I was at a family BBQ this evening and we got talking about the election. Now myself, dad, mum, sister and brother in law all voted Tory in 2010 (we live in Woking by the way). For a good few years, however, my dad, brother in law and I have firmly moved over to Ukip and will vote as such on May 7. But my mum and sister - although sympathetic to Ukip's cause - will most likely vote Tory simply because they are scared of the prospect of the SNP having power at Westminster.
Obviously that's a ridiculously small sample, but it did get me wondering if the Tory scare tactics of pointing out the prospect of a Labour-SNP deal could be more likely to work better with female voters. Given the male:female split of Ukip's vote that doesn't bode especially well for the Tories.
Probably something of nothing and we do live in a safe Tory seat so maybe it would be different if we in a Tory-Labour marginal. But personally I'd vote Ukip wherever I lived.
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
Yes well my views on that have been made clear previously, we know UKIP will be eating into the Tory vote in England, but we also know that UKIP are taking votes in Tory safe seats that 11.4% figure makes no sense with UKIP in the picture. Without UKIP then of course the Tories would need to hold on to that.
Mike had a thread yesterday saying that the Tories could stand still with a couple of point swing towards Labour so he sees it as well.
I was at a family BBQ this evening and we got talking about the election. Now myself, dad, mum, sister and brother in law all voted Tory in 2010 (we live in Woking by the way). For a good few years, however, my dad, brother in law and I have firmly moved over to Ukip and will vote as such on May 7. But my mum and sister - although sympathetic to Ukip's cause - will most likely vote Tory simply because they are scared of the prospect of the SNP having power at Westminster.
Obviously that's a ridiculously small sample, but it did get me wondering if the Tory scare tactics of pointing out the prospect of a Labour-SNP deal could be more likely to work better with female voters. Given the male:female split of Ukip's vote that doesn't bode especially well for the Tories.
Probably something of nothing and we do live in a safe Tory seat so maybe it would be different if we in a Tory-Labour marginal. But personally I'd vote Ukip wherever I lived.
I spoke to my brother in Cambridge earlier. Both him and his wife voting Labour. Both have only ever worked in private sector too. Her in publishing, him as an engineer.
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?
You are saying that a user's perfectly valid flow through a website is wrong. That is treating the user with contempt. It is perfectly valid to try to find the manifesto or similar through the main domain URL without using google or a.n.other. Especially if you want to find the proper thing, and not whatever the search engine may throw up.
As it happens, I was doing it as part of an informal accessibility test, to see how easy it was to find the manifestos. The splash screens are utterly intrusive and unnecessary.
my mum and sister - although sympathetic to Ukip's cause - will most likely vote Tory
Tory Surge! Nailed on !!!!!
There's not much I can do about my mum voting Tory, but I'll continue to chip away at my sister. I reckon what might swing it is that the Tories have hiked up our council tax and that's really pissed her off.
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?
You are saying that a user's perfectly valid flow through a website is wrong. That is treating the user with contempt. It is perfectly valid to try to find the manifesto or similar through the main domain URL without using google or a.n.other. Especially if you want to find the proper thing, and not whatever the search engine may throw up.
As it happens, I was doing it as part of an informal accessibility test, to see how easy it was to find the manifestos. The splash screens are utterly intrusive and unnecessary.
If you want to go to the top level domain of any website it's far from unusual to find it being some form of introduction screen. If I want to search for something, then I search for it - and it couldn't be easier to find if you do.
If I want to check the news on the BBC website I won't go to www.bbc.co.uk and then complain about the shoddy homepage compared to going to the news page.
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?
You are saying that a user's perfectly valid flow through a website is wrong. That is treating the user with contempt. It is perfectly valid to try to find the manifesto or similar through the main domain URL without using google or a.n.other. Especially if you want to find the proper thing, and not whatever the search engine may throw up.
As it happens, I was doing it as part of an informal accessibility test, to see how easy it was to find the manifestos. The splash screens are utterly intrusive and unnecessary.
If I want to check the news on the BBC website I won't go to www.bbc.co.uk and then complain about the shoddy homepage compared to going to the news page.
