EU renegotiation: I know it's a statement of the bleedin' obvious, but somehow the bleedin' obvious doesn't seem to be obvious to some, so here goes again. Yes, of course, a vote to stay in on the basis of a renegotiation involves some uncertainty as to what the final ratified package would be. But a vote to leave would equally involve a massive uncertainty - much more, in fact. We wouldn't even have the faintest outline of a replacement trade treaty with our EU friends; no-one would be able to say, for example, what degree of freedom of movement of labour would be included in the final trade treaty with the 27.
For that matter, if we don't hold a referendum and simply stay in on the current terms we don't know for certain how the EU will evolve.
There is uncertainy in all things. In the referendum, as in every other important decision in life, people will have to make their minds up on incomplete information. That's life.
The only literature I've received has been from Simon Marcus, the Conservative candidate - and we've gotten about three or pieces (one personalised) from him.
There are exactly zero posters for any political parties anywhere in Hampstead, as far as I can tell.
I can confirm the same, Robert, though naturally my observations are confined to the posher bits around The High Street and Vale of Wealth.
Isn't the Vale of Health one of the poorer/cheaper parts of Hampstead? (Although that still means it's 10x as expensive as the rest of the country...)
It depends which caravan you're looking at, Robert.
Suprised they let anyone unvetted that close to Miliband.
I guess the asumption that they made was anyone ethnic must automatically be a labour voter...
That said I find the 'getting the x vote for us' distateful. Everyone is an individual.
But it handily demonstrates, straight from the horse's mouth, that Labour categorically does not see everyone as an individual. It sees their race, their sex and their class and it thinks that's all it needs to know.
Miliband looked at the bloke and saw an Asian who's exactly like all other Asians because he's Asian. There's probably a special Asian version of the manifesto containing special Asian policies for generic identical Asian clones like him.
That.
But the blue turban must have been a bit of a giveaway, no?
On topic: my initial reaction is that Mike has got cause and effect the wrong way round. We mighty simply be seeing a random statistical variation giving rise to apparently different numbers of LD->Lab switchers, and hence to Con holds or Lab gains.
On topic: my initial reaction is that Mike has got cause and effect the wrong way round. We mighty simply be seeing a random statistical variation giving rise to apparently different numbers of LD->Lab switchers, and hence to Con holds or Lab gains.
Personally, I think it's meaningless to show the LD-Lab switchers without also showing the LD-Con switchers.
It's the net difference that's important in understanding how it will collapse the Tory majority in the key marginals.
Suprised they let anyone unvetted that close to Miliband.
I guess the asumption that they made was anyone ethnic must automatically be a labour voter...
That said I find the 'getting the x vote for us' distateful. Everyone is an individual.
But it handily demonstrates, straight from the horse's mouth, that Labour categorically does not see everyone as an individual. It sees their race, their sex and their class and it thinks that's all it needs to know.
Miliband looked at the bloke and saw an Asian who's exactly like all other Asians because he's Asian. There's probably a special Asian version of the manifesto containing special Asian policies for generic identical Asian clones like him.
That.
But the blue turban must have been a bit of a giveaway, no?
#alarmbells
Ed looked past that, and thought 'Asian, part of the collective. I'll talk to this one, and he'll instruct the others to vote Labour, by telepathy or something'. Muppet. Love the way his froze into a classic Wallace expression for 30 seconds.
If UKIP are on 10% or less, the Conservatives will be back in government. If they're on 13% or more, they won't be.
Crushing Labour at this election is arguably less important for Conservatives than crushing UKIP. Given the choice between any given poll share that includes the likes of UKIP, or the same poll share based on a coalition of the centre right, it is abundantly obvious what any Conservative leader would choose.
Cameron's main achievement may very well turn out to be getting rid of these bloody awful people for good. Like Kinnock getting rid of Militant, it comes at short term cost, but nobody in Labour in 1995 can seriously have looked back at Labour in 1985 and wished there had been some way to keep Militant onside.
Sorry but that nonsense. If in 2020 the kippers get 20 seats and that is what the new Tory leader needs to form a government he/she wont be able to sign the coalition agreement fast enough. Sad people like you hate, most politicians see options that get them in to power.
Militant are still on side just a bit less visible, didn't you notice Red Ken was writing the manifesto.
Regarding EU renegotiation: I know it's a statement of the beedin' obvious, but somehow the bleedin' obvious doesn't seem to be obvious to some, so here goes again. Yes, of course, a vote to stay in on the basis of a renegotiation involves some uncertainty as to what the final ratified package would be. But a vote to leave would equally involve a massive uncertainty - much more, in fact. We wouldn't even have the faintest outline of a replacement trade treaty with our EU friends; no-one would be able to say, for example, what degree of freedom of movement of labour would be included in the final trade treat with the 27.
For that matter, if we don't hold a referendum and simply stay in on the current terms we don't know for certain how the EU will evolve.
There is uncertainy in all things. In the referendum, as in every other important decision in life, people will have to make their minds up on incomplete information. That's life.
In which case Cameron cannot make a promise that he will renegotiate successfully and that therefore we should stay in. We are well aware of the uncertainties of leaving the EU. It is only Cameron and his supporters it seems who are willing to give unsupported assurances that they will renegotiate our relationship - and preempt those negotiations by claiming we should stay in anyway.
Is Plaid's failure to set the valley's alight down to a lack of a charismatic leader like Salmond - or is just that much more difficult to cultivate a separate political Welsh identity?
I think it's largely because it's been much more difficult for them to force Labour from power for all sorts of reasons, in the way the SNP didn't find it too difficult. In 2007, the SNP took power at Holyrood in a minority government. However, although a rainbow coalition nearly came about in Wales, the LibDems couldn't agree to it and Plaid had to govern with Labour. So they don't have the 'insurgent' status that the SNP have managed to gain and that has hampered them. Remember, at the moment they are the third largest party in both WEstminster and Cardiff behind Labour and the Tories.
