Anecdote department: canvassed a Tory area today (Daisy Farm, Greasley) and found some of scepticism about the Tory manifesto promises - "I liked them when they were getting the deficit down but I'm confused by this good fairy stuff - though I think you're rubbish too", as one said wryly.
Met one voter, a sweet-looking octagenarian, who said he thought Hitler was pretty sound when he took power, "though he overdid things a bit later on". I said frostily that we'd have to agree to disagree - he said amiably that was fine, have a nice day. Wind-up? Sincerely bonkers? Who knows?
An octogenarian would (at most) have been 8 when Hitler took power, quite possibly younger....
NP is going a bit deaf. He obviously did not say 'Hit-ler' he said 'That-Blair'
Anecdote department: canvassed a Tory area today (Daisy Farm, Greasley) and found some of scepticism about the Tory manifesto promises - "I liked them when they were getting the deficit down but I'm confused by this good fairy stuff - though I think you're rubbish too", as one said wryly.
Met one voter, a sweet-looking octagenarian, who said he thought Hitler was pretty sound when he took power, "though he overdid things a bit later on". I said frostily that we'd have to agree to disagree - he said amiably that was fine, have a nice day. Wind-up? Sincerely bonkers? Who knows?
An octogenarian would (at most) have been 8 when Hitler took power, quite possibly younger....
NP is going a bit deaf. He obviously did not say 'Hit-ler' he said 'That-Blair'
FPT: The Conservatives have put a really user-unfriendly splash screen on their website, asking you to enter your email along with a large and obvious submit button. There is a 'skip to main site' link, but that is small and in the bottom-right corner.
*If* they had to do this, they should have made the submit button for the form go to the main site regardless of whether the user entered anything.
It is terrible UI design.
Edit 1: and Labour's is, if anything, even worse. Edit 2: UKIP does the same thing, except theirs is slightly better: the skip link is much more obvious.
It depends on their design goals. If their website is intended to harvest supporters email addresses then they're doing the right thing.
There's an election on. People want to read the manifestos and learn what the parties have to say, not give their emails out. Splash screens are just obstructionist nonsense that p*ss people off.
*If* they have to do this, then do it out of election time.
I have hazy memories of USA research saying that the visitors to political party websites were typically supporters looking for positive reinforcement, rather than undecideds.
What is unusual about the Conservatives splash screen is that you always see it. Normally you see these only on your first visit.
Well the Southwest will tell us if Ashcroft was right or if Comres was.
Which is first result to be called from there ?
Torbay? They are normally one of the first to declare I think.
Just to expand, when they were racing to be first to declare, Torbay used it as a bit of cheap PR for the English Riviera - lots of flowers, potted palm trees on the stage, the works. These days, different venue, with no appetite for the showmanship.
So the manifestos (or in this case the accessing of them) might actually directly sway at least one person? That should make the authors happy at least.
Yes. And the reason is simple. Politicians have spent the last few decades telling us we should help the disabled. And fair enough too - they will not hear many arguments from me on that.
But they have imposed on public bodies and businesses large costs and hassle in making themselves disabled-friendly, particularly in relation to access. Yet the utter ***** cannot even be bothered to make their manifestos even moderately easy for the disabled to access?
Any sections relating to disability in the Conservative, Labour and UKIP manifestoes should be utterly ignored.
(I caveat this with the fact I have not done an extensive search. But an extensive search should not be necessary).
With the competition, does the Speaker count as Conservative? I know the news organisations normally do in order to balance things out with the 4 speaker / deputy speaker MPs.
You betting on that, or is it a tactical entry for the competition?
A bit of both to be honest.
I'm trying to come up with the result that'll cause the most outrage in the Daily Mail
Labour 270, SNP 56, Plaid 4.
Tories on 300.
330 seats giving a 14 seat majority with a full Supply and Confidence agreement, Welsh matching to Scotland on Barnett, elimination of "UK Wide Infrastructure" Budget, agreement on no renewal of Trident, Referendum Powers devolved to Holyrood and Tiger Bay putting them in charge of any further devolution/independence.
Well the Southwest will tell us if Ashcroft was right or if Comres was.
Which is first result to be called from there ?
Torbay? They are normally one of the first to declare I think.
Just to expand, when they were racing to be first to declare, Torbay used it as a bit of cheap PR for the English Riviera - lots of flowers, potted palm trees on the stage, the works. These days, different venue, with no appetite for the showmanship.
On Sturgeon/SNP saying the FFA needs to be introduced gradually/over time.
It's a position to make it impossible for the SNP to support a Tory Queen speech even if it offered FFA.
It;s also a negotiating position. "Oh you want us to bring in FFA immediately, well OK but the payments made to Westminster will need to be quite low in fact in line with Smith to which you've agreed...."
Anecdote department: canvassed a Tory area today (Daisy Farm, Greasley) and found some of scepticism about the Tory manifesto promises - "I liked them when they were getting the deficit down but I'm confused by this good fairy stuff - though I think you're rubbish too", as one said wryly.
Met one voter, a sweet-looking octagenarian, who said he thought Hitler was pretty sound when he took power, "though he overdid things a bit later on". I said frostily that we'd have to agree to disagree - he said amiably that was fine, have a nice day. Wind-up? Sincerely bonkers? Who knows?
An octogenarian would (at most) have been 8 when Hitler took power, quite possibly younger....
NP is going a bit deaf. He obviously did not say 'Hit-ler' he said 'That-Blair'
That's a bit harsh.
Although which one it is harsh on...
I'm not equating Blair with Hitler, just pointing out the really much more obvious person it could mean. After all how could a Labour canvasser end up talking about Adolf.
330 seats giving a 14 seat majority with a full Supply and Confidence agreement, Welsh matching to Scotland on Barnett, elimination of "UK Wide Infrastructure" Budget, agreement on no renewal of Trident, Referendum Powers devolved to Holyrood and Tiger Bay putting them in charge of any further devolution/independence.