I would - the homepage should make accessing the news page easy and accessible even if there are better ways for me to get to it directly. Yes, I should do it the 'proper' way and it will involve more work for me to do it the other way, but they shouldn't be adding stumbling blocks to my own silliness. Silly people want to access the news too, and they also vote.
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
Yes well my views on that have been made clear previously, we know UKIP will be eating into the Tory vote in England, but we also know that UKIP are taking votes in Tory safe seats that 11.4% figure makes no sense with UKIP in the picture. Without UKIP then of course the Tories would need to hold on to that.
Mike had a thread yesterday saying that the Tories could stand still with a couple of point swing towards Labour so he sees it as well.
Yes there could be a substantial swing from Con to Lab in Manchester, Liverpool, B'ham, Newcastle, Hull, Sheffield, Leicester, Derby, Edinburgh, Glasgow, etc. and the Tories wouldn't lose any seats because they don't have any MPs in those areas.
The IMF are projecting the UK generally. Obviously they have to take into account the downside risk that we elect a Labour government.
They are saying the budget won`t be balanced due to lower tax take as we have had this Parliament(not due to overspending).
Their projection has to be a blended average of the possibilities under the various governments that might emerge.
Regardless, it's pretty irrelevant. The Tories are spending the political capital they spent 5 years building up whilst Labour were busy shouting "too far, too fast".
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
Yes well my views on that have been made clear previously, we know UKIP will be eating into the Tory vote in England, but we also know that UKIP are taking votes in Tory safe seats that 11.4% figure makes no sense with UKIP in the picture. Without UKIP then of course the Tories would need to hold on to that.
Mike had a thread yesterday saying that the Tories could stand still with a couple of point swing towards Labour so he sees it as well.
Yes there could be a substantial swing from Con to Lab in Manchester, Liverpool, B'ham, Newcastle, Hull, Sheffield, Leicester, Derby, Edinburgh, Glasgow, etc. and the Tories wouldn't lose any seats because they don't have any MPs in those areas.
For what it's worth I found it very hard to download a copy of the LD manifesto, the page wouldn't display properly when I clicked on the 'read the whole manifesto' bit, possibly as I was at work and the browser said it was out of date, so maybe it punishes people who don't update their browsers properly as well. Good thing its usually automatic.
The same IMF which said that we were on a dangerous path in 2013 and that Greece would grow its way out of debt in 2011? They might be the world's lender of last resort but their economic forecasting is absolute shite. They missed the credit crisis, they missed the Eurozone flaws and they have okayed the piling of debt onto indebted nations like Greece and Portugal.
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
Yes well my views on that have been made clear previously, we know UKIP will be eating into the Tory vote in England, but we also know that UKIP are taking votes in Tory safe seats that 11.4% figure makes no sense with UKIP in the picture. Without UKIP then of course the Tories would need to hold on to that.
Mike had a thread yesterday saying that the Tories could stand still with a couple of point swing towards Labour so he sees it as well.
Yes there could be a substantial swing from Con to Lab in Manchester, Liverpool, B'ham, Newcastle, Hull, Sheffield, Leicester, Derby, Edinburgh, Glasgow, etc. and the Tories wouldn't lose any seats because they don't have any MPs in those areas.
It is extremely likely that Labour are piling up votes where they don`t need it and Cons where they most need it eventhough this is exactly the opposite pattern to previous elections.
In 2005,Con polled more votes than Lab in England and Lab got 100 more seats in England.
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
Yes well my views on that have been made clear previously, we know UKIP will be eating into the Tory vote in England, but we also know that UKIP are taking votes in Tory safe seats that 11.4% figure makes no sense with UKIP in the picture. Without UKIP then of course the Tories would need to hold on to that.
Mike had a thread yesterday saying that the Tories could stand still with a couple of point swing towards Labour so he sees it as well.
Yes there could be a substantial swing from Con to Lab in Manchester, Liverpool, B'ham, Newcastle, Hull, Sheffield, Leicester, Derby, Edinburgh, Glasgow, etc. and the Tories wouldn't lose any seats because they don't have any MPs in those areas.
That presupposes that there is a way of persuading the British Nationalists in Westminster to let Scotland go out of the goodness of their heart. Pray, what is that way, do you recommend?
Surely the SNP has an answer to that? Isn't this the most obvious question a peaceful separatist should be prepared to answer - why will rUK be OK with this?