Had a rainbow coalition taken power in 2007, maybe things would be different now. However, it should also not be forgotten that the electoral system in Wales is so heavily biased in favour of Labour that there are almost no circumstances where they get more than 20% of the vote and fail to be the largest party. In Scotland, which is much larger and more politically diverse, that could never happen. (Again, in 2007 Labour got less than one-third of votes, but 27 out of 60 seats, making it very hard to form a viable non-Labour government.)
That may change next year, but we will see. I think increasingly from now on Labour will be pinned back on the Valleys, certainly in assembly elections, possibly increasingly at WEstminster too - but they represent 60% of the population and a large chunk of the seats, so that still leaves them in a strong position on a narrow base.
ydoethur, thanks for the excellent insight. I hadn't appreciated just how much Labour are part of the political infrastructure....
The only literature I've received has been from Simon Marcus, the Conservative candidate - and we've gotten about three or pieces (one personalised) from him.
There are exactly zero posters for any political parties anywhere in Hampstead, as far as I can tell.
I can confirm the same, Robert, though naturally my observations are confined to the posher bits around The High Street and Vale of Wealth.
Isn't the Vale of Health one of the poorer/cheaper parts of Hampstead? (Although that still means it's 10x as expensive as the rest of the country...)
True, ratification wouldn't be complete within two years but there's no reason there can't be something agreed and signed on within that time.
Could you have a referendum on that basis ? What happens if someone, like Greece, refuses to ratifiy?
I don't see the problem with having a referendum based on a signed treaty. The prospect of a foreign government willingly opting not to ratify a treaty it had signed is not a realistic one (there is a possibility of a new government not ratifying a treaty a previous one had signed, as - ironically - would have been the case here had Lisbon not already been in place by 2010).
If another country fails to ratify despite its government's efforts (with no prospect of a re-run as in Ireland or Denmark in the past), then there would be an irrevocable swing towards exit within the Conservative Party. Cameron's position as leader would depend on whether or not he chose to join that movement.
The problem there being there won't be a signed treaty - ratified or not - by 2017. According to Juncker there won't even be one by the end of the next Parliament.
Ah, Richard, as you're back. Regarding our bet, I'm afraid I didn't register it with PtP but I'm sure he joined in the discussion at the time. My memory - it may be faulty - was that it was simply whether Cameron would be more 'right wing' by the time of the election, and that if we didn't agree between us, he would be the arbiter. I don't think it covered the outcome of the election itself.
No, the bet I remember was clearly on the basis that Cameron could not win if he didn't move to the right. I will have to start trawling through old emails to see what I can find.
Regarding EU renegotiation: I know it's a statement of the beedin' obvious, but somehow the bleedin' obvious doesn't seem to be obvious to some, so here goes again. Yes, of course, a vote to stay in on the basis of a renegotiation involves some uncertainty as to what the final ratified package would be. But a vote to leave would equally involve a massive uncertainty - much more, in fact. We wouldn't even have the faintest outline of a replacement trade treaty with our EU friends; no-one would be able to say, for example, what degree of freedom of movement of labour would be included in the final trade treat with the 27.
For that matter, if we don't hold a referendum and simply stay in on the current terms we don't know for certain how the EU will evolve.
There is uncertainy in all things. In the referendum, as in every other important decision in life, people will have to make their minds up on incomplete information. That's life.
In which case Cameron cannot make a promise that he will renegotiate successfully and that therefore we should stay in. We are well aware of the uncertainties of leaving the EU. It is only Cameron and his supporters it seems who are willing to give unsupported assurances that they will renegotiate our relationship - and preempt those negotiations by claiming we should stay in anyway.
At the moment Cameron is only making a promise to renegotiate and put the choice in a referendum. If you don't like whatever he negotiates then vote accordingly in the referendum.
You seem to be pre-empting the negotiations as a failure before they happen and before a referendum.
Regarding EU renegotiation: I know it's a statement of the bleedin' obvious, but somehow the bleedin' obvious doesn't seem to be obvious to some, so here goes again. Yes, of course, a vote to stay in on the basis of a renegotiation involves some uncertainty as to what the final ratified package would be. But a vote to leave would equally involve a massive uncertainty - much more, in fact. We wouldn't even have the faintest outline of a replacement trade treaty with our EU friends; no-one would be able to say, for example, what degree of freedom of movement of labour would be included in the final trade treaty with the 27.
For that matter, if we don't hold a referendum and simply stay in on the current terms we don't know for certain how the EU will evolve.
There is uncertainy in all things. In the referendum, as in every other important decision in life, people will have to make their minds up on incomplete information. That's life.
That's why the BOOers should not concentrate on the minutiae, which will be argued over forever with 'experts' being wheeled out on both sides. Unfortunately, the opposition's experts will be much more numerous. They should refute the allegations of the opposition, but they can not win on that ground due to the uncertainties and opponents' firepower. Neither should they go for the xenophobic or overly patriotic route, which appalls many people who might be minded to vote out.
Instead, they should focus on a simple message:
"Do you want to head where they're heading?"
To me at least, it's a powerful message. Given the history of the EU, people have a perfect right to be concerned about where it is heading.
"Is Plaid's failure to set the valley's alight down to a lack of a charismatic leader like Salmond - or is just that much more difficult to cultivate a separate political Welsh identity?"
But Plaid did have a charismatic leader.
And he had begin to make progress -- they took Rhondda, Islwyn (Kinnock’s old seat), Llanelli in the 1999 Welsh Assembly elections, as well as a number of close seconds.
There was an internal revolt, and the leader “retired on medical grounds”. Plaid have never repeated the success.
Plaid Cymru have become part of the obstacle for change in Wales.
“Are you going to make sure the Sikh vote turns out for us?”
Labour's entitlement summed up in one sentence.
A fantastic video though, it deserves to be widely seen as it amply demonstrates the idiotic identity politics that Labour has bought into. You can see the cogs going in Ed's intellectually self-confident mind, "Turban = Sikh = Labour voter", except when it doesn't!
