Tonight is a big night for Nigel Farage. He's going to need to make an impact. What has he got planned as his HIV moment? He has four maiden aunts to shock, so I'm sure he'll try to make full use of that.
I wouldn't be surprised if he went on Rotherham.
Not sure that will be hugely effective. EdM can agree it was a disgrace. Then what happens, bearing in mind that there are five speakers?
What Farage has going for him is that tomorrow all the right wing newspapers will be on his side.
It gives Farage two points of traction:
- general lefty political correctness gone mad (Sturgeon/Bennett/Wood) - specific Labour incompetence (EdM)
I would like to see Farage go on Barnett as it is in their manifesto. Talk about the "fairness" of taking money away from Scotland and giving it to Wales/poorer parts of England and watch Sturgeon's face
Does anyone more informed about the Labour rulebook know if Harriet Harman's proposed rule that the leader/deputy had to be one man, one woman ever went through?
So, if both Ed and Hattie were to stand down after an election defeat, the replacements would have to be gender-balanced?
Yes, the rule went through.
No, they don't have to be gender balanced. Two wimmin is fine
I'm wondering how that's going to work logistically. If Ed and Harriet stand down at the same time, and the contests for leader and deputy run simultaneously, what happens if both contests return men?
Tonight is a big night for Nigel Farage. He's going to need to make an impact. What has he got planned as his HIV moment? He has four maiden aunts to shock, so I'm sure he'll try to make full use of that.
I wouldn't be surprised if he went on Rotherham.
Not sure that will be hugely effective. EdM can agree it was a disgrace. Then what happens, bearing in mind that there are five speakers?
What Farage has going for him is that tomorrow all the right wing newspapers will be on his side.
It gives Farage two points of traction:
- general lefty political correctness gone mad (Sturgeon/Bennett/Wood) - specific Labour incompetence (EdM)
Only if he manages to get into an argument about it. If everyone agrees it was awful - and they will because it was - I am not sure where he goes with it. I suppose if someone reacts and starts calling him out for being a racist or what-have-you he can then launch into one about PC. But I can't imagine anyone will be stupid enough to do that (famous last words).
Does anyone more informed about the Labour rulebook know if Harriet Harman's proposed rule that the leader/deputy had to be one man, one woman ever went through?
So, if both Ed and Hattie were to stand down after an election defeat, the replacements would have to be gender-balanced?
Yes, the rule went through.
No, they don't have to be gender balanced. Two wimmin is fine
I'm wondering how that's going to work logistically. If Ed and Harriet stand down at the same time, and the contests for leader and deputy run simultaneously, what happens if both contests return men?
Wasn't the reverse (two women) a [largely theoretical] risk in Scotland too? I think they have the same rules.
Tonight is a big night for Nigel Farage. He's going to need to make an impact. What has he got planned as his HIV moment? He has four maiden aunts to shock, so I'm sure he'll try to make full use of that.
I wouldn't be surprised if he went on Rotherham.
Not sure that will be hugely effective. EdM can agree it was a disgrace. Then what happens, bearing in mind that there are five speakers?
What Farage has going for him is that tomorrow all the right wing newspapers will be on his side.
It gives Farage two points of traction:
- general lefty political correctness gone mad (Sturgeon/Bennett/Wood) - specific Labour incompetence (EdM)
Only if he manages to get into an argument about it. If everyone agrees it was awful - and they will because it was - I am not sure where he goes with it. I suppose if someone reacts and starts calling him out for being a racist or what-have-you he can then launch into one about PC. But I can't imagine anyone will be stupid enough to do that (famous last words).
Does anyone more informed about the Labour rulebook know if Harriet Harman's proposed rule that the leader/deputy had to be one man, one woman ever went through?
So, if both Ed and Hattie were to stand down after an election defeat, the replacements would have to be gender-balanced?
Yes, the rule went through.
No, they don't have to be gender balanced. Two wimmin is fine
Tonight is a big night for Nigel Farage. He's going to need to make an impact. What has he got planned as his HIV moment? He has four maiden aunts to shock, so I'm sure he'll try to make full use of that.
I wouldn't be surprised if he went on Rotherham.
Not sure that will be hugely effective. EdM can agree it was a disgrace. Then what happens, bearing in mind that there are five speakers?
What Farage has going for him is that tomorrow all the right wing newspapers will be on his side.