Australia, Canada and New Zealand all managed to transition from direct rule under a governor general to full independence, still within the Commonwealth, and with fully-sovereign Parliaments and a shared head of state. Maybe have a look at that path, and see what lessons can be learned.
Yes lost the referendum entirely because of Yes's tactics. It was winnable, but Yes blew it. Yes were Napoleon in the Waterloo campaign, reportedly a bit detached like he couldn't really believe he was there. One minute Elba, next minute Emperor again. Osborne and Broon were Wellington and Blucher, completely focused. The vow was Yes's Plancenoit.
Napoleon could have won Waterloo. He won three of the battles. Unfortunately they were the wrong three. Yes could have won Sindy but some dolt let the SNP do the thinking.
FPT: Many thanks, that's at least a position which deserves a reply. I'd reply that - despite Tweed and Solway being a wee bit narrower than the Atlantic and the Southern Ocean) - it was certainly a valid option under the gradualism imposed on the SNP by Mr Salmond. But it was deliberately made impossible in 2011/12 when Mr Cameron denied the possibility of just such an interim stage (devomax) despite polling showing it being the great preference (indy was about 22-23% IIRC, at the start, remember). And again when he and Mr Miliband tore up the Vow and the Smith Commission. (There was a case - a fair one - for not making concessions during the indyref campaign lest they cause damage during the independence negotiations. But we went into all that a lot in recent years.)
But the SNP have not been sent to Elba, either. Interesting times.
I see that only about a quarter of entrants predict Lab most seats and no one has Lab on more than 325.
Interesting.
It's a shame 4 people have put in entries with Lab on zero seats (two of these appear to be by accident as they also have a sensible forecast as well).
Would be good if these 4 entries could be deleted as they are distorting the average. The "true" average could then be compared to the final result to see how close it is.
I see that only about a quarter of entrants predict Lab most seats and no one has Lab on more than 325.
Interesting.
It's a shame 4 people have put in entries with Lab on zero seats (two of these appear to be by accident as they also have a sensible forecast as well).
Would be good if these 4 entries could be deleted as they are distorting the average. The "true" average could then be compared to the final result to see how close it is.
Someone could always retaliate with some Tories on 0 entries, however I suppose the idea is even with those distorting entries the wisdom of the crowd will see us through if enough people enter - even with those ones, it's not far off many official predictions, even if personally it looks Tory heavy to me.
Who was the last seriously quick West Indies bowler? Watching these two sending it down at 80-85 mph is weird given the ferocious sods they used to have. I miss them.
I see that only about a quarter of entrants predict Lab most seats and no one has Lab on more than 325.
Interesting.
It's a shame 4 people have put in entries with Lab on zero seats (two of these appear to be by accident as they also have a sensible forecast as well).
Would be good if these 4 entries could be deleted as they are distorting the average. The "true" average could then be compared to the final result to see how close it is.
For these sorts of distributions Median is often better than Mean as it ignores the extremes. Standard deviation for each party would be interesting too. Any spreadsheet wizards keen to have a go after it closes?
The same IMF which said that we were on a dangerous path in 2013 and that Greece would grow its way out of debt in 2011? They might be the world's lender of last resort but their economic forecasting is absolute shite. They missed the credit crisis, they missed the Eurozone flaws and they have okayed the piling of debt onto indebted nations like Greece and Portugal.
In fairness the IMF in 2005 did warn the UK that Browns policies were leading to disaster and then a couple of years later pointed out the UK as a result was the worse positioned to weather the oncoming economic storm
Then the crash happened and they were right. Since then Labour have spent every moment blaming it all on the bankers.
Carnyx The Smith Commission has not been torn up but its proposals will be legislated for following the election
Hmmph, I'll believe that. The Coalition have already confirmed that one key issue has been ignored - that the Scottish Parliament will not just be shut down if Westminster wishes.
The same IMF which said that we were on a dangerous path in 2013 and that Greece would grow its way out of debt in 2011? They might be the world's lender of last resort but their economic forecasting is absolute shite. They missed the credit crisis, they missed the Eurozone flaws and they have okayed the piling of debt onto indebted nations like Greece and Portugal.