At risk of pedantry, that should be 'Cardiff Bay'. Tiger Bay is the name now used for the commercial port next door, although it used to include what is now Cardiff Bay.
You betting on that, or is it a tactical entry for the competition?
A bit of both to be honest.
I'm trying to come up with the result that'll cause the most outrage in the Daily Mail
Labour 270, SNP 56, Plaid 4.
Tories on 300.
330 seats giving a 14 seat majority with a full Supply and Confidence agreement, Welsh matching to Scotland on Barnett, elimination of "UK Wide Infrastructure" Budget, agreement on no renewal of Trident, Referendum Powers devolved to Holyrood and Tiger Bay putting them in charge of any further devolution/independence.
So the manifestos (or in this case the accessing of them) might actually directly sway at least one person? That should make the authors happy at least.
Yes. And the reason is simple. Politicians have spent the last few decades telling us we should help the disabled. And fair enough too - they will not hear many arguments from me on that.
But they have imposed on public bodies and businesses large costs and hassle in making themselves disabled-friendly, particularly in relation to access. Yet the utter ***** cannot even be bothered to make their manifestos even moderately easy for the disabled to access?
Any sections relating to disability in the Conservative, Labour and UKIP manifestoes should be utterly ignored.
(I caveat this with the fact I have not done an extensive search. But an extensive search should not be necessary).
I had not noted your strength of feeling on the subject. I trust you will forgive that my post was rather flippantly intended.
David Cameron's Evan Davis interview is on BBC One now.
Evening all.
I doubt Cameron will have a chance to say ‘Good Evening’ before motor mouth hogs the rest of the show.
I've not seen much of him before, but during the Clegg one even I thought it a bit rich when he listed off a whole bunch of things that reflected poorly on Clegg, and when Clegg asked if he could respond to them, he said 'Briefly'. Magnanimous of him.
FPT: The Conservatives have put a really user-unfriendly splash screen on their website, asking you to enter your email along with a large and obvious submit button. There is a 'skip to main site' link, but that is small and in the bottom-right corner.
*If* they had to do this, they should have made the submit button for the form go to the main site regardless of whether the user entered anything.
It is terrible UI design.
Edit 1: and Labour's is, if anything, even worse. Edit 2: UKIP does the same thing, except theirs is slightly better: the skip link is much more obvious.
It depends on their design goals. If their website is intended to harvest supporters email addresses then they're doing the right thing.
There's an election on. People want to read the manifestos and learn what the parties have to say, not give their emails out. Splash screens are just obstructionist nonsense that p*ss people off.
*If* they have to do this, then do it out of election time.
I have hazy memories of USA research saying that the visitors to political party websites were typically supporters looking for positive reinforcement, rather than undecideds.
What is unusual about the Conservatives splash screen is that you always see it. Normally you see these only on your first visit.
US research - hazily remember or not - is irrelevant compared to the way it pi**es off people who just want to get to the website.
Splash screens are this decade's version of the tag. Highly annoying and useless, yet makes the webmaster feel cool.
I'm not equating Blair with Hitler, just pointing out the really much more obvious person it could mean. After all how could a Labour canvasser end up talking about Adolf.
It's hard to imagine a conversation where that scenario hangs together, which is why I assumed your comment was ironic. It seems unlikely that anyone would assume somebody had misheard 'That Blair' for 'Hitler' when they got the response NPPPC outlined.
There are people out there who have suggested Hitler started well and went too far later, things like the massacre of the Communists, the Night of Long Knives, the deliberate suppression of democracy by use of the SA and the penal laws against the Jews not seeming to compute with them. But I can see why NP would feel that conversation with such a person might not be the best use of his time.
If the LD's collapse and given SLAB collapse what are the odds that the Tories have net gains and/or Lab net losses?
If the Lib Dems go below 10 then the Tories can win 305 seats and lose.
EICIEPIPM
Ed Is Crap In Everyone's Pocket Is PM.
Surely if the Cons were to win 305 seats then it would realistically be Con minority as the Cons would be seen to have won the election. I can't see a "Coalition of the losers" going down well.
Maybe not, but I think you underestimate how such a coalition could last a considerable distance nevertheless. All Lab have to do in that situation, if they want to appear fair, is say the Tories will get the first go. There's no guarantee they could get or want the LDs on board, so they could try for a minority, but Lab could say that the country wants a majority government, and given the Tories failed to arrange one, it's their turn to try.
Many wouldn't like it, but coalitions are clearly here to stay, and its not that unheard of for the largest party to not end up in power in such situations, and if Lab were to take over instead with outside support, they'd quickly lose popularity once it turns out cuts will still happen, and so have incentive to ignore the anger and stick it out the full distance.
If so, shame on them. This might just make me vote Lib Dem ...
So the manifestos (or in this case the accessing of them) might actually directly sway at least one person? That should make the authors happy at least.
If the Conservatives won 305 seats they'd have a very clear majority in England and Wales, and I think it would be difficult for a party that had very clearly come second in England and Wales to govern, even if an anti-Tory coalition could be cobbled together.
And of course, there is the big question of whether the SNP would vote on education, health, justice and transport bills which are England only
So the manifestos (or in this case the accessing of them) might actually directly sway at least one person? That should make the authors happy at least.
Yes. And the reason is simple. Politicians have spent the last few decades telling us we should help the disabled. And fair enough too - they will not hear many arguments from me on that.
But they have imposed on public bodies and businesses large costs and hassle in making themselves disabled-friendly, particularly in relation to access. Yet the utter ***** cannot even be bothered to make their manifestos even moderately easy for the disabled to access?
Any sections relating to disability in the Conservative, Labour and UKIP manifestoes should be utterly ignored.
(I caveat this with the fact I have not done an extensive search. But an extensive search should not be necessary).
I had not noted your strength of feeling on the subject. I trust you will forgive that my post was rather flippantly intended.
You betting on that, or is it a tactical entry for the competition?
A bit of both to be honest.