Yougov attracts so much attention because it polls so often. They're like a fog. If they polled at the same frequency as the rest (and Populus likewise) the picture might be a tad clearer:
ICM (phone): Con 39 Lab 33 Opinium (web): Con 36 Lab 34 Comres (phone): Con 34 Lab 33 TNS (web): Con 34 Lab 32 Ashcroft (phone) Con 33 Lab 33 Populus (web) Con 33 Lab 33 Ipsos (phone) Con 33 Lab 34 Yougov (web) Con 33 Lab 35 Comres (web) Con 33 Lab 35 Survation(web) Con 31 Lab 35 Panelbase (web) Con 31 Lab 37
A simple mean gives a labour lead of about 0.7%* (34.3% vs. 33.6%)
To me at least, it's a powerful message. Given the history of the EU, people have a perfect right to be concerned about where it is heading.
Yes, that is probably what the message will be. And the message on the other side will NOT be about the minutiae of the renegotiation: it will be 'If we leave millions of jobs will be lost'. That argument will be coming from industry, the CBI, the unions, the City, the BBC, most politicians, and even (discretely) from US politicians.
Irrespective of the reality, the latter argument will win. In fact, the Stay In side don't even need to win the argument, they just need to sow enough doubt. That's why I have consistently maintained, since I started posting here in 2008, that an Out vote is unattainable.
[For the avoidance of doubt, since the Kippers will go berserk at my making this point, I'm not saying the jobs argument is valid. Just that it will be very persuasive.]
“Are you going to make sure the Sikh vote turns out for us?”
Labour's entitlement summed up in one sentence.
A fantastic video though, it deserves to be widely seen as it amply demonstrates the idiotic identity politics that Labour has bought into. You can see the cogs going in Ed's intellectually self-confident mind, "Turban = Sikh = Labour voter", except when it doesn't!
What a gigantic berk Miliband is.
The Foleshill Road (Coventry), which must be one of the most Sikh areas in the whole of England does return the occasional Conservative councillor.
@faisalislam: Shorter Clegg: Single party government over. Hurrah. Multi party government is the future. Hurrah. Just not other parties like UKIP or SNP
Regarding EU renegotiation: I know it's a statement of the beedin' obvious, but somehow the bleedin' obvious doesn't seem to be obvious to some, so here goes again. Yes, of course, a vote to stay in on the basis of a renegotiation involves some uncertainty as to what the final ratified package would be. But a vote to leave would equally involve a massive uncertainty - much more, in fact. We wouldn't even have the faintest outline of a replacement trade treaty with our EU friends; no-one would be able to say, for example, what degree of freedom of movement of labour would be included in the final trade treat with the 27.
For that matter, if we don't hold a referendum and simply stay in on the current terms we don't know for certain how the EU will evolve.
There is uncertainy in all things. In the referendum, as in every other important decision in life, people will have to make their minds up on incomplete information. That's life.
In which case Cameron cannot make a promise that he will renegotiate successfully and that therefore we should stay in. We are well aware of the uncertainties of leaving the EU. It is only Cameron and his supporters it seems who are willing to give unsupported assurances that they will renegotiate our relationship - and preempt those negotiations by claiming we should stay in anyway.
At the moment Cameron is only making a promise to renegotiate and put the choice in a referendum. If you don't like whatever he negotiates then vote accordingly in the referendum.
You seem to be pre-empting the negotiations as a failure before they happen and before a referendum.
I don't think that's true: Richard is making the perfectly valid points that:
1. It is not possible to have a new treaty in place by 2017, and therefore that we would just be voting on vague promises that might (or might not be) implemented in the future and 2. That the structure of the EU is such that the changes many people wish for are impossible
It should be possible to get around (1) by putting together a structure that required a treaty implementation within x years, and a panel or court which contained a range of views and which judged whether the treaty matched the Memorandum of Understanding. I think you could include a number of retired politicians from across the political spectrum and which would need 80% to agree that the MoU had been implemented. Obviously, the government of the day would be able to write legislation to over-rule the panel. But any government can implement whatever legislation it likes, and I'm not sure choosing to over-rule a decision made by a referendum is a vote winning strategy.
Here in leafy Wealden, I've seen a few large Conservative posters but no others as yet. I'm a bit surprised not to have seen any UKIP posters, but maybe they will appear soon.
Nice pitch from Mr Farage against a 'wasted vote' argument.
"...if you go out and vote for what you believe in, if you support the aims of UKIP, a Patriotic Party that wants to govern our own country and control our borders. If everyone that believes in that goes out and votes for it, we will have a political earthquake in this general election and things will change for the better."
To me at least, it's a powerful message. Given the history of the EU, people have a perfect right to be concerned about where it is heading.
Yes, that is probably what the message will be. And the message on the other side will NOT be about the minutiae of the renegotiation: it will be 'If we leave millions of jobs will be lost'. That argument will be coming from industry, the CBI, the unions, the City, the BBC, most politicians, and even (discretely) from US politicians.
Irrespective of the reality, the latter argument will win. In fact, the Stay In side don't even need to win the argument, they just need to sow enough doubt. That's why I have consistently maintained, since I started posting here in 2008, that an Out vote is unattainable.
[For the avoidance of doubt, since the Kippers will go berserk at my making this point, I'm not saying the jobs argument is valid. Just that it will be very persuasive.]
Just like with the Scottish referendum and the AV referendum and typically referenda worldwide any seriously contested change from the status quo is likely to be rejected so long as the supporters of the status quo can just spread enough doubt.
I expect an In/Out referendum would result in results closer to the AV referendum than the Scottish one though.
ydoethur, thanks for the excellent insight. I hadn't appreciated just how much Labour are part of the political infrastructure....
The problem is the top-up system, which is something that needs addressing. At the moment, any votes not used to elect a constituency member - that is, all votes for the runners-up - are reallocated to the list system. This means that if you lose an actual seat to another party, you are likely to pick it up again on the lists. This benefits Labour disproportionately because they tend to have (a) the most tribal voters (who vote for them on seats AND lists - effectively two votes for the same party) and (b) a high number of second places.