In fairness the IMF in 2005 did warn the UK that Browns policies were leading to disaster and then a couple of years later pointed out the UK as a result was the worse positioned to weather the oncoming economic storm
Then the crash happened and they were right. Since then Labour have spent every moment blaming it all on the bankers.
Yeah, the Lehmann Brothers collapse , AIG was all Labour's fault !
Who was the last seriously quick West Indies bowler? Watching these two sending it down at 80-85 mph is weird given the ferocious sods they used to have. I miss them.
Tino Best amd Fidel Edwards were quick, but totally ineffective. I believe Edwards produced a delivery in the top 10 of the fastest balls of all time.
Carnyx The Smith Commission has not been torn up but its proposals will be legislated for following the election
Sorry, forgot (in the interests of balance) to add that the Labour fiscal proposals are contradictory not only with themselves (esp. Mr Murphy) but the SC.
If the Tories had not blocked Gordon Brown from running the IMF, they could have laughed off this IMF report -- he would say that, wouldn't he? That act of spite might not look so clever now.
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
Yes well my views on that have been made clear previously, we know UKIP will be eating into the Tory vote in England, but we also know that UKIP are taking votes in Tory safe seats that 11.4% figure makes no sense with UKIP in the picture. Without UKIP then of course the Tories would need to hold on to that.
Mike had a thread yesterday saying that the Tories could stand still with a couple of point swing towards Labour so he sees it as well.
Yes there could be a substantial swing from Con to Lab in Manchester, Liverpool, B'ham, Newcastle, Hull, Sheffield, Leicester, Derby, Edinburgh, Glasgow, etc. and the Tories wouldn't lose any seats because they don't have any MPs in those areas.
Not in Glasgow there won't be!
You've got me there.
Looks like the swing in the NW will be enough to deliver several gains. I don't see this claim that any increase in the Lab vote is from piling up votes in safe seats; if anything they will lose oldcore votes to UKIP - or so the rampers would have it.... Don't take London to be representative of the country as a whole. It isn't, but neither are some of the other marginals polled representative. I agree Labour will do relatively poorly in oldcore wwc communities but substantially better in constituencies with more diverse, lower middle and/or mobile populations. That is, key marginals.
The same IMF which said that we were on a dangerous path in 2013 and that Greece would grow its way out of debt in 2011? They might be the world's lender of last resort but their economic forecasting is absolute shite. They missed the credit crisis, they missed the Eurozone flaws and they have okayed the piling of debt onto indebted nations like Greece and Portugal.
In fairness the IMF in 2005 did warn the UK that Browns policies were leading to disaster and then a couple of years later pointed out the UK as a result was the worse positioned to weather the oncoming economic storm
Then the crash happened and they were right. Since then Labour have spent every moment blaming it all on the bankers.
Yeah, the Lehmann Brothers collapse , AIG was all Labour's fault !
Read the post next time. I said the period leading up to it. The Uk was already stuffed in 2007.
my mum and sister - although sympathetic to Ukip's cause - will most likely vote Tory
Tory Surge! Nailed on !!!!!
There's not much I can do about my mum voting Tory, but I'll continue to chip away at my sister. I reckon what might swing it is that the Tories have hiked up our council tax and that's really pissed her off.
Nothing like labour would - each year for the last three years we have had an increase of 5% in our rates - but that's Wales for you
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
Yes well my views on that have been made clear previously, we know UKIP will be eating into the Tory vote in England, but we also know that UKIP are taking votes in Tory safe seats that 11.4% figure makes no sense with UKIP in the picture. Without UKIP then of course the Tories would need to hold on to that.
Mike had a thread yesterday saying that the Tories could stand still with a couple of point swing towards Labour so he sees it as well.
Yes there could be a substantial swing from Con to Lab in Manchester, Liverpool, B'ham, Newcastle, Hull, Sheffield, Leicester, Derby, Edinburgh, Glasgow, etc. and the Tories wouldn't lose any seats because they don't have any MPs in those areas.
Not in Glasgow there won't be!
You've got me there.
Looks like the swing in the NW will be enough to deliver several gains. I don't see this claim that any increase in the Lab vote is from piling up votes in safe seats; if anything they will lose oldcore votes to UKIP - or so the rampers would have it.... Don't take London to be representative of the country as a whole. It isn't, but neither are some of the other marginals polled representative. I agree Labour will do relatively poorly in oldcore wwc communities but substantially better in constituencies with more diverse, lower middle and/or mobile populations.