I'm trying to come up with the result that'll cause the most outrage in the Daily Mail
Labour 270, SNP 56, Plaid 4.
Tories on 300.
330 seats giving a 14 seat majority with a full Supply and Confidence agreement, Welsh matching to Scotland on Barnett, elimination of "UK Wide Infrastructure" Budget, agreement on no renewal of Trident, Referendum Powers devolved to Holyrood and Tiger Bay putting them in charge of any further devolution/independence.
That should have the Mail suitably angry.
Quite a lot of Labour voters too.
Ed has one red line - does he get to be PM. Everything else and all other considerations including Labour Voters are irrelevant.
Looking at the ComRes poll for the 14 LD seats in the SW,the 4 which do not have a LD incumbent must be under the greatest threat.Somerton and Frome and Mid Dorset and North Poole have this priced in at 1-4 but Corals are still offering 4-7 on Taunton Deane which looks to me as value.The one I find odd is Bath where Don Foster is standing down which still has the LDs as 1-4 and would fall to the Tories with the uniform regional swing.
Looking at the ComRes poll for the 14 LD seats in the SW,the 4 which do not have a LD incumbent must be under the greatest threat.Somerton and Frome and Mid Dorset and North Poole have this priced in at 1-4 but Corals are still offering 4-7 on Taunton Deane which looks to me as value.The one I find odd is Bath where Don Foster is standing down which still has the LDs as 1-4 and would fall to the Tories with the uniform regional swing.
The Tory candidate is pretty bad in Bath for a start.
If the LD's collapse and given SLAB collapse what are the odds that the Tories have net gains and/or Lab net losses?
If the Lib Dems go below 10 then the Tories can win 305 seats and lose.
EICIEPIPM
Ed Is Crap In Everyone's Pocket Is PM.
Surely if the Cons were to win 305 seats then it would realistically be Con minority as the Cons would be seen to have won the election. I can't see a "Coalition of the losers" going down well.
Maybe not, but I think you underestimate how such a coalition could last a considerable distance nevertheless. All Lab have to do in that situation, if they want to appear fair, is say the Tories will get the first go. There's no guarantee they could get or want the LDs on board, so they could try for a minority, but Lab could say that the country wants a majority government, and given the Tories failed to arrange one, it's their turn to try.
Many wouldn't like it, but coalitions are clearly here to stay, and its not that unheard of for the largest party to not end up in power in such situations, and if Lab were to take over instead with outside support, they'd quickly lose popularity once it turns out cuts will still happen, and so have incentive to ignore the anger and stick it out the full distance.
If so, shame on them. This might just make me vote Lib Dem ...
So the manifestos (or in this case the accessing of them) might actually directly sway at least one person? That should make the authors happy at least.
If the Conservatives won 305 seats they'd have a very clear majority in England and Wales, and I think it would be difficult for a party that had very clearly come second in England and Wales to govern, even if an anti-Tory coalition could be cobbled together.
And of course, there is the big question of whether the SNP would vote on education, health, justice and transport bills which are England only
Ed has one red line - does he get to be PM. Everything else and all other considerations including Labour Voters are irrelevant.
I think that would be a reckless approach. At the moment I would guess support for Labour is at best unenthusiastic. If he were seen to be dancing to Scotland's tune, it could destroy any chance Labour has of winning more than its core vote - say 25% - in England for a generation, in which case it stands no chance of returning to government again.
FPT: The Conservatives have put a really user-unfriendly splash screen on their website, asking you to enter your email along with a large and obvious submit button. There is a 'skip to main site' link, but that is small and in the bottom-right corner.
*If* they had to do this, they should have made the submit button for the form go to the main site regardless of whether the user entered anything.
It is terrible UI design.
Edit 1: and Labour's is, if anything, even worse. Edit 2: UKIP does the same thing, except theirs is slightly better: the skip link is much more obvious.
It depends on their design goals. If their website is intended to harvest supporters email addresses then they're doing the right thing.
There's an election on. People want to read the manifestos and learn what the parties have to say, not give their emails out. Splash screens are just obstructionist nonsense that p*ss people off.
*If* they have to do this, then do it out of election time.
I have hazy memories of USA research saying that the visitors to political party websites were typically supporters looking for positive reinforcement, rather than undecideds.
What is unusual about the Conservatives splash screen is that you always see it. Normally you see these only on your first visit.
US research - hazily remember or not - is irrelevant compared to the way it pi**es off people who just want to get to the website.
Splash screens are this decade's version of the tag. Highly annoying and useless, yet makes the webmaster feel cool.
It depends on what the parties want from their websites.
I don't think they're aimed at convincing undecided voters, they're about identifying supporters. That starts with their contact details.
You betting on that, or is it a tactical entry for the competition?
A bit of both to be honest.
I'm trying to come up with the result that'll cause the most outrage in the Daily Mail
Labour 270, SNP 56, Plaid 4.
Tories on 300.
330 seats giving a 14 seat majority with a full Supply and Confidence agreement, Welsh matching to Scotland on Barnett, elimination of "UK Wide Infrastructure" Budget, agreement on no renewal of Trident, Referendum Powers devolved to Holyrood and Tiger Bay putting them in charge of any further devolution/independence.
That should have the Mail suitably angry.
Tories and majority of Labour will vote yes to some form of Trident. Welsh matching Barnett OK if I'm purely looking at self interest, but why should England get used as Celtic ATM? I rather like UK infrastructure as all my personal and professional links use roads and rail into England, and Bristol airport is effectively the airport for S Wales ( and it's also, from Cardiff, only about two hours ten to Heathrow). Welsh Labour pretty suspicious of tax raising powers, and hell will freeze over before Wales votes for independence.
If the LD's collapse and given SLAB collapse what are the odds that the Tories have net gains and/or Lab net losses?
If the Lib Dems go below 10 then the Tories can win 305 seats and lose.
EICIEPIPM
Ed Is Crap In Everyone's Pocket Is PM.