So for example - between 1999 and today Labour have always had three seats in Mid and West wales. At first, they held Carmarthen West and Preseli Pembrokeshire plus a list seat. In 2003, they took Llanelli and lost the list seat. In 2007, they lost Preseli Pembrokeshire (to the Conservatives) and Llanelli (to Plaid). But in handing over those votes to Labour's lists, Labour immediately picked up two seats there (both of them went to extremely undistinguished party hacks). In 2011, they regained Llanelli and lost Carmarthen West. But they still got those two list seats, so it made no practical difference to the result.
At the same time, in the Valleys they usually end up sweeping pretty much all the constituency seats (they generally lose one or two) and as there are a comparatively small number of list seats, there is usually little or no change among them and it is almost always between the other parties. So although Labour overall lost about 25% of their voters in the election, they only lost three seats overall.
In Scotland, where as I have said you have more regions and greater diversity within them, it's hard to see that situation developing. But in Wales, it leaves a problem - to wit, a tired and corrupt administration (of all the current Executive, only Carwyn Jones himself has any talent at all, and he is leading a cabinet several of whose members have had to resign and then be brought back because there's nobody else) that it's almost impossible to remove.
I would like to see the link between constituency votes and the list seats broken to address this problem. However, I doubt if it will be a high priority for anyone in the coming parliament unless a major scandal erupts in the Assembly that demands urgent attention.
EDITED - Earlier I said Labour won Llanelli in 1999. That was incorrect. Doesn't alter the essential maths though.
Major implications for the next parliament, if true. A Carswell led UKIP would be very different. Glad I got on the Tories last year.
Or perhaps it's just a Tory double-bluff to panic UKIP and suck in more UKIP resource and attention from other seats.
The FT published a quote from Mr Farage's book the other day. Their Thanet campaign looks pretty thorough.
"On January 18, we bussed in about 500 Ukip activists and canvassed the whole constituency – street by street, houseby house. On that day, we garnered basic, but crucial, voter data. Who were hard-line Tories? Which households were possible Ukip voters? Which ones were solid Ukip and where were the Labour supporters? Equally important, however, was information about the issues that most worried them. Was it immigration, the NHS or the local airport?"
To me at least, it's a powerful message. Given the history of the EU, people have a perfect right to be concerned about where it is heading.
Yes, that is probably what the message will be. And the message on the other side will NOT be about the minutiae of the renegotiation: it will be 'If we leave millions of jobs will be lost'. That argument will be coming from industry, the CBI, the unions, the City, the BBC, most politicians, and even (discretely) from US politicians.
Irrespective of the reality, the latter argument will win. In fact, the Stay In side don't even need to win the argument, they just need to sow enough doubt. That's why I have consistently maintained, since I started posting here in 2009, that an Out vote is unattainable.
[For the avoidance of doubt, since the Kippers will go berserk at my making this point, I'm not saying the jobs argument is valid. Just that it will be very persuasive.]
I'm not sure the jobs argument will win. It's been used before, and has been widely debunked. In fact, it is easy to paint as hysterical. "If we leave the EU we're all going to die!"
It is one of the pathetic arguments that has pushed me slightly off the fence.
I would love any vote to be based on fact. Unfortunately, there will be massive amounts of uncertainty and FUD thrown about. That is not to say the BOOers should not develop a positive vision, and at least try to say what we would and would not be members of. It is just that, unlike the jobs FUD, the direction of the travel in the EU is provable by means of both past performance and record.
Now that the Tories are promising to throw money at public sector willy nilly and labour are saying they won't, and the usual suspects are defending/celebrating on both sides, does this prove that most posters on here would argue for their side whatever their policies were? I reckon if you swapped manifestos without telling, partisans would argue for the one with their leader on the front
Major implications for the next parliament, if true. A Carswell led UKIP would be very different. Glad I got on the Tories last year.
Or perhaps it's just a Tory double-bluff to panic UKIP and suck in more UKIP resource and attention from other seats.
Masterful strategy by the Tories.
The Tories are like Basil II at Kleidion.
Nigel Farage = Samuel
I think Farage needs to go heavily on his local background and local issues to win. He'll get his hardcore of 25-30% in any event, but to get to 35%+ (and get a victory) he needs to win over some floating voters from Con/Lab who currently aren't sure about him.
Jeremy Warner has a good piece in today's Telegraph on the serious economic issues being ducked by the parties:
"None of these structural weaknesses even remotely figure in the election debate, which seems characterised by studied refusal to answer the key questions about Britain’s long term future."
Clearly I'm not the only one who can barely believe the vacuous nature of the campaign so far and its risible series of gimmicks and uncosted nonsenses.
"Is Plaid's failure to set the valley's alight down to a lack of a charismatic leader like Salmond - or is just that much more difficult to cultivate a separate political Welsh identity?"
But Plaid did have a charismatic leader.
And he had begin to make progress -- they took Rhondda, Islwyn (Kinnock’s old seat), Llanelli in the 1999 Welsh Assembly elections, as well as a number of close seconds.
There was an internal revolt, and the leader “retired on medical grounds”. Plaid have never repeated the success.
Plaid Cymru have become part of the obstacle for change in Wales.
The big barrier which Plaid need to overcome is that too many English speakers see them as a party of the Welsh speakers rather than for the whole of Wales.
If you go back to the 1997 referendum, all of the areas which voted 'No' were majority English speaking. All of the majority Welsh speaking areas voted 'Yes'. In some of the English speaking areas like the Valleys which voted 'Yes' I have been told that many people didn't actually want an assembly but voted 'Yes' to support Labour
It will be this week, I'm hopeful today, but could be tomorrow or Friday.
Thx. I thought today because they usually report on Wednesday's I think but I'd have thought someone would be plugging it in advance on Twitter if it was going to be today?
ydoethur, thanks for the excellent insight. I hadn't appreciated just how much Labour are part of the political infrastructure....