There's two main types of safe Labour seats. In the big cities, especially where there's a strong non-white population, they probably are going to pile up a disproportionate extra number of votes which will make their vote less efficient. But in the old mining seats they'll probably not increase much or might even fall (but probably not enough to lose any of the seats).
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?
You are saying that a user's perfectly valid flow through a website is wrong. That is treating the user with contempt. It is perfectly valid to try to find the manifesto or similar through the main domain URL without using google or a.n.other. Especially if you want to find the proper thing, and not whatever the search engine may throw up.
As it happens, I was doing it as part of an informal accessibility test, to see how easy it was to find the manifestos. The splash screens are utterly intrusive and unnecessary.
If I want to check the news on the BBC website I won't go to www.bbc.co.uk and then complain about the shoddy homepage compared to going to the news page.
I would - the homepage should make accessing the news page easy and accessible even if there are better ways for me to get to it directly. Yes, I should do it the 'proper' way and it will involve more work for me to do it the other way, but they shouldn't be adding stumbling blocks to my own silliness. Silly people want to access the news too, and they also vote.
It may not be silliness: you may already be on bbc.co.uk and want to go onto the news section, Why potentiallly lose a reader by forcing them out of your site?
(Although that's irrelevant wrt splash screens, which is how this conversation started).
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?
You are saying that a user's perfectly valid flow through a website is wrong. That is treating the user with contempt. It is perfectly valid to try to find the manifesto or similar through the main domain URL without using google or a.n.other. Especially if you want to find the proper thing, and not whatever the search engine may throw up.
As it happens, I was doing it as part of an informal accessibility test, to see how easy it was to find the manifestos. The splash screens are utterly intrusive and unnecessary.
If you want to go to the top level domain of any website it's far from unusual to find it being some form of introduction screen. If I want to search for something, then I search for it - and it couldn't be easier to find if you do.
If I want to check the news on the BBC website I won't go to www.bbc.co.uk and then complain about the shoddy homepage compared to going to the news page.
It's far from unusual because there are an awful lot of bad website designers out there, or at least website designers controlled by hopeless marketeers.
Evan Davis reflects on his BBC Newsnight interview with David Cameron:
First thing to note: Cameron was in a remarkably upbeat mood. We all noticed it as soon as he arrived. What we couldn’t tell was whether he’s a man confident that he’s on course to be returned to Number 10, or whether he is demob happy in the sure knowledge that he’s about to be spending more time with his family."
The same IMF which said that we were on a dangerous path in 2013 and that Greece would grow its way out of debt in 2011? They might be the world's lender of last resort but their economic forecasting is absolute shite. They missed the credit crisis, they missed the Eurozone flaws and they have okayed the piling of debt onto indebted nations like Greece and Portugal.
In fairness the IMF in 2005 did warn the UK that Browns policies were leading to disaster and then a couple of years later pointed out the UK as a result was the worse positioned to weather the oncoming economic storm
Then the crash happened and they were right. Since then Labour have spent every moment blaming it all on the bankers.
Yeah, the Lehmann Brothers collapse , AIG was all Labour's fault !
Read the post next time. I said the period leading up to it. The Uk was already stuffed in 2007.
Yes, so stuffed that our debt / GDP ratio was lower than Germany !
The same IMF which said that we were on a dangerous path in 2013 and that Greece would grow its way out of debt in 2011? They might be the world's lender of last resort but their economic forecasting is absolute shite. They missed the credit crisis, they missed the Eurozone flaws and they have okayed the piling of debt onto indebted nations like Greece and Portugal.
In fairness the IMF in 2005 did warn the UK that Browns policies were leading to disaster and then a couple of years later pointed out the UK as a result was the worse positioned to weather the oncoming economic storm
Then the crash happened and they were right. Since then Labour have spent every moment blaming it all on the bankers.
They noted our regulatory issues yes, but completely missed the massive build up of unsustainable credit in the system.
"ITV NEWS SOUTH WEST LIB DEM / TORY BATTLEGROUNDS Poll of voters for living in Liberal Democrat seats where the Conservatives are in second place, in the South West of England, for ITV News."