Surely if the Cons were to win 305 seats then it would realistically be Con minority as the Cons would be seen to have won the election. I can't see a "Coalition of the losers" going down well.
Maybe not, but I think you underestimate how such a coalition could last a considerable distance nevertheless. All Lab have to do in that situation, if they want to appear fair, is say the Tories will get the first go. There's no guarantee they could get or want the LDs on board, so they could try for a minority, but Lab could say that the country wants a majority government, and given the Tories failed to arrange one, it's their turn to try.
Many wouldn't like it, but coalitions are clearly here to stay, and its not that unheard of for the largest party to not end up in power in such situations, and if Lab were to take over instead with outside support, they'd quickly lose popularity once it turns out cuts will still happen, and so have incentive to ignore the anger and stick it out the full distance.
If so, shame on them. This might just make me vote Lib Dem ...
So the manifestos (or in this case the accessing of them) might actually directly sway at least one person? That should make the authors happy at least.
If the Conservatives won 305 seats they'd have a very clear majority in England and Wales, and I think it would be difficult for a party that had very clearly come second in England and Wales to govern, even if an anti-Tory coalition could be cobbled together.
And of course, there is the big question of whether the SNP would vote on education, health, justice and transport bills which are England only
I thought they'd been clear this time that they would consider doing so from now on. It's part of the pitch for the English not to fear them, as they can actually positively help England by preventing Tory policies (regardless of whether England votes for the Tories or not).
"If the Lib Dems go below 10 then the Tories can win 305 seats and lose.
EICIEPIPM
Ed Is Crap In Everyone's Pocket Is PM."
I think if the Tories get 305 ... then Ed will have difficulty surviving as Labour leader, let alone get to be PM.
There must be many at the top of Labour who must be thinking, "I can do better than this”, as they look at Ed.
It is in their interest for Dave to run a minority Govt for a year or two, while they defenestrate Ed, and then pick their moment to challenge Dave.
Parties are not monoliths, if Ed ends up with a net loss or very modest gains .... then his party will eat him before Alex Salmond does.
Spot on. Especially as Ed has no power base in the party. Two years of the Tories tearing themselves apart on Europe and having to finesse every Commons vote looks a much more attractive option than trying to govern with 260 MPs and the SNP.
If the LD's collapse and given SLAB collapse what are the odds that the Tories have net gains and/or Lab net losses?
If the Lib Dems go below 10 then the Tories can win 305 seats and lose.
EICIEPIPM
Ed Is Crap In Everyone's Pocket Is PM.
Surely if the Cons were to win 305 seats then it would realistically be Con minority as the Cons would be seen to have won the election. I can't see a "Coalition of the losers" going down well.
Maybe not, but I think you underestimate how such a coalition could last a considerable distance nevertheless. All Lab have to do in that situation, if they want to appear fair, is say the Tories will get the first go. There's no guarantee they could get or want the LDs on board, so they could try for a minority, but Lab could say that the country wants a majority government, and given the Tories failed to arrange one, it's their turn to try.
Many wouldn't like it, but coalitions are clearly here to stay, and its not that unheard of for the largest party to not end up in power in such situations, and if Lab were to take over instead with outside support, they'd quickly lose popularity once it turns out cuts will still happen, and so have incentive to ignore the anger and stick it out the full distance.
If so, shame on them. This might just make me vote Lib Dem ...
So the manifestos (or in this case the accessing of them) might actually directly sway at least one person? That should make the authors happy at least.
If the Conservatives won 305 seats they'd have a very clear majority in England and Wales, and I think it would be difficult for a party that had very clearly come second in England and Wales to govern, even if an anti-Tory coalition could be cobbled together.
And of course, there is the big question of whether the SNP would vote on education, health, justice and transport bills which are England only
Looking at the ComRes poll for the 14 LD seats in the SW,the 4 which do not have a LD incumbent must be under the greatest threat.Somerton and Frome and Mid Dorset and North Poole have this priced in at 1-4 but Corals are still offering 4-7 on Taunton Deane which looks to me as value.The one I find odd is Bath where Don Foster is standing down which still has the LDs as 1-4 and would fall to the Tories with the uniform regional swing.
The Tory candidate is pretty bad in Bath for a start.
Bath's also disproportionately middle-class intellectuals who tend to be liberal-minded - it must surely be the smallest urban area in England to have two universities, plus many others of a similar age/profile/leaning who commute to Bristol or London.
Bath and Cheltenham should be two LD holds unless they lose literally every seat they have for that reason.
David Cameron's Evan Davis interview is on BBC One now.
Evening all.
I doubt Cameron will have a chance to say ‘Good Evening’ before motor mouth hogs the rest of the show.
I've not seen much of him before, but during the Clegg one even I thought it a bit rich when he listed off a whole bunch of things that reflected poorly on Clegg, and when Clegg asked if he could respond to them, he said 'Briefly'. Magnanimous of him.
Davis was notorious for verbally dominating every interview, long before he got the the evening gig. However, what I find most distracting about his interview 'style' is not so much the amount of talking he does, but how large and animated his mouth is – it appears to have a life of its own.
If the LD's collapse and given SLAB collapse what are the odds that the Tories have net gains and/or Lab net losses?
If the Lib Dems go below 10 then the Tories can win 305 seats and lose.
EICIEPIPM
Ed Is Crap In Everyone's Pocket Is PM.
Surely if the Cons were to win 305 seats then it would realistically be Con minority as the Cons would be seen to have won the election. I can't see a "Coalition of the losers" going down well.
Maybe not, but I think you underestimate how such a coalition could last a considerable distance nevertheless. All Lab have to do in that situation, if they want to appear fair, is say the Tories will get the first go. There's no guarantee they could get or want the LDs on board, so they could try for a minority, but Lab could say that the country wants a majority government, and given the Tories failed to arrange one, it's their turn to try.