The problem is the top-up system, which is something that needs addressing. At the moment, any votes not used to elect a constituency member - that is, all votes for the runners-up - are reallocated to the list system. This means that if you lose an actual seat to another party, you are likely to pick it up again on the lists. This benefits Labour disproportionately because they tend to have (a) the most tribal voters (who vote for them on seats AND lists - effectively two votes for the same party) and (b) a high number of second places.
So for example - between 1999 and today Labour have always had three seats in Mid and West wales. At first, they held Carmarthen West and Preseli Pembrokeshire plus a list seat. In 2003, they took Llanelli and lost the list seat. In 2007, they lost Preseli Pembrokeshire (to the Conservatives) and Llanelli (to Plaid). But in handing over those votes to Labour's lists, Labour immediately picked up two seats there (both of them went to extremely undistinguished party hacks). In 2011, they regained Llanelli and lost Carmarthen West. But they still got those two list seats, so it made no practical difference to the result.
At the same time, in the Valleys they usually end up sweeping pretty much all the constituency seats (they generally lose one or two) and as there are a comparatively small number of list seats, there is usually little or no change among them and it is almost always between the other parties. So although Labour overall lost about 25% of their voters in the election, they only lost three seats overall.
In Scotland, where as I have said you have more regions and greater diversity within them, it's hard to see that situation developing. But in Wales, it leaves a problem - to wit, a tired and corrupt administration (of all the current Executive, only Carwyn Jones himself has any talent at all, and he is leading a cabinet several of whose members have had to resign and then be brought back because there's nobody else) that it's almost impossible to remove.
I would like to see the link between constituency votes and the list seats broken to address this problem. However, I doubt if it will be a high priority for anyone in the coming parliament unless a major scandal erupts in the Assembly that demands urgent attention.
EDITED - Earlier I said Labour won Llanelli in 1999. That was incorrect. Doesn't alter the essential maths though.
Mr. Eagles, hmm. Not sure the analogy quite fits (Farage isn't posing a risk of overtaking the Conservatives) but it's always nice to hear of perhaps the greatest of Eastern emperors.
Although he did enormously cock up the succession. But nobody ever criticises Marcus Aurelius for that [except me], and Aurelius achieved far less himself as emperor than Basil II did.
Major implications for the next parliament, if true. A Carswell led UKIP would be very different. Glad I got on the Tories last year.
Or perhaps it's just a Tory double-bluff to panic UKIP and suck in more UKIP resource and attention from other seats.
The FT published a quote from Mr Farage's book the other day. Their Thanet campaign looks pretty thorough.
"On January 18, we bussed in about 500 Ukip activists and canvassed the whole constituency – street by street, houseby house. On that day, we garnered basic, but crucial, voter data. Who were hard-line Tories? Which households were possible Ukip voters? Which ones were solid Ukip and where were the Labour supporters? Equally important, however, was information about the issues that most worried them. Was it immigration, the NHS or the local airport?"
I don't think that's true: Richard is making the perfectly valid points that:
1. It is not possible to have a new treaty in place by 2017, and therefore that we would just be voting on vague promises that might (or might not be) implemented in the future and 2. That the structure of the EU is such that the changes many people wish for are impossible
It should be possible to get around (1) by putting together a structure that required a treaty implementation within x years, and a panel or court which contained a range of views and which judged whether the treaty matched the Memorandum of Understanding. I think you could include a number of retired politicians from across the political spectrum and which would need 80% to agree that the MoU had been implemented. Obviously, the government of the day would be able to write legislation to over-rule the panel. But any government can implement whatever legislation it likes, and I'm not sure choosing to over-rule a decision made by a referendum is a vote winning strategy.
Of course (2) is a much greater issue.
Lets not conflate what we are deciding next month versus what will be decided in two years. Next month we can either have a government that will attempt to address both issues and then let the public decide, or we won't. If we get one that tries then in two years time we can discuss whether the negotiations are a success or failure.
On your two issues.
1: Many major changes could be implemented without treaty reform, but with a change of practices and policies - eg as said above the Germans are very much in favour of reforms so that benefits are paid to those who have paid in rather than people who've just moved. So too would be much of the country. This doesn't require a treaty change, it requires a change in policies and practices.
As for any changes (if negotiated) that would require a treaty change, I think your panel notion is seriously overcomplicating issues. The SNP ran a Yes campaign based on a unilateral set of changes they decided simply were going to happen even with the UK government saying "oh no they won't". If Cameron can come back with some negotiations and say "we're going to change this" and Merkel spoke up saying "yes that's going to change" then I think it's sufficient to put to the people to decide. If the people decide that's not good enough that's their choice, if the people decide they're happy with that it's again their choice.
2: Maybe change is impossible. In which case after negotaitions fail we should vote accordingly. However that's pre-empting the negotiations.
Major implications for the next parliament, if true. A Carswell led UKIP would be very different. Glad I got on the Tories last year.
Or perhaps it's just a Tory double-bluff to panic UKIP and suck in more UKIP resource and attention from other seats.
Masterful strategy by the Tories.
The Tories are like Basil II at Kleidion.
Nigel Farage = Samuel
I think Farage needs to go heavily on his local background and local issues to win. He'll get his hardcore of 25-30% in any event, but to get to 35%+ (and get a victory) he needs to win over some floating voters from Con/Lab who currently aren't sure about him.
The Foleshill Road (Coventry), which must be one of the most Sikh areas in the whole of England does return the occasional Conservative councillor.
As do parts of West London. There is quite a strong level of Conservative support amongst the Sikhs.
Non-Muslim Asians are quite happy to support the Conservatives since Dave and some of the disgraceful Labour positions on Islamic fundamentalists have driven a lot of votes for the Tories. My guess is that Labour see Muslims as a much larger group in the future so want to bank on that support. Look at that terrible BAME manifesto yesterday, not a single person I have spoken to among Indians have taken to it, but I think Muslim communities will lap it up.