It gives Farage two points of traction:
- general lefty political correctness gone mad (Sturgeon/Bennett/Wood) - specific Labour incompetence (EdM)
I would like to see Farage go on Barnett as it is in their manifesto. Talk about the "fairness" of taking money away from Scotland and giving it to Wales/poorer parts of England and watch Sturgeon's face
Wonder if Sturgeon and Wood have discussed Barnett before.
Does anyone more informed about the Labour rulebook know if Harriet Harman's proposed rule that the leader/deputy had to be one man, one woman ever went through?
So, if both Ed and Hattie were to stand down after an election defeat, the replacements would have to be gender-balanced?
Yes, the rule went through.
No, they don't have to be gender balanced. Two wimmin is fine
I'm wondering how that's going to work logistically. If Ed and Harriet stand down at the same time, and the contests for leader and deputy run simultaneously, what happens if both contests return men?
Tonight is a big night for Nigel Farage. He's going to need to make an impact. What has he got planned as his HIV moment? He has four maiden aunts to shock, so I'm sure he'll try to make full use of that.
I wouldn't be surprised if he went on Rotherham.
Not sure that will be hugely effective. EdM can agree it was a disgrace. Then what happens, bearing in mind that there are five speakers?
What Farage has going for him is that tomorrow all the right wing newspapers will be on his side.
It gives Farage two points of traction:
- general lefty political correctness gone mad (Sturgeon/Bennett/Wood) - specific Labour incompetence (EdM)
Only if he manages to get into an argument about it. If everyone agrees it was awful - and they will because it was - I am not sure where he goes with it. I suppose if someone reacts and starts calling him out for being a racist or what-have-you he can then launch into one about PC. But I can't imagine anyone will be stupid enough to do that (famous last words).
I suppose he might then get a bite on the Rotherham UKIP adoption debacle. Maybe he should ask the others whether he's a suitable person to adopt?
I'm wondering how that's going to work logistically. If Ed and Harriet stand down at the same time, and the contests for leader and deputy run simultaneously, what happens if both contests return men?
I'm wondering how that's going to work logistically. If Ed and Harriet stand down at the same time, and the contests for leader and deputy run simultaneously, what happens if both contests return men?
No problem, as long one of them is Jack Dromey...
Please report to Andrea's office for a severe breach of pbc discipline.
Does anyone more informed about the Labour rulebook know if Harriet Harman's proposed rule that the leader/deputy had to be one man, one woman ever went through?
So, if both Ed and Hattie were to stand down after an election defeat, the replacements would have to be gender-balanced?
Yes, the rule went through.
No, they don't have to be gender balanced. Two wimmin is fine
I'm wondering how that's going to work logistically. If Ed and Harriet stand down at the same time, and the contests for leader and deputy run simultaneously, what happens if both contests return men?
I'm wondering how that's going to work logistically. If Ed and Harriet stand down at the same time, and the contests for leader and deputy run simultaneously, what happens if both contests return men?
Tonight is a big night for Nigel Farage. He's going to need to make an impact. What has he got planned as his HIV moment? He has four maiden aunts to shock, so I'm sure he'll try to make full use of that.
I wouldn't be surprised if he went on Rotherham.
Not sure that will be hugely effective. EdM can agree it was a disgrace. Then what happens, bearing in mind that there are five speakers?
What Farage has going for him is that tomorrow all the right wing newspapers will be on his side.
It gives Farage two points of traction:
- general lefty political correctness gone mad (Sturgeon/Bennett/Wood) - specific Labour incompetence (EdM)
Only if he manages to get into an argument about it. If everyone agrees it was awful - and they will because it was - I am not sure where he goes with it. I suppose if someone reacts and starts calling him out for being a racist or what-have-you he can then launch into one about PC. But I can't imagine anyone will be stupid enough to do that (famous last words).
I suppose he might then get a bite on the Rotherham UKIP adoption debacle. Maybe he should ask the others whether he's a suitable person to adopt?
The biggest danger in these debates is not getting slapped down by a fellow politician, but the audience turning against you. That's what did for Darling in the second Scottish Independence debate and nearly happened to Miliband in the Paxman interview.
Tonight is a big night for Nigel Farage. He's going to need to make an impact. What has he got planned as his HIV moment? He has four maiden aunts to shock, so I'm sure he'll try to make full use of that.
I wouldn't be surprised if he went on Rotherham.
Not sure that will be hugely effective. EdM can agree it was a disgrace. Then what happens, bearing in mind that there are five speakers?