Many wouldn't like it, but coalitions are clearly here to stay, and its not that unheard of for the largest party to not end up in power in such situations, and if Lab were to take over instead with outside support, they'd quickly lose popularity once it turns out cuts will still happen, and so have incentive to ignore the anger and stick it out the full distance.
If so, shame on them. This might just make me vote Lib Dem ...
So the manifestos (or in this case the accessing of them) might actually directly sway at least one person? That should make the authors happy at least.
If the Conservatives won 305 seats they'd have a very clear majority in England and Wales, and I think it would be difficult for a party that had very clearly come second in England and Wales to govern, even if an anti-Tory coalition could be cobbled together.
And of course, there is the big question of whether the SNP would vote on education, health, justice and transport bills which are England only
I thought they'd been clear this time that they would consider doing so from now on. It's part of the pitch for the English not to fear them, as they can actually positively help England by preventing Tory policies (regardless of whether England votes for the Tories or not).
And it suits a longer term aim of pissing the English off by rubbing West Lothian in.
Looking at the ComRes poll for the 14 LD seats in the SW,the 4 which do not have a LD incumbent must be under the greatest threat.Somerton and Frome and Mid Dorset and North Poole have this priced in at 1-4 but Corals are still offering 4-7 on Taunton Deane which looks to me as value.The one I find odd is Bath where Don Foster is standing down which still has the LDs as 1-4 and would fall to the Tories with the uniform regional swing.
The Tory candidate is pretty bad in Bath for a start.
Bath's also disproportionately middle-class intellectuals who tend to be liberal-minded - it must surely be the smallest urban area in England to have two universities, plus many others of a similar age/profile/leaning who commute to Bristol or London.
Bath and Cheltenham should be two LD holds unless they lose literally every seat they have for that reason.
Looking at the ComRes poll for the 14 LD seats in the SW,the 4 which do not have a LD incumbent must be under the greatest threat.Somerton and Frome and Mid Dorset and North Poole have this priced in at 1-4 but Corals are still offering 4-7 on Taunton Deane which looks to me as value.The one I find odd is Bath where Don Foster is standing down which still has the LDs as 1-4 and would fall to the Tories with the uniform regional swing.
Yes the 4/7 looks fantastic.
Tory holds in the SW (v LD) are mostly buying money too.
I begin to feel sorry for politicians, even though they do obfuscate facts and misuse figures - don't provide enough and you are being too vague, don't know your own policies, or haven't costed things; provide too much, and you are 'bamboozling' with figures.
FPT: The Conservatives have put a really user-unfriendly splash screen on their website, asking you to enter your email along with a large and obvious submit button. There is a 'skip to main site' link, but that is small and in the bottom-right corner.
*If* they had to do this, they should have made the submit button for the form go to the main site regardless of whether the user entered anything.
It is terrible UI design.
Edit 1: and Labour's is, if anything, even worse. Edit 2: UKIP does the same thing, except theirs is slightly better: the skip link is much more obvious.
It depends on their design goals. If their website is intended to harvest supporters email addresses then they're doing the right thing.
There's an election on. People want to read the manifestos and learn what the parties have to say, not give their emails out. Splash screens are just obstructionist nonsense that p*ss people off.
*If* they have to do this, then do it out of election time.
I have hazy memories of USA research saying that the visitors to political party websites were typically supporters looking for positive reinforcement, rather than undecideds.
What is unusual about the Conservatives splash screen is that you always see it. Normally you see these only on your first visit.
US research - hazily remember or not - is irrelevant compared to the way it pi**es off people who just want to get to the website.
Splash screens are this decade's version of the tag. Highly annoying and useless, yet makes the webmaster feel cool.
It depends on what the parties want from their websites.
I don't think they're aimed at convincing undecided voters, they're about identifying supporters. That starts with their contact details.
I am a voter. I wanted to access their manifestos and, apparently unreasonably, thought that their main websites would be the best place to get it. Straight and unadulterated from the horse's mouth, as it were.
Now it turns out that some parties want me to jump through hoops as they think the main purpose is to gather my email rather than letting me do what I wanted.
It's terrible as it annoys people intensely (as mentioned below). I don't care what the party wants from their website; I wanted their manifesto, and they put barriers in the way.
Ed has one red line - does he get to be PM. Everything else and all other considerations including Labour. Voters are irrelevant.
With a handful of Scottish seats, Labour would have no more reason to bend over for Scotland than the Tories do.
England would be their key customer.
Depends I suppose what the new SNP majorities were. If Labour had realistic chances of winning dozens back then Scotland still matters. If not, well the Unions probably buggered anyway really. The danger for Ed in power on say 270/80plus SNP is getting caught between pandering too much to the Scots and losing chunks of Middle England or too little and having the SNP making his life utterly impossible in an unholy alliance with the Tories in the HoC.
Sadly come May I expect us to be somewhere not unadjacent to this, (unless ICM really are on to something).
This Cameron-Davis interview is a farce: Cam can't get a word in edge ways.
Liam Walker @_Liam_Walker_ On the next #LeadersInterview @EvanHD will just be asking himself questions. Terrible interview. Credit to DC for keeping calm.
FPT: The Conservatives have put a really user-unfriendly splash screen on their website, asking you to enter your email along with a large and obvious submit button. There is a 'skip to main site' link, but that is small and in the bottom-right corner.
*If* they had to do this, they should have made the submit button for the form go to the main site regardless of whether the user entered anything.
It is terrible UI design.
Edit 1: and Labour's is, if anything, even worse. Edit 2: UKIP does the same thing, except theirs is slightly better: the skip link is much more obvious.
It depends on their design goals. If their website is intended to harvest supporters email addresses then they're doing the right thing.
There's an election on. People want to read the manifestos and learn what the parties have to say, not give their emails out. Splash screens are just obstructionist nonsense that p*ss people off.
*If* they have to do this, then do it out of election time.
I have hazy memories of USA research saying that the visitors to political party websites were typically supporters looking for positive reinforcement, rather than undecideds.