If UKIP are on 10% or less, the Conservatives will be back in government. If they're on 13% or more, they won't be.
Crushing Labour at this election is arguably less important for Conservatives than crushing UKIP. Given the choice between any given poll share that includes the likes of UKIP, or the same poll share based on a coalition of the centre right, it is abundantly obvious what any Conservative leader would choose.
Cameron's main achievement may very well turn out to be getting rid of these bloody awful people for good. Like Kinnock getting rid of Militant, it comes at short term cost, but nobody in Labour in 1995 can seriously have looked back at Labour in 1985 and wished there had been some way to keep Militant onside.
Sorry but that nonsense. If in 2020 the kippers get 20 seats and that is what the new Tory leader needs to form a government he/she wont be able to sign the coalition agreement fast enough.
* splutter *
"if the kippers get 20 seats" ??? are you having a Turkish?
Why not write a post speculating what will happen if the kippers get 520 seats? It's no less likely.
My whole point, which you have missed, is that what Cameron is doing today is all about ensuring kippers implode after the GE so that they will have no seats.
Mr. Eagles, hmm. Not sure the analogy quite fits (Farage isn't posing a risk of overtaking the Conservatives) but it's always nice to hear of perhaps the greatest of Eastern emperors.
Although he did enormously cock up the succession. But nobody ever criticises Marcus Aurelius for that [except me], and Aurelius achieved far less himself as emperor than Basil II did.
Farage has been reported as saying he wants to destroy the Tory Party, which I took as code for UKIP overtaking the Tory party.
Now that the Tories are promising to throw money at public sector willy nilly and labour are saying they won't, and the usual suspects are defending/celebrating on both sides, does this prove that most posters on here would argue for their side whatever their policies were? I reckon if you swapped manifestos without telling, partisans would argue for the one with their leader on the front
Not sure that would work. Would Labour put their leader on the front? ;-)
To me at least, it's a powerful message. Given the history of the EU, people have a perfect right to be concerned about where it is heading.
Yes, that is probably what the message will be. And the message on the other side will NOT be about the minutiae of the renegotiation: it will be 'If we leave millions of jobs will be lost'. That argument will be coming from industry, the CBI, the unions, the City, the BBC, most politicians, and even (discretely) from US politicians.
Irrespective of the reality, the latter argument will win. In fact, the Stay In side don't even need to win the argument, they just need to sow enough doubt. That's why I have consistently maintained, since I started posting here in 2009, that an Out vote is unattainable.
[For the avoidance of doubt, since the Kippers will go berserk at my making this point, I'm not saying the jobs argument is valid. Just that it will be very persuasive.]
I'm not sure the jobs argument will win. It's been used before, and has been widely debunked. In fact, it is easy to paint as hysterical. "If we leave the EU we're all going to die!"
It is one of the pathetic arguments that has pushed me slightly off the fence.
I would love any vote to be based on fact. Unfortunately, there will be massive amounts of uncertainty and FUD thrown about. That is not to say the BOOers should not develop a positive vision, and at least try to say what we would and would not be members of. It is just that, unlike the jobs FUD, the direction of the travel in the EU is provable by means of both past performance and record.
This is why I have repeatedly said that the BOO campaign should be based around moving - in the near-term - to a rejoining of EFTA. Yes, it does mean that there is still some freedom of labour issues, which a lot of BOOers hate, but it keeps us in the SEA, minimises disruption for business, lowers what we send to Brussels dramatically, and frees us from a huge amount of red tape.
And longer-term, there is always the option to go it (completely) alone.
Major implications for the next parliament, if true. A Carswell led UKIP would be very different. Glad I got on the Tories last year.
Or perhaps it's just a Tory double-bluff to panic UKIP and suck in more UKIP resource and attention from other seats.
The FT published a quote from Mr Farage's book the other day. Their Thanet campaign looks pretty thorough.
"On January 18, we bussed in about 500 Ukip activists and canvassed the whole constituency – street by street, houseby house. On that day, we garnered basic, but crucial, voter data. Who were hard-line Tories? Which households were possible Ukip voters? Which ones were solid Ukip and where were the Labour supporters? Equally important, however, was information about the issues that most worried them. Was it immigration, the NHS or the local airport?"
If UKIP are on 10% or less, the Conservatives will be back in government. If they're on 13% or more, they won't be.
Crushing Labour at this election is arguably less important for Conservatives than crushing UKIP. Given the choice between any given poll share that includes the likes of UKIP, or the same poll share based on a coalition of the centre right, it is abundantly obvious what any Conservative leader would choose.
Cameron's main achievement may very well turn out to be getting rid of these bloody awful people for good. Like Kinnock getting rid of Militant, it comes at short term cost, but nobody in Labour in 1995 can seriously have looked back at Labour in 1985 and wished there had been some way to keep Militant onside.
Sorry but that nonsense. If in 2020 the kippers get 20 seats and that is what the new Tory leader needs to form a government he/she wont be able to sign the coalition agreement fast enough.
* splutter *
"if the kippers get 20 seats" ??? are you having a Turkish?
Why not write a post speculating what will happen if the kippers get 520 seats? It's no less likely.
My whole point, which you have missed, is that what Cameron is doing today is all about ensuring kippers implode after the GE so that they will have no seats.
And Farage will probably end up doing time.
And who's having a brainstorm now? You must be mighty afeared me old Bondy.
Major implications for the next parliament, if true. A Carswell led UKIP would be very different. Glad I got on the Tories last year.
Or perhaps it's just a Tory double-bluff to panic UKIP and suck in more UKIP resource and attention from other seats.
The FT published a quote from Mr Farage's book the other day. Their Thanet campaign looks pretty thorough.
"On January 18, we bussed in about 500 Ukip activists and canvassed the whole constituency – street by street, houseby house. On that day, we garnered basic, but crucial, voter data. Who were hard-line Tories? Which households were possible Ukip voters? Which ones were solid Ukip and where were the Labour supporters? Equally important, however, was information about the issues that most worried them. Was it immigration, the NHS or the local airport?"