[i]"ITV NEWS SOUTH WEST LIB DEM / TORY BATTLEGROUNDS Poll of voters for living in Liberal Democrat seats where the Conservatives are in second place, in the South West of England, for ITV News."[/i]
I'd be surprised if David Laws is the only safe Lib Dem unless tthe Tories aren't campaigning hard there on purpose. He has a huge majority but he seems one of the least likely to be able to hold onto anti-Tory tactical votes and his expenses won't have done him any favours. As I've said before, Yeovil is probably the one place where I would consider voting Tory.
[i]"ITV NEWS SOUTH WEST LIB DEM / TORY BATTLEGROUNDS Poll of voters for living in Liberal Democrat seats where the Conservatives are in second place, in the South West of England, for ITV News."[/i]
I'd be surprised if David Laws is the only safe Lib Dem unless tthe Tories aren't campaigning hard there on purpose. He has a huge majority but he seems one of the least likely to be able to hold onto anti-Tory tactical votes and his expenses won't have done him any favours. As I've said before, Yeovil is probably the one place where I would consider voting Tory.
It's also not been ashcrofted so it could be making up some of the difference between this poll and the Ashcroft. Unlikely but you never know.
Lib Dem personal votes vary massively.
Also consider the worst personal ratings according to Ashcroft - Clegg and Alexander both have disproportionate swings against them. Laws is a fellow Orange booker.
I'd be surprised if David Laws is the only safe Lib Dem unless tthe Tories aren't campaigning hard there on purpose. He has a huge majority but he seems one of the least likely to be able to hold onto anti-Tory tactical votes and his expenses won't have done him any favours. As I've said before, Yeovil is probably the one place where I would consider voting Tory.
A Conservative vote in Yeovil probably makes a Con Gov't LESS likely tbh.
Anecdote department: canvassed a Tory area today ... Met one voter, a sweet-looking octagenarian, who said he thought Hitler was pretty sound when he took power
This poster went up today in the wrong constituency, it went up in the Conservative held con lab marginal of Carlisle, instead of the Lancaster constituency about seventy miles away in a different county. Strangely both seats are Conservative gains from 2010 with waiver thin majorities.
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?
You are saying that a user's perfectly valid flow through a website is wrong. That is treating the user with contempt. It is perfectly valid to try to find the manifesto or similar through the main domain URL without using google or a.n.other. Especially if you want to find the proper thing, and not whatever the search engine may throw up.
As it happens, I was doing it as part of an informal accessibility test, to see how easy it was to find the manifestos. The splash screens are utterly intrusive and unnecessary.
If you want to go to the top level domain of any website it's far from unusual to find it being some form of introduction screen. If I want to search for something, then I search for it - and it couldn't be easier to find if you do.
If I want to check the news on the BBC website I won't go to www.bbc.co.uk and then complain about the shoddy homepage compared to going to the news page.
It's far from unusual because there are an awful lot of bad website designers out there, or at least website designers controlled by hopeless marketeers.
The current "fad" for the picture heavy responsive designs are terrible IMO. BBC, Sky, Guardian, Telegraph all gone for it and they are bloody awful
Evan Davis reflects on his BBC Newsnight interview with David Cameron:
First thing to note: Cameron was in a remarkably upbeat mood. We all noticed it as soon as he arrived. What we couldn’t tell was whether he’s a man confident that he’s on course to be returned to Number 10, or whether he is demob happy in the sure knowledge that he’s about to be spending more time with his family."
Maybe he was upbeat, because he knew that he wouldn't have to actually answer any questions, rather just sit back and listening to Evan do a Q&A himself.
The same IMF which said that we were on a dangerous path in 2013 and that Greece would grow its way out of debt in 2011? They might be the world's lender of last resort but their economic forecasting is absolute shite. They missed the credit crisis, they missed the Eurozone flaws and they have okayed the piling of debt onto indebted nations like Greece and Portugal.
In fairness the IMF in 2005 did warn the UK that Browns policies were leading to disaster and then a couple of years later pointed out the UK as a result was the worse positioned to weather the oncoming economic storm
Then the crash happened and they were right. Since then Labour have spent every moment blaming it all on the bankers.