What is unusual about the Conservatives splash screen is that you always see it. Normally you see these only on your first visit.
US research - hazily remember or not - is irrelevant compared to the way it pi**es off people who just want to get to the website.
Splash screens are this decade's version of the tag. Highly annoying and useless, yet makes the webmaster feel cool.
It depends on what the parties want from their websites.
I don't think they're aimed at convincing undecided voters, they're about identifying supporters. That starts with their contact details.
I am a voter. I wanted to access their manifestos and, apparently unreasonably, thought that their main websites would be the best place to get it. Straight and unadulterated from the horse's mouth, as it were.
Now it turns out that some parties want me to jump through hoops as they think the main purpose is to gather my email rather than letting me do what I wanted.
It's terrible as it annoys people intensely (as mentioned below). I don't care what the party wants from their website; I wanted their manifesto, and they put barriers in the way.
That's their problem, not mine.
Can't you just put a fake email address in, or is there verification?
FPT: The Conservatives have put a really user-unfriendly splash screen on their website, asking you to enter your email along with a large and obvious submit button. There is a 'skip to main site' link, but that is small and in the bottom-right corner.
*If* they had to do this, they should have made the submit button for the form go to the main site regardless of whether the user entered anything.
It is terrible UI design.
Edit 1: and Labour's is, if anything, even worse. Edit 2: UKIP does the same thing, except theirs is slightly better: the skip link is much more obvious.
It depends on their design goals. If their website is intended to harvest supporters email addresses then they're doing the right thing.
There's an election on. People want to read the manifestos and learn what the parties have to say, not give their emails out. Splash screens are just obstructionist nonsense that p*ss people off.
*If* they have to do this, then do it out of election time.
I have hazy memories of USA research saying that the visitors to political party websites were typically supporters looking for positive reinforcement, rather than undecideds.
What is unusual about the Conservatives splash screen is that you always see it. Normally you see these only on your first visit.
US research - hazily remember or not - is irrelevant compared to the way it pi**es off people who just want to get to the website.
Splash screens are this decade's version of the tag. Highly annoying and useless, yet makes the webmaster feel cool.
It depends on what the parties want from their websites.
I don't think they're aimed at convincing undecided voters, they're about identifying supporters. That starts with their contact details.
I am a voter. I wanted to access their manifestos and, apparently unreasonably, thought that their main websites would be the best place to get it. Straight and unadulterated from the horse's mouth, as it were.
Now it turns out that some parties want me to jump through hoops as they think the main purpose is to gather my email rather than letting me do what I wanted.
It's terrible as it annoys people intensely (as mentioned below). I don't care what the party wants from their website; I wanted their manifesto, and they put barriers in the way.
That's their problem, not mine.
Certainly they cannot complaint about the media misrepresenting or selectively presenting their manifestos and the policies therein if people are put off accessing them directly by frustrating access. Not that it will stop them.
This Cameron-Davis interview is a farce: Cam can't get a word in edge ways.
Not only is his style really annoying, but actually if he thinks he is "besting" the politicians by just constantly interrupting and talking over them, he isn't. The way to do it is ask a series of hard questions with enough rope to enable to hang themselves, and also catch them out when they are lying. If you don't let them say anything that isn't possible.
One of the best interviews in the past few years was Iain Dale vs Nick Griffin. At no point did he call him a racist, at no point did he try to shout him down, what he did was ask a series of difficult questions and let Griffin get in a total and utter mess as he tried to square the circle of his nationalist / racist views with modern Britan / the world.
This Cameron-Davis interview is a farce: Cam can't get a word in edge ways.
Obviously not a successful format. If it's barely getting a mention on here, out in the real world the only people watching will be those that have misplaced the tv remote.
Ed has one red line - does he get to be PM. Everything else and all other considerations including Labour. Voters are irrelevant.
With a handful of Scottish seats, Labour would have no more reason to bend over for Scotland than the Tories do.
England would be their key customer.
Depends I suppose what the new SNP majorities were. If Labour had realistic chances of winning dozens back then Scotland still matters. If not, well the Unions probably buggered anyway really. The danger for Ed in power on say 270/80plus SNP is getting caught between pandering too much to the Scots and losing chunks of Middle England or too little and having the SNP making his life utterly impossible in an unholy alliance with the Tories in the HoC.
Sadly come May I expect us to be somewhere not unadjacent to this, (unless ICM really are on to something).
Quite so - Labour might get near-annihilated in Scotland but the SNP majorities are going to be thin.
This Cameron-Davis interview is a farce: Cam can't get a word in edge ways.
Obviously not a successful format. If it's barely getting a mention on here, out in the real world the only people watching will be those that have misplaced the tv remote.
Seems sensible. Although people will make the 'barely watching' claim about the debate tomorrow as well, it will be considerably more, and a certain percentage may be affected by it, so it becomes a gamble about whether Miliband is torn to shreds or holds up fine (or better). Seems an unnecessary risk.
Looking at the ComRes poll for the 14 LD seats in the SW,the 4 which do not have a LD incumbent must be under the greatest threat.Somerton and Frome and Mid Dorset and North Poole have this priced in at 1-4 but Corals are still offering 4-7 on Taunton Deane which looks to me as value.The one I find odd is Bath where Don Foster is standing down which still has the LDs as 1-4 and would fall to the Tories with the uniform regional swing.
The Tory candidate is pretty bad in Bath for a start.
May've said elsewhere (can't remember) but here in Cheadle the Tory candidate is also a bit of a duffer. Surely, you'd think, a strong local councillor with a bit of a ground game and personal approval would've made sense taking on a LD incumbent in a winnable marginal, but no.
Con campaign bumf has been all 'air war'. LDs all ground war, heavily coordinated with the (quite popular) local LD councillors.
I am a voter. I wanted to access their manifestos and, apparently unreasonably, thought that their main websites would be the best place to get it. Straight and unadulterated from the horse's mouth, as it were.