I note Paddy Power have Farage vote share at 5/6 over or under 33.5%. This looks like a far better bet than backing him to win!
Indeed, combining with 11/4 Tories and 5/1 Labour gives a 97.9% book with a fair chance of winning twice (and, it should be noted, a very slim chance of not winning at all).
On the subject of posters, yesterday I saw two of those flag-style boards put up for one house. Both were Labour.
One of them had been nailed to an estate agent's sign saying 'SOLD'. Not sure what that says about the person who put them up or whether it was a (presumably unintentional) slight on Janos Toth.
Comments
Their candidate is called Deidre Brock, the posters say "VOTE BROCK"
#SuplexCity
May have a look at the first three qualifying sessions this year and see if any patterns emerge. Sauber seem pretty good (I think 4 out of a possibly 6 Q3 appearances have been achieved).
However, canvas returns can be used to make a reasonable prediction of your party's expected vote in a seat - but only through comparison with other canvas returns and voter tallies from previous years in that seat. Given the decline in party memberships, I doubt there's many seats where there has been enough canvassing where that could be done.
I'm hoping Huppert hangs on, even if I often don't agree with him.
Oh, and I should add that here in South Cambs, we've just had a leaflet from the Labour candidate. I think we've had two from the Conservatives over the last couple of months, and one earlier in the year. Nothing from UKIP or the Lib Dems that I can recall.
I reckon Cameron could squeak home.
Cameron's main achievement may very well turn out to be getting rid of these bloody awful people for good. Like Kinnock getting rid of Militant, it comes at short term cost, but nobody in Labour in 1995 can seriously have looked back at Labour in 1985 and wished there had been some way to keep Militant onside.
(Although that still means it's 10x as expensive as the rest of the country...)
Had a rainbow coalition taken power in 2007, maybe things would be different now. However, it should also not be forgotten that the electoral system in Wales is so heavily biased in favour of Labour that there are almost no circumstances where they get more than 20% of the vote and fail to be the largest party. In Scotland, which is much larger and more politically diverse, that could never happen. (Again, in 2007 Labour got less than one-third of votes, but 27 out of 60 seats, making it very hard to form a viable non-Labour government.)
That may change next year, but we will see. I think increasingly from now on Labour will be pinned back on the Valleys, certainly in assembly elections, possibly increasingly at WEstminster too - but they represent 60% of the population and a large chunk of the seats, so that still leaves them in a strong position on a narrow base.
Diane Charles Labour 2507
Roger Anthony Hall Conservative 813
Brian Ridgway Labour 2436
Charles David Rae Watson UKIP 1262
David Stanley Rae Watson UKIP 1065
Those are the results for where I live (Local Election) yet not a single Labour poster up. It does make you wonder if Labour could be heading sub 250 to be honest.
For that matter, if we don't hold a referendum and simply stay in on the current terms we don't know for certain how the EU will evolve.
There is uncertainy in all things. In the referendum, as in every other important decision in life, people will have to make their minds up on incomplete information. That's life.
But the blue turban must have been a bit of a giveaway, no?
#alarmbells
It's the net difference that's important in understanding how it will collapse the Tory majority in the key marginals.
Militant are still on side just a bit less visible, didn't you notice Red Ken was writing the manifesto.
Labour's entitlement summed up in one sentence.
Flat as a pancake every bit I've ever seen.
You seem to be pre-empting the negotiations as a failure before they happen and before a referendum.
Some of us are on that one !
Instead, they should focus on a simple message:
"Do you want to head where they're heading?"
To me at least, it's a powerful message. Given the history of the EU, people have a perfect right to be concerned about where it is heading.
UKIP soundbite generator as used for the manifesto
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B8X89g0IUAAVmmJ.jpg
But Plaid did have a charismatic leader.
And he had begin to make progress -- they took Rhondda, Islwyn (Kinnock’s old seat), Llanelli in the 1999 Welsh Assembly elections, as well as a number of close seconds.
There was an internal revolt, and the leader “retired on medical grounds”. Plaid have never repeated the success.
Plaid Cymru have become part of the obstacle for change in Wales.
The Lib Dems will add a heart to a Conservative government and a brain to a Labour one.
Ed Miliband tells @BBCWomansHour : "I love the pink bus. It provoked a conversation".#GE2015
Dear god....
Or perhaps it's just a Tory double-bluff to panic UKIP and suck in more UKIP resource and attention from other seats.
Mr. Eagles, maybe. There's a riposte available to other parties (shame they don't have a spine/guts etc).
What a gigantic berk Miliband is.
That may have worked once, but we've peeked behind the curtain already.
I will be driving through Keighley, Shipley and Pudsey at the weekend, though. Will report back!
Irrespective of the reality, the latter argument will win. In fact, the Stay In side don't even need to win the argument, they just need to sow enough doubt. That's why I have consistently maintained, since I started posting here in 2008, that an Out vote is unattainable.
[For the avoidance of doubt, since the Kippers will go berserk at my making this point, I'm not saying the jobs argument is valid. Just that it will be very persuasive.]
1. It is not possible to have a new treaty in place by 2017, and therefore that we would just be voting on vague promises that might (or might not be) implemented in the future
and
2. That the structure of the EU is such that the changes many people wish for are impossible
It should be possible to get around (1) by putting together a structure that required a treaty implementation within x years, and a panel or court which contained a range of views and which judged whether the treaty matched the Memorandum of Understanding. I think you could include a number of retired politicians from across the political spectrum and which would need 80% to agree that the MoU had been implemented. Obviously, the government of the day would be able to write legislation to over-rule the panel. But any government can implement whatever legislation it likes, and I'm not sure choosing to over-rule a decision made by a referendum is a vote winning strategy.
Of course (2) is a much greater issue.
Nick Clegg.
In power.
Forever.
"...if you go out and vote for what you believe in, if you support the aims of UKIP, a Patriotic Party that wants to govern our own country and control our borders. If everyone that believes in that goes out and votes for it, we will have a political earthquake in this general election and things will change for the better."