What Farage has going for him is that tomorrow all the right wing newspapers will be on his side.
It gives Farage two points of traction:
- general lefty political correctness gone mad (Sturgeon/Bennett/Wood) - specific Labour incompetence (EdM)
Only if he manages to get into an argument about it. If everyone agrees it was awful - and they will because it was - I am not sure where he goes with it. I suppose if someone reacts and starts calling him out for being a racist or what-have-you he can then launch into one about PC. But I can't imagine anyone will be stupid enough to do that (famous last words).
I suppose he might then get a bite on the Rotherham UKIP adoption debacle. Maybe he should ask the others whether he's a suitable person to adopt?
That would be very funny if someone had tempted Farage to say something about Roma first.
Does anyone more informed about the Labour rulebook know if Harriet Harman's proposed rule that the leader/deputy had to be one man, one woman ever went through?
So, if both Ed and Hattie were to stand down after an election defeat, the replacements would have to be gender-balanced?
Yes, the rule went through.
No, they don't have to be gender balanced. Two wimmin is fine
I'm wondering how that's going to work logistically. If Ed and Harriet stand down at the same time, and the contests for leader and deputy run simultaneously, what happens if both contests return men?
The Greens have the same rule. When Bennett was elected they had male and female candidates for deputy. The Female candidates were then effectively disqualified, although they use STV so their voters could vote for one of the male candidates as second choice
All the polling suggests that the Conservatives aren't going to lead the next government unless things are going to change significantly in the next three weeks. Right now, there's no real sign of that. Laying David Cameron as next Prime Minister (on Betfair he's still odds on) is absolutely clearcut to me.
If you disagree, backing the Conservatives at odds against in the seats that would get them between 270 and 300 seats is the action.
If you can't make up your mind, do both in appropriate proportions. You should come out well ahead one way or another, and if you have moderate luck, you might win on both sides of the bets.
The biggest danger in these debates is not getting slapped down by a fellow politician, but the audience turning against you. That's what did for Darling in the second Scottish Independence debate and nearly happened to Miliband in the Paxman interview.
I do wonder if the polls will be very wrong. I wonder how many of the "I am voting UKIP" people will actually do so and if they do not then they might put their votes elsewhere. At present, none of the polls instil me with any confidence that they are anything like correct. The variations in leads seem to be almost random in size and direction.
It reminds me of the old method on how to pick stocks and shares - stick the FTSE-100 list to the back of a door and throw 3 darts at it, buy whatever stocks the darts hit and you will probably do better than a stockbroker's reccommendation
antifrank It is all to do with the UKIP vote, presently Tories on about 33/34%, about the same as Labour, UKIP on 13%+, if the Tories just get 3% of that 13% to switch back to them they are on 37%, and unchanged from 2010, UKIP on 10% without a single extra Labour or LD voter switching to the Tories. Remember Netanyahu trailed or was close behind in most Israeli polls, but he squeezed the vote of rightwing parties at the last minute to ensure Likud came out as largest party
The biggest danger in these debates is not getting slapped down by a fellow politician, but the audience turning against you. That's what did for Darling in the second Scottish Independence debate and nearly happened to Miliband in the Paxman interview.
How will the audience be weighted in this one.
20-20-20-20-20
Or will Cons and Libs be there.
Hecklers, undecided plants, moustaches ?
Rustlers, cut throats, murderers, bounty hunters, desperados, mugs, pugs, thugs, nitwits, halfwits, dimwits, vipers, snipers, con men, Indian agents, Mexican bandits, muggers, buggerers, bushwhackers, hornswogglers, horse thieves, bull dykes, train robbers, bank robbers, ass-kickers, shit-kickers and Methodists.
antifrank It is all to do with the UKIP vote, presently Tories on about 33/34%, about the same as Labour, UKIP on 13%+, if the Tories just get 3% of that 13% to switch back to them they are on 37%, and unchanged from 2010, UKIP on 10% without a single extra Labour or LD voter switching to the Tories. Remember Netanyahu trailed or was close behind in most Israeli polls, but he squeezed the vote of rightwing parties at the last minute to ensure Likud came out as largest party
Cameron doesn't have Arab voters going to the polls that he can frighten his supporters with,
The biggest danger in these debates is not getting slapped down by a fellow politician, but the audience turning against you. That's what did for Darling in the second Scottish Independence debate and nearly happened to Miliband in the Paxman interview.
How will the audience be weighted in this one.
20-20-20-20-20
Or will Cons and Libs be there.