Now it turns out that some parties want me to jump through hoops as they think the main purpose is to gather my email rather than letting me do what I wanted.
It's terrible as it annoys people intensely (as mentioned below). I don't care what the party wants from their website; I wanted their manifesto, and they put barriers in the way.
That's their problem, not mine.
I don't see how it is complicated. I just typed into Google "Conservative Party manifesto 2015" (Google auto-suggested most of that) and it gave the very sensible link of https://www.conservatives.com/manifesto - couldn't be a clearer URL.
That page has a PDF link of "Download the Conservative Party Manifesto (PDF)". Clicking that gave the PDF.
I'm not seeing any splash screen on any of that. Couldn't be easier to find for me.
Yeah, saw that a couple of weeks ago, Labour piling up votes in East London, not a lot of gains though. This could be the election where Labour's vote becomes as inefficient as the Tories while UKIP getting votes in Con safe seats and taking Con votes in unwinnable seats will see the Tory votes:seats ratio improve a lot.
Yeah, saw that a couple of weeks ago, Labour piling up votes in East London, not a lot of gains though. This could be the election where Labour's vote becomes as inefficient as the Tories while UKIP getting votes in Con safe seats and taking Con votes in unwinnable seats will see the Tory votes:seats ratio improve a lot.
Heresy. The Tories need an 11.4% lead in England to stand still
I am a voter. I wanted to access their manifestos and, apparently unreasonably, thought that their main websites would be the best place to get it. Straight and unadulterated from the horse's mouth, as it were.
Now it turns out that some parties want me to jump through hoops as they think the main purpose is to gather my email rather than letting me do what I wanted.
It's terrible as it annoys people intensely (as mentioned below). I don't care what the party wants from their website; I wanted their manifesto, and they put barriers in the way.
That's their problem, not mine.
I don't see how it is complicated. I just typed into Google "Conservative Party manifesto 2015" (Google auto-suggested most of that) and it gave the very sensible link of https://www.conservatives.com/manifesto - couldn't be a clearer URL.
That page has a PDF link of "Download the Conservative Party Manifesto (PDF)". Clicking that gave the PDF.
I'm not seeing any splash screen on any of that. Couldn't be easier to find for me.
I am a voter. I wanted to access their manifestos and, apparently unreasonably, thought that their main websites would be the best place to get it. Straight and unadulterated from the horse's mouth, as it were.
Now it turns out that some parties want me to jump through hoops as they think the main purpose is to gather my email rather than letting me do what I wanted.
It's terrible as it annoys people intensely (as mentioned below). I don't care what the party wants from their website; I wanted their manifesto, and they put barriers in the way.
That's their problem, not mine.
I don't see how it is complicated. I just typed into Google "Conservative Party manifesto 2015" (Google auto-suggested most of that) and it gave the very sensible link of https://www.conservatives.com/manifesto - couldn't be a clearer URL.
That page has a PDF link of "Download the Conservative Party Manifesto (PDF)". Clicking that gave the PDF.
I'm not seeing any splash screen on any of that. Couldn't be easier to find for me.
This Cameron-Davis interview is a farce: Cam can't get a word in edge ways.
Obviously not a successful format. If it's barely getting a mention on here, out in the real world the only people watching will be those that have misplaced the tv remote.
Seems sensible. Although people will make the 'barely watching' claim about the debate tomorrow as well, it will be considerably more, and a certain percentage may be affected by it, so it becomes a gamble about whether Miliband is torn to shreds or holds up fine (or better). Seems an unnecessary risk.
I think that Miliband will "win the debate" as with Cameron and Clegg out of the way he will have the most natural supporters watching. He does speak well, and the novelty of seeing Sturgeon in England will have largely worn off. Farage is going to look very isolated, and if he gets all sweaty again he will look lost.
But on Monday they played highlights of his Clegg interview on Newsnight. If Cameron really doesn't get to say anything it'll be interesting to see how they get on editing the highlights for tonight's Newsnight.
But on Monday they played highlights of his Clegg interview on Newsnight. If Cameron really doesn't get to say anything it'll be interesting to see how they get on editing the highlights for tonight's Newsnight.
Wont be any different to a usual episode of Newsnight when Davis presents. Just him talking and occasionally asking the opinion of a current or former Guardian journo.
I am a voter. I wanted to access their manifestos and, apparently unreasonably, thought that their main websites would be the best place to get it. Straight and unadulterated from the horse's mouth, as it were.
Now it turns out that some parties want me to jump through hoops as they think the main purpose is to gather my email rather than letting me do what I wanted.
It's terrible as it annoys people intensely (as mentioned below). I don't care what the party wants from their website; I wanted their manifesto, and they put barriers in the way.
That's their problem, not mine.
I don't see how it is complicated. I just typed into Google "Conservative Party manifesto 2015" (Google auto-suggested most of that) and it gave the very sensible link of https://www.conservatives.com/manifesto - couldn't be a clearer URL.
That page has a PDF link of "Download the Conservative Party Manifesto (PDF)". Clicking that gave the PDF.
I'm not seeing any splash screen on any of that. Couldn't be easier to find for me.
I am a voter. I wanted to access their manifestos and, apparently unreasonably, thought that their main websites would be the best place to get it. Straight and unadulterated from the horse's mouth, as it were.
Now it turns out that some parties want me to jump through hoops as they think the main purpose is to gather my email rather than letting me do what I wanted.
It's terrible as it annoys people intensely (as mentioned below). I don't care what the party wants from their website; I wanted their manifesto, and they put barriers in the way.
That's their problem, not mine.
I don't see how it is complicated. I just typed into Google "Conservative Party manifesto 2015" (Google auto-suggested most of that) and it gave the very sensible link of https://www.conservatives.com/manifesto - couldn't be a clearer URL.
That page has a PDF link of "Download the Conservative Party Manifesto (PDF)". Clicking that gave the PDF.
I'm not seeing any splash screen on any of that. Couldn't be easier to find for me.
That's not the point ...