YouGov "would consider voting for UKIP" was 26%.
p.4
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/42tha4tjwo/YG-Archive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-270215.pdf
https://youtu.be/pqs6Alr7GPw
I expect an In/Out referendum would result in results closer to the AV referendum than the Scottish one though.
So for example - between 1999 and today Labour have always had three seats in Mid and West wales. At first, they held Carmarthen West and Preseli Pembrokeshire plus a list seat. In 2003, they took Llanelli and lost the list seat. In 2007, they lost Preseli Pembrokeshire (to the Conservatives) and Llanelli (to Plaid). But in handing over those votes to Labour's lists, Labour immediately picked up two seats there (both of them went to extremely undistinguished party hacks). In 2011, they regained Llanelli and lost Carmarthen West. But they still got those two list seats, so it made no practical difference to the result.
At the same time, in the Valleys they usually end up sweeping pretty much all the constituency seats (they generally lose one or two) and as there are a comparatively small number of list seats, there is usually little or no change among them and it is almost always between the other parties. So although Labour overall lost about 25% of their voters in the election, they only lost three seats overall.
In Scotland, where as I have said you have more regions and greater diversity within them, it's hard to see that situation developing. But in Wales, it leaves a problem - to wit, a tired and corrupt administration (of all the current Executive, only Carwyn Jones himself has any talent at all, and he is leading a cabinet several of whose members have had to resign and then be brought back because there's nobody else) that it's almost impossible to remove.
I would like to see the link between constituency votes and the list seats broken to address this problem. However, I doubt if it will be a high priority for anyone in the coming parliament unless a major scandal erupts in the Assembly that demands urgent attention.
EDITED - Earlier I said Labour won Llanelli in 1999. That was incorrect. Doesn't alter the essential maths though.
The Tories are like Basil II at Kleidion.
Nigel Farage = Samuel
"On January 18, we bussed in about 500 Ukip activists and canvassed the whole constituency – street by street, houseby house. On that day, we garnered basic, but crucial, voter data. Who were hard-line Tories? Which households were possible Ukip voters? Which ones were solid Ukip and where were the Labour supporters? Equally important, however, was information about the issues that most worried them. Was it immigration, the NHS or the local airport?"
http://blogs.ft.com/off-message/2015/04/13/why-farage-is-relatively-quiet-in-south-thanet/
It is one of the pathetic arguments that has pushed me slightly off the fence.
I would love any vote to be based on fact. Unfortunately, there will be massive amounts of uncertainty and FUD thrown about. That is not to say the BOOers should not develop a positive vision, and at least try to say what we would and would not be members of. It is just that, unlike the jobs FUD, the direction of the travel in the EU is provable by means of both past performance and record.
I reckon if you swapped manifestos without telling, partisans would argue for the one with their leader on the front
Take a leaf from Carswell's book, in other words.
"None of these structural weaknesses even remotely figure in the election debate, which seems characterised by studied refusal to answer the key questions about Britain’s long term future."
Clearly I'm not the only one who can barely believe the vacuous nature of the campaign so far and its risible series of gimmicks and uncosted nonsenses.
If you go back to the 1997 referendum, all of the areas which voted 'No' were majority English speaking. All of the majority Welsh speaking areas voted 'Yes'. In some of the English speaking areas like the Valleys which voted 'Yes' I have been told that many people didn't actually want an assembly but voted 'Yes' to support Labour
Although he did enormously cock up the succession. But nobody ever criticises Marcus Aurelius for that [except me], and Aurelius achieved far less himself as emperor than Basil II did.
On your two issues.
1: Many major changes could be implemented without treaty reform, but with a change of practices and policies - eg as said above the Germans are very much in favour of reforms so that benefits are paid to those who have paid in rather than people who've just moved. So too would be much of the country. This doesn't require a treaty change, it requires a change in policies and practices.
As for any changes (if negotiated) that would require a treaty change, I think your panel notion is seriously overcomplicating issues. The SNP ran a Yes campaign based on a unilateral set of changes they decided simply were going to happen even with the UK government saying "oh no they won't". If Cameron can come back with some negotiations and say "we're going to change this" and Merkel spoke up saying "yes that's going to change" then I think it's sufficient to put to the people to decide. If the people decide that's not good enough that's their choice, if the people decide they're happy with that it's again their choice.
2: Maybe change is impossible. In which case after negotaitions fail we should vote accordingly. However that's pre-empting the negotiations.
I've been surprised to see them on land (and in front windows) that I'm sure have previously been Labour.
Not sure what the odds are in this constituency but Gordon has gone all out to hold.
@patrickwintour: Worst launch press conference yet by Lib Dems one question from the FT and the rest dolly drops by party members. Pathetic.
EDIT: his point about Labour is fair though.....
"if the kippers get 20 seats" ??? are you having a Turkish?
Why not write a post speculating what will happen if the kippers get 520 seats? It's no less likely.
My whole point, which you have missed, is that what Cameron is doing today is all about ensuring kippers implode after the GE so that they will have no seats.
And Farage will probably end up doing time.
We'll see if Khan becomes Labour's mayoral candidate what the city makes of his ethnic quotas bullshit.
Well, he's a silly sausage, and your analogy fits better in the light of such remarks.
And longer-term, there is always the option to go it (completely) alone.
The disabled are / giving British jobs to / wind turbines
Lenny Henry is / run by / speed cameras
Lefties are / flooding the UK with / gays
Wait a minute. Haven't they actually said that last one??
Indeed, combining with 11/4 Tories and 5/1 Labour gives a 97.9% book with a fair chance of winning twice (and, it should be noted, a very slim chance of not winning at all).
If there was a SPIN spread around the final Scottish levels I'd be selling Out. 66-33 would be my initial prediction.
One of them had been nailed to an estate agent's sign saying 'SOLD'. Not sure what that says about the person who put them up or whether it was a (presumably unintentional) slight on Janos Toth.