Hecklers, undecided plants, moustaches ?
Rustlers, cut throats, murderers, bounty hunters, desperados, mugs, pugs, thugs, nitwits, halfwits, dimwits, vipers, snipers, con men, Indian agents, Mexican bandits, muggers, buggerers, bushwhackers, hornswogglers, horse thieves, bull dykes, train robbers, bank robbers, ass-kickers, shit-kickers and Methodists.
Surely they couldnt get away with such a Tory dominated audience?
antifrank It is all to do with the UKIP vote, presently Tories on about 33/34%, about the same as Labour, UKIP on 13%+, if the Tories just get 3% of that 13% to switch back to them they are on 37%, and unchanged from 2010, UKIP on 10% without a single extra Labour or LD voter switching to the Tories. Remember Netanyahu trailed or was close behind in most Israeli polls, but he squeezed the vote of rightwing parties at the last minute to ensure Likud came out as largest party
Cameron doesn't have Arab voters going to the polls that he can frighten his supporters with,
The Nationalists are going to the polling booths in droves !
Incidentally do we have the first visages of turnout from postal voting yet ^^; ?
Sean F Pulpstar has got it in one, he has hordes of angry Scottish nats going to the polls to frighten the Kippers with, just as Netanyahu warned of Arabs having the balance of power so Cameron can do the same with the SNP
The biggest danger in these debates is not getting slapped down by a fellow politician, but the audience turning against you. That's what did for Darling in the second Scottish Independence debate and nearly happened to Miliband in the Paxman interview.
How will the audience be weighted in this one.
20-20-20-20-20
Or will Cons and Libs be there.
Hecklers, undecided plants, moustaches ?
Rustlers, cut throats, murderers, bounty hunters, desperados, mugs, pugs, thugs, nitwits, halfwits, dimwits, vipers, snipers, con men, Indian agents, Mexican bandits, muggers, buggerers, bushwhackers, hornswogglers, horse thieves, bull dykes, train robbers, bank robbers, ass-kickers, shit-kickers and Methodists.
Surely they couldnt get away with such a Tory dominated audience?
antifrank It is all to do with the UKIP vote, presently Tories on about 33/34%, about the same as Labour, UKIP on 13%+, if the Tories just get 3% of that 13% to switch back to them they are on 37%, and unchanged from 2010, UKIP on 10% without a single extra Labour or LD voter switching to the Tories. Remember Netanyahu trailed or was close behind in most Israeli polls, but he squeezed the vote of rightwing parties at the last minute to ensure Likud came out as largest party
Cameron doesn't have Arab voters going to the polls that he can frighten his supporters with,
The Nationalists are going to the polling booths in droves !
Incidentally do we have the first visages of turnout from postal voting yet ^^; ?
Sean F Pulpstar has got it in one, he has hordes of angry Scottish nats going to the polls to frighten the Kippers with, just as Netanyahu warned of Arabs having the balance of power so Cameron can do the same with the SNP
That is true. It's a reasonable hope, for the Conservatives, but it is still only a hope.
So, same thing again with Greville Janner - the police were told not to prosecute him in the 90s. This seem to be a recurring theme, we've heard it for three or four examples now.
Are MPs given blanket immunity to child abuse laws or something?
''you will probably do better than a stockbroker's recommendation''
The Wall Street Journal used to use a monkey.
They delighted in the headline 'monkey beats stockpickers again...'
Perhaps the polling companies could sub-contract the monkey? Their accuracy might improve.
I've not proof of this, but I suspect the polls are no more volatile than for any other recent election (say since 2001). Trouble is CON and LAB are so close together it magnifies every change.
LAB 35 / CON 33 --> LAB 34 / CON 35 seems a lot more bouncy than LAB 41 / CON 31 --> LAB 40 / CON 33
So, same thing again with Greville Janner - the police were told not to prosecute him in the 90s. This seem to be a recurring theme, we've heard it for three or four examples now.
Are MPs given blanket immunity to child abuse laws or something?