What is the point then?
He said he was searching for the manifesto and couldn't get it. Searching for the manifesto finds it first time. No need for secondary links or anything else.
Anyone who searches for the manifesto finds it. Isn't that exactly the point?
So Nick and Dave get an extra interview with Evan Davis as they aren't in tomorrow's debate.Is that correct?
No
All 3 leaders get Evan. Nick last Monday, Dave tonight, Ed next week.
Immediately after the bunfight tomorrow, the Tories and Lib Dems get 30 mins with Emily Maitlis to respond
What`s the point as noone watches this.
That is true of almost everything that happens in politics, what's the point of any of it then? It adds to the overall picture. Slight impact only unless one of them snaps during an interview and punches the interviewer, which would pull in more viewers no doubt, but it's not nothing.
Everyone knows most political events are not watched by most people, why do we feel the need to bring that up every now and again, forcing other boring people like me to feel the need to rebut it by pointing everyone knows that?
On that logic nothing about politics should ever be discussed - PMQs, Party conferences, speeches, scandals - because no one really watches them and so they are of no importance, right?
Comments
This may have already been posted, but Electoral Commission are saying 300,000 young people have registered to vote since 16th March.
This could change the dynamics in some college towns.
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/journalist/electoral-commission-media-centre/news-releases-campaigns/over-one-million-applications-achieved-but-theres-still-time-to-register-to-vote-before-the-general-election
He obviously did not say 'Hit-ler' he said 'That-Blair'
Although which one it is harsh on...
What is unusual about the Conservatives splash screen is that you always see it. Normally you see these only on your first visit.
But they have imposed on public bodies and businesses large costs and hassle in making themselves disabled-friendly, particularly in relation to access. Yet the utter ***** cannot even be bothered to make their manifestos even moderately easy for the disabled to access?
Any sections relating to disability in the Conservative, Labour and UKIP manifestoes should be utterly ignored.
(I caveat this with the fact I have not done an extensive search. But an extensive search should not be necessary).
Tories on 300.
330 seats giving a 14 seat majority with a full Supply and Confidence agreement, Welsh matching to Scotland on Barnett, elimination of "UK Wide Infrastructure" Budget, agreement on no renewal of Trident, Referendum Powers devolved to Holyrood and Tiger Bay putting them in charge of any further devolution/independence.
That should have the Mail suitably angry.
Can't a PB'er go hit some protesters and get themselves arrested again? That would liven things up...
That was quite an incident.
http://www.ukelect.co.uk/20150415ForecastUK/Top3UK.html
Would wind up the Mail a treat though...
I doubt Cameron will have a chance to say ‘Good Evening’ before motor mouth hogs the rest of the show.
Splash screens are this decade's version of the tag. Highly annoying and useless, yet makes the webmaster feel cool.
There are people out there who have suggested Hitler started well and went too far later, things like the massacre of the Communists, the Night of Long Knives, the deliberate suppression of democracy by use of the SA and the penal laws against the Jews not seeming to compute with them. But I can see why NP would feel that conversation with such a person might not be the best use of his time.
http://order-order.com/2013/11/01/another-howlett-selection-howler/
But they won't.
It will be a hamstrung Gov't
I don't think they're aimed at convincing undecided voters, they're about identifying supporters. That starts with their contact details.
Nick and Dave clearly went for more exposure.
England would be their key customer.
Bath and Cheltenham should be two LD holds unless they lose literally every seat they have for that reason.
Tory holds in the SW (v LD) are mostly buying money too.
http://www.comres.co.uk/polls/itv-news-london-political-poll/
Lab 278
Lib Dem 30
UKIP 2
Green 1
SNP 37
Tweaks rather than major changes. Con, SNP up a bit; Lab, UKIP, LD down a bit. Also now assuming Galloway will retain (sadly).
What I've actually staked money on is rather different, though most of my (paltry) wedge goes on constituency outcomes anyway.
Now it turns out that some parties want me to jump through hoops as they think the main purpose is to gather my email rather than letting me do what I wanted.
It's terrible as it annoys people intensely (as mentioned below). I don't care what the party wants from their website; I wanted their manifesto, and they put barriers in the way.
That's their problem, not mine.
Sadly come May I expect us to be somewhere not unadjacent to this, (unless ICM really are on to something).
One of the best interviews in the past few years was Iain Dale vs Nick Griffin. At no point did he call him a racist, at no point did he try to shout him down, what he did was ask a series of difficult questions and let Griffin get in a total and utter mess as he tried to square the circle of his nationalist / racist views with modern Britan / the world.
It is interesting though because it shows S,W and NL all on a knife-edge, with a labour landslide to the east.
Con campaign bumf has been all 'air war'. LDs all ground war, heavily coordinated with the (quite popular) local LD councillors.
That page has a PDF link of "Download the Conservative Party Manifesto (PDF)". Clicking that gave the PDF.
I'm not seeing any splash screen on any of that. Couldn't be easier to find for me.
Cameron's "Hell, yes" moment?
(No wonder it was in line with expectations!)
All 3 leaders get Evan. Nick last Monday, Dave tonight, Ed next week.
Immediately after the bunfight tomorrow, the Tories and Lib Dems get 30 mins with Emily Maitlis to respond
But on Monday they played highlights of his Clegg interview on Newsnight. If Cameron really doesn't get to say anything it'll be interesting to see how they get on editing the highlights for tonight's Newsnight.
The leader interviews have been crap.
The debate follows directly on
He said he was searching for the manifesto and couldn't get it. Searching for the manifesto finds it first time. No need for secondary links or anything else.
Anyone who searches for the manifesto finds it. Isn't that exactly the point?
Everyone knows most political events are not watched by most people, why do we feel the need to bring that up every now and again, forcing other boring people like me to feel the need to rebut it by pointing everyone knows that?
On that logic nothing about politics should ever be discussed - PMQs, Party conferences, speeches, scandals - because no one really watches them and so they are of no importance, right?