Yeah, the Lehmann Brothers collapse , AIG was all Labour's fault !
Read the post next time. I said the period leading up to it. The Uk was already stuffed in 2007.
Yes, so stuffed that our debt / GDP ratio was lower than Germany !
Just for you.......
Warnings to Brown from the IMF as well as the EU central bank but were ignored
1) Dec 2003 IMF gives Brown borrowing warning
2) Sep 2005 IMF report warning over £1 trillion mountain of debt
3) Sep 2005 Brown besieged over growth and borrowing plans
4) Dec 2005 IMF fires new warning over Britain's finances
5) Sep 2006 IMF warns over possible UK property crash
6) Oct 2007 IMF report UK house market is 'heading for crash'
7) Apr 2008 IMF: UK vulnerable to US-style housing slump
In October, the IMF said that the UK was worst placed of all the major economies to weather the coming recession.
This poster went up today in the wrong constituency, it went up in the Conservative held con lab marginal of Carlisle, instead of the Lancaster constituency about seventy miles away in a different county. Strangely both seats are Conservative gains from 2010 with waiver thin majorities.
Either the bill poster has picked the wrong poster for the site or the printer's mis labeled it. Someone is gonna catch it in the neck.
"ITV NEWS SOUTH WEST LIB DEM / TORY BATTLEGROUNDS Poll of voters for living in Liberal Democrat seats where the Conservatives are in second place, in the South West of England, for ITV News."
Anecdote department: canvassed a Tory area today ... Met one voter, a sweet-looking octagenarian, who said he thought Hitler was pretty sound when he took power
Nick. That wasn't a Tory area.
It was a something else area.
Wasn't it?
Nice attempt at a smear by him though
Soubry's put up with similar for 5 years, poison dripped into the ears of her constituents at every opportunity. She deserves to keep Broxtowe.
Unless he's here for more than 90 days he doesn't have to does he? Anyway I'm sure there's a reciprocal tax treaty with the U.S. as he is presumably a U.S. resident?
Also, as was pointed out earlier, ITV's new version of spitting image, Newzoids, just finished
Was it any good?
Technically its a version of Les Guignols de l'Info which was a license of Spitting Image but progressed to be quite different. I was concerned it would be all celebs and no satire but it was actually pretty good. Some decent laughs in there.
I'd be surprised if David Laws is the only safe Lib Dem unless tthe Tories aren't campaigning hard there on purpose. He has a huge majority but he seems one of the least likely to be able to hold onto anti-Tory tactical votes and his expenses won't have done him any favours. As I've said before, Yeovil is probably the one place where I would consider voting Tory.
A Conservative vote in Yeovil probably makes a Con Gov't LESS likely tbh.
Speak to anyone who is in regular contact with Labour’s leader, and they all agree he is only too ready to embrace the top job. ‘He’s absolutely convinced he’s been pre-ordained for some big historical mission,’ one senior shadow cabinet member told me. ‘Don’t ask me what the hell it is. But he genuinely believes that.’ Another — rather less charitably — said, ‘Just because you think a lot it doesn’t necessarily make you a great thinker. Ed’s problem is that he regards himself as a great thinker. And he isn’t.’
Comments
I was at a family BBQ this evening and we got talking about the election. Now myself, dad, mum, sister and brother in law all voted Tory in 2010 (we live in Woking by the way). For a good few years, however, my dad, brother in law and I have firmly moved over to Ukip and will vote as such on May 7. But my mum and sister - although sympathetic to Ukip's cause - will most likely vote Tory simply because they are scared of the prospect of the SNP having power at Westminster.
Obviously that's a ridiculously small sample, but it did get me wondering if the Tory scare tactics of pointing out the prospect of a Labour-SNP deal could be more likely to work better with female voters. Given the male:female split of Ukip's vote that doesn't bode especially well for the Tories.
Probably something of nothing and we do live in a safe Tory seat so maybe it would be different if we in a Tory-Labour marginal. But personally I'd vote Ukip wherever I lived.
SNP + 18 giving them 45 seats and Labour -18 giving them 274 seats.
Mike had a thread yesterday saying that the Tories could stand still with a couple of point swing towards Labour so he sees it as well.