It may be an unpopular view, but I'm old-fashioned enough to believe strongly in the principle of innocence until proven guilty. Therefore, I think it is absolutely disgraceful that Lord Janner is effectively being named by the police and the CPS as being guilty in fact (but not in law) of very serious charges with no possibility of being able to defend himself. If they don't think that he should be charged with any crime, then they should issue a one-line statement saying that and saying nothing else.
antifrank It is all to do with the UKIP vote, presently Tories on about 33/34%, about the same as Labour, UKIP on 13%+, if the Tories just get 3% of that 13% to switch back to them they are on 37%, and unchanged from 2010, UKIP on 10% without a single extra Labour or LD voter switching to the Tories. Remember Netanyahu trailed or was close behind in most Israeli polls, but he squeezed the vote of rightwing parties at the last minute to ensure Likud came out as largest party
Cameron doesn't have Arab voters going to the polls that he can frighten his supporters with,
Most people know that UKIP won't win the GE. But I suspect there's a reasonable chunk of people who think they have a least a decent chance of holding the balance of power - so it's worth voting for them.
Probably the biggest danger facing UKIP is the media putting up forecasts in the final 24 to 48 hours showing UKIP only winning one or two seats.
People will have seen polls showing UKIP on 10 to 15% and will be thinking that's not bad. But when they see forecasts of only one or two seats many will think voting UKIP is just a complete waste of time and give up - ie go back to Con or Lab.
Sean F Pulpstar has got it in one, he has hordes of angry Scottish nats going to the polls to frighten the Kippers with, just as Netanyahu warned of Arabs having the balance of power so Cameron can do the same with the SNP
I don't think Dave is allowed to come onto the Telly on election day and say it though.
They aren't even allowed to show polls on Israeli TV during voting so it is odd that Netanyahu could say such a thing to be honest - but I think he can make up the rules...
I have Dave down as more of a stickler for sticking to election rules/ avoiding foghorn politics than Netanyahu though.
It may be an unpopular view, but I'm old-fashioned enough to believe strongly in the principle of innocence until proven guilty. Therefore, I think it is absolutely disgraceful that Lord Janner is effectively being named by the police and the CPS as being guilty in fact (but not in law) of very serious charges with no possibility of being able to defend himself. If they don't think that he should be charged with any crime, then they should issue a one-line statement saying that and saying nothing else.
The CPS obviously thought long and hard about how much of a statement to make.
"2. The CPS has carefully considered whether it is appropriate to make a public statement in relation to this case, explaining the reasons for this decision and has decided that it is appropriate to do so. There has been considerable public interest, and media coverage, of the fact of the investigations including identifying Lord Janner as the subject of them. Indeed, concern has been expressed publicly of a ‘cover up’. The allegations that have been made against Lord Janner are extremely serious. Those who have made them are, entirely understandably, vociferous in urging the taking of action against Lord Janner. The reasons for the decision not to do so require explanation in some detail in order to be properly understood and to avoid the inevitable speculation that would follow were no explanation to be given. As appears below, this is not a straightforward case in which the conclusion is simply that the evidence does not warrant taking further action. Moreover, the CPS considers that some of the decisions made by both itself and by the police in relation to past investigations relating to Lord Janner were wrong. This statement is also necessary in order for it to be made clear what the role of the CPS is in making this decision – including in particular to emphasise that the CPS is in no sense deciding or implying that the allegations that have been made are established or that Lord Janner is guilty of any offence. For all of those reasons, it is right in this case that there should be a public explanation of the conclusions reached by the CPS."
You know the guy is in a whole heap of trouble when he cant even count on Roger's support.
It may be an unpopular view, but I'm old-fashioned enough to believe strongly in the principle of innocence until proven guilty. Therefore, I think it is absolutely disgraceful that Lord Janner is effectively being named by the police and the CPS as being guilty in fact (but not in law) of very serious charges with no possibility of being able to defend himself. If they don't think that he should be charged with any crime, then they should issue a one-line statement saying that and saying nothing else.
I agree. To be fair, in their statement they do say that if trials had been held in the past he would have had the chance to defend himself, as he did in Parliament.
It's very difficult because, as well as announcing their decision, they are also anouncing the inquiry into why the CPS made different decisions on two previous occasions and so it is hard to avoid giving the relevant information. Plus - as I read it - if he were not suffering from dementia and therefore effectively unable to defend himself, the decision to prosecute might well have been different.
So, same thing again with Greville Janner - the police were told not to prosecute him in the 90s. This seem to be a recurring theme, we've heard it for three or four examples now.
Are MPs given blanket immunity to child abuse laws or something?