As it happens, I was doing it as part of an informal accessibility test, to see how easy it was to find the manifestos. The splash screens are utterly intrusive and unnecessary.
Mon - Miliband
Wed - Farage
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11540179/IMF-UK-will-fail-to-balance-the-books-by-2020.html
If I want to check the news on the BBC website I won't go to www.bbc.co.uk and then complain about the shoddy homepage compared to going to the news page.
@JamesClayton5: Danny Alexander tells @BBCAllegra 'Whose hands do you want around the throat of the next government?' https://t.co/vF4GuzdisQ #newsnight
Regardless, it's pretty irrelevant. The Tories are spending the political capital they spent 5 years building up whilst Labour were busy shouting "too far, too fast".
Interesting.
https://twitter.com/politicsmarkets/status/588419348898807809
Feel free to put a bet on here;
http://sports.betfair.com/Index.do?mi=117087478&ex=1&origin=MRL
In 2005,Con polled more votes than Lab in England and Lab got 100 more seats in England.
But the SNP have not been sent to Elba, either. Interesting times.
Would be good if these 4 entries could be deleted as they are distorting the average. The "true" average could then be compared to the final result to see how close it is.
In fairness the IMF in 2005 did warn the UK that Browns policies were leading to disaster and then a couple of years later pointed out the UK as a result was the worse positioned to weather the oncoming economic storm
Then the crash happened and they were right. Since then Labour have spent every moment blaming it all on the bankers.
I said the period leading up to it. The Uk was already stuffed in 2007.
So in 2010, SNP got 6 seats.
We're now predicting 41-42.
If I'd said in 2010 that SNP will get 7x as many seats just five years later, I would have been derided...
(Although that's irrelevant wrt splash screens, which is how this conversation started).
Labour have made zero net gains in by-elections in this parliament in spite of a very substantial Con-Lab swing.
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2015/04/the-liberal-democrat-battleground/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberaldemocrats/11539938/Conservatives-on-course-to-gain-14-seats-following-Lib-Dem-collapse-poll-finds.html
"ITV NEWS SOUTH WEST LIB DEM / TORY BATTLEGROUNDS
Poll of voters for living in Liberal Democrat seats where the Conservatives are in second place, in the South West of England, for ITV News."
http://www.comres.co.uk/polls/itv-news-south-west-lib-dem-tory-battlegrounds/
Lib Dem personal votes vary massively.
Also consider the worst personal ratings according to Ashcroft - Clegg and Alexander both have disproportionate swings against them. Laws is a fellow Orange booker.
https://twitter.com/carlisletory/status/588434922811035649
This poster went up today in the wrong constituency, it went up in the Conservative held con lab marginal of Carlisle, instead of the Lancaster constituency about seventy miles away in a different county. Strangely both seats are Conservative gains from 2010 with waiver thin majorities.
@politicshome: 50p tax rate should not be permanent, says Umunna http://t.co/06DXOzvUY0 http://t.co/k6qveBalYj
Also, as was pointed out earlier, ITV's new version of spitting image, Newzoids, just finished
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/537044601065197569
Maybe he was upbeat, because he knew that he wouldn't have to actually answer any questions, rather just sit back and listening to Evan do a Q&A himself.
I am guessing little real change, 35/34.
Warnings to Brown from the IMF as well as the EU central bank but were ignored
1) Dec 2003 IMF gives Brown borrowing warning
2) Sep 2005 IMF report warning over £1 trillion mountain of debt
3) Sep 2005 Brown besieged over growth and borrowing plans
4) Dec 2005 IMF fires new warning over Britain's finances
5) Sep 2006 IMF warns over possible UK property crash
6) Oct 2007 IMF report UK house market is 'heading for crash'
7) Apr 2008 IMF: UK vulnerable to US-style housing slump
In October, the IMF said that the UK was worst placed of all the major economies to weather the coming recession.
Someone is gonna catch it in the neck.
'Yeah, the LDs are in for a pasting!'
So much for all that incumbency bullet proof stuff.
Move along. Move along.
@Telegraph: Ed Miliband's US adviser David Axelrod pays no tax in Britain http://t.co/ktXsclWSpN http://t.co/6EJfHdtHfl
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9494602/ed-miliband-could-still-win-heres-what-would-happen-next/
It Gordon Brown all over again...