It may be an unpopular view, but I'm old-fashioned enough to believe strongly in the principle of innocence until proven guilty. Therefore, I think it is absolutely disgraceful that Lord Janner is effectively being named by the police and the CPS as being guilty in fact (but not in law) of very serious charges with no possibility of being able to defend himself. If they don't think that he should be charged with any crime, then they should issue a one-line statement saying that and saying nothing else.
antifrank It is all to do with the UKIP vote, presently Tories on about 33/34%, about the same as Labour, UKIP on 13%+, if the Tories just get 3% of that 13% to switch back to them they are on 37%, and unchanged from 2010, UKIP on 10% without a single extra Labour or LD voter switching to the Tories. Remember Netanyahu trailed or was close behind in most Israeli polls, but he squeezed the vote of rightwing parties at the last minute to ensure Likud came out as largest party
Cameron doesn't have Arab voters going to the polls that he can frighten his supporters with,
Most people know that UKIP won't win the GE. But I suspect there's a reasonable chunk of people who think they have a least a decent chance of holding the balance of power - so it's worth voting for them.
Probably the biggest danger facing UKIP is the media putting up forecasts in the final 24 to 48 hours showing UKIP only winning one or two seats.
People will have seen polls showing UKIP on 10 to 15% and will be thinking that's not bad. But when they see forecasts of only one or two seats many will think voting UKIP is just a complete waste of time and give up - ie go back to Con or Lab.
You're quite right I suspect. Given that UKIP are going to be lucky if they get five seats, anyone who thinks they'll hold the balance of power is rather ignorant of the situation - but rightly or wrongly most non-politics geeks don't pay that much attention.
UKIP holding the balance of power is about as plausible as Swansea finishing in the Top 4 and being in the Champions League next season - but many I know would see UKIP more as Arsenal.
"This statement is also necessary in order for it to be made clear what the role of the CPS is in making this decision – including in particular to emphasise that the CPS is in no sense deciding or implying that the allegations that have been made are established or that Lord Janner is guilty of any offence. "
It may be an unpopular view, but I'm old-fashioned enough to believe strongly in the principle of innocence until proven guilty. Therefore, I think it is absolutely disgraceful that Lord Janner is effectively being named by the police and the CPS as being guilty in fact (but not in law) of very serious charges with no possibility of being able to defend himself. If they don't think that he should be charged with any crime, then they should issue a one-line statement saying that and saying nothing else.
The CPS obviously thought long and hard about how much of a statement to make.
"2. The CPS has carefully considered whether it is appropriate to make a public statement in relation to this case, explaining the reasons for this decision and has decided that it is appropriate to do so. There has been considerable public interest, and media coverage, of the fact of the investigations including identifying Lord Janner as the subject of them. Indeed, concern has been expressed publicly of a ‘cover up’. The allegations that have been made against Lord Janner are extremely serious. Those who have made them are, entirely understandably, vociferous in urging the taking of action against Lord Janner. The reasons for the decision not to do so require explanation in some detail in order to be properly understood and to avoid the inevitable speculation that would follow were no explanation to be given. As appears below, this is not a straightforward case in which the conclusion is simply that the evidence does not warrant taking further action. Moreover, the CPS considers that some of the decisions made by both itself and by the police in relation to past investigations relating to Lord Janner were wrong. This statement is also necessary in order for it to be made clear what the role of the CPS is in making this decision – including in particular to emphasise that the CPS is in no sense deciding or implying that the allegations that have been made are established or that Lord Janner is guilty of any offence. For all of those reasons, it is right in this case that there should be a public explanation of the conclusions reached by the CPS."
You know the guy is in a whole heap of trouble when he cant even count on Roger's support.
But look at the equally grandstanding press conference when they announced they *were* going to prosecute "Creases" Huhne - presumably that wasn't needed to allay suspicions of a "cover up"? Pure self-importance, and enjoying being on the telly.
The biggest danger in these debates is not getting slapped down by a fellow politician, but the audience turning against you. That's what did for Darling in the second Scottish Independence debate and nearly happened to Miliband in the Paxman interview.
Only a fool would think that Labour have any intention (or the ability) to do anything about the deficit. They don't think they spent too much. They think public spending is good. They want a large state. They believe that they can carry on borrowing because the UK's credit is good. And they think that any money which can't be borrowed can be got from the rich. This is the Labour USP.
And there are lots of people who think like that too; some of them post on here. If Labour form the government, we will see whether they are right.
antifrank It is all to do with the UKIP vote, presently Tories on about 33/34%, about the same as Labour, UKIP on 13%+, if the Tories just get 3% of that 13% to switch back to them they are on 37%, and unchanged from 2010, UKIP on 10% without a single extra Labour or LD voter switching to the Tories. Remember Netanyahu trailed or was close behind in most Israeli polls, but he squeezed the vote of rightwing parties at the last minute to ensure Likud came out as largest party
But the UKIP vote comes from Tories and Labour, and not that far from equally. The Greens may be a smaller vote share but is more fertile Labour ground. Suspect the reason both parties are gaining at the same rate during the campaign is because Labour are squeezing the Greens a bit which makes up for the shortfall in UKIP squeeze for them.
"This statement is also necessary in order for it to be made clear what the role of the CPS is in making this decision – including in particular to emphasise that the CPS is in no sense deciding or implying that the allegations that have been made are established or that Lord Janner is guilty of any offence. "
But they are implying exactly that.
"The CPS assessment of any case is thus not in any sense a finding of, or implication of, any guilt or criminal conduct. It is not a finding of fact, which can only be made by a court, but rather an assessment of what it might be possible to prove to a court"
They delighted in the headline 'monkey beats stockpickers again...'
The Auchentennach Bugle will be delighted again to use their 2010 headline :
"ARSE Dumps On Pollsters"
For the sake of absolute clarity I should make it clear that the former LibDem MP for Winchester is not, nor has he ever been a headline writer for the Auchentennach Bugle.
"This statement is also necessary in order for it to be made clear what the role of the CPS is in making this decision – including in particular to emphasise that the CPS is in no sense deciding or implying that the allegations that have been made are established or that Lord Janner is guilty of any offence. "
But they are implying exactly that.
"The CPS assessment of any case is thus not in any sense a finding of, or implication of, any guilt or criminal conduct. It is not a finding of fact, which can only be made by a court, but rather an assessment of what it might be possible to prove to a court"
Yes, sure, I can read. And that reads like exactly what it is: a formal disclaimer which no-one will take any notice of.
''you will probably do better than a stockbroker's recommendation''
The Wall Street Journal used to use a monkey.
They delighted in the headline 'monkey beats stockpickers again...'
Perhaps the polling companies could sub-contract the monkey? Their accuracy might improve.
I've not proof of this, but I suspect the polls are no more volatile than for any other recent election (say since 2001). Trouble is CON and LAB are so close together it magnifies every change.
LAB 35 / CON 33 --> LAB 34 / CON 35 seems a lot more bouncy than LAB 41 / CON 31 --> LAB 40 / CON 33
I cannot argue that, but I still cannot rid myself of the feeling that this election is very different from the usual UK GEs. Nobody is talking about it for starters. For other elections that I recall, people were generally motivated enough to talk about the election in the weeks running up to it but, to me, it almost feels like there is no election happening.
Quincel The polling evidence is clear, about 45% of UKIP voters are ex Tories, 20% or less ex Labour. And the UKIP vote is about double the Green vote in most polls. So the Tories have more to squeeze
It may be an unpopular view, but I'm old-fashioned enough to believe strongly in the principle of innocence until proven guilty. Therefore, I think it is absolutely disgraceful that Lord Janner is effectively being named by the police and the CPS as being guilty in fact (but not in law) of very serious charges with no possibility of being able to defend himself. If they don't think that he should be charged with any crime, then they should issue a one-line statement saying that and saying nothing else.
Spot on. Trial, and conviction by press, tv, Twitter and Facebook. Disgusting. It would be nice not to have it on here as well.
I just don't get the betting markets. Either there is a shed-load of value on the tories winning constituencies in the 275-325 range, or the EICIPM/Lab minority/lab most seats bets are fantastic value.
Nutz.
Anyway, my pick of the conservative constituency bets is City of Chester @ 2/1, if you're not put off by the Ashcroft poll.
DYOR.
Or both.
MOR can't find 2/1 in Chester!
If you can get on with Coral then Taunton Deane @ 4/7 and Worcester @ 8/11 are still inexplicably there.
Apologies, I should have said - sell labour on Spreadex @ 20
Blimey, do they have a lot of ricks like that?
Can I have £50 with you at 13/8 UKIP Castle Point? Split the over round
Nope, it's 8/11 - 11/8 best prices. I'll give you 7/5
Ok I will take that for £50
On the spreads I like UKIP at 10 in Basildon South and at 0.5 in Kingswood
Tonight is a big night for Nigel Farage. He's going to need to make an impact. What has he got planned as his HIV moment? He has four maiden aunts to shock, so I'm sure he'll try to make full use of that.
Rotherham, British men fighting for ISIS, 5th column?
Wage depression of the working class through mass immigration?
Someone said re Carswell they were surprised UKIP hadn't made more of the SNP style good cop / bad cop routine with Sturgeon and Salmond
Seems obvious to me that's exactly what they have been doing. Carswell is on QT after the debate tonight
Yep - it's very pleasing. We hired a PR agency last month as we want to build our profile in the UK. This was the very first story we pitched. Onwards and upwards.
The biggest danger in these debates is not getting slapped down by a fellow politician, but the audience turning against you. That's what did for Darling in the second Scottish Independence debate and nearly happened to Miliband in the Paxman interview.
The Conservatives are “coming for the SNP and Labour” by focusing on voters who are repelled by Scotland’s “soggy, centre-Left consensus”, Ruth Davidson has said as she unveiled an election manifesto that promised to put taxpayers first.
Yep - it's very pleasing. We hired a PR agency last month as we want to build our profile in the UK. This was the very first story we pitched. Onwards and upwards.
Does anyone more informed about the Labour rulebook know if Harriet Harman's proposed rule that the leader/deputy had to be one man, one woman ever went through?
So, if both Ed and Hattie were to stand down after an election defeat, the replacements would have to be gender-balanced?
Yes, the rule went through.
No, they don't have to be gender balanced. Two wimmin is fine
I'm wondering how that's going to work logistically. If Ed and Harriet stand down at the same time, and the contests for leader and deputy run simultaneously, what happens if both contests return men?
The Greens have the same rule. When Bennett was elected they had male and female candidates for deputy. The Female candidates were then effectively disqualified, although they use STV so their voters could vote for one of the male candidates as second choice
The Greens learnt from that experience and now have two deputy leaders, one male and one female.
''you will probably do better than a stockbroker's recommendation''
The Wall Street Journal used to use a monkey.
They delighted in the headline 'monkey beats stockpickers again...'
Perhaps the polling companies could sub-contract the monkey? Their accuracy might improve.
I've not proof of this, but I suspect the polls are no more volatile than for any other recent election (say since 2001). Trouble is CON and LAB are so close together it magnifies every change.
LAB 35 / CON 33 --> LAB 34 / CON 35 seems a lot more bouncy than LAB 41 / CON 31 --> LAB 40 / CON 33
I cannot argue that, but I still cannot rid myself of the feeling that this election is very different from the usual UK GEs. Nobody is talking about it for starters. For other elections that I recall, people were generally motivated enough to talk about the election in the weeks running up to it but, to me, it almost feels like there is no election happening.
It will be an interesting night on May 7th
I don't know whether you live in a marginal seat or not, Beverley, but for those who live in the 500+ seats which have little or no prospect of changing hands, there is not election worth the name! Perhaps it was ever thus, but the focus on the tiny minority of floating voters in marginal seats is becoming ever more intense, I find.
It may be an unpopular view, but I'm old-fashioned enough to believe strongly in the principle of innocence until proven guilty. Therefore, I think it is absolutely disgraceful that Lord Janner is effectively being named by the police and the CPS as being guilty in fact (but not in law) of very serious charges with no possibility of being able to defend himself. If they don't think that he should be charged with any crime, then they should issue a one-line statement saying that and saying nothing else.
I do wonder if the polls will be very wrong. I wonder how many of the "I am voting UKIP" people will actually do so and if they do not then they might put their votes elsewhere. At present, none of the polls instil me with any confidence that they are anything like correct. The variations in leads seem to be almost random in size and direction.
I don't agree, in the sense that I think you mean it. The variation is indeed random, but that's what random variation is. It seems to me glaringly obvious that regardless of which assumptions you make and what weightings are applied (within a rational range), you currently end up with the parties broadly tied. The bouncing around the zero point is just what any statistician would expect.
The evidence for your theory that Kippers will switch is mildly supported by their certainty to vote as stated being slightly lower than Con/Lab, though slightly higher than LibDem. There's not a lot in it, though. I do agree that it's likely that thwy'll be squeezed a bit more in the next few weeks, but probably only a bit. Most Kipper voters are now quite clear what they're doing.
I cannot argue that, but I still cannot rid myself of the feeling that this election is very different from the usual UK GEs. Nobody is talking about it for starters. For other elections that I recall, people were generally motivated enough to talk about the election in the weeks running up to it but, to me, it almost feels like there is no election happening.
Someone pointed out today that the parties used to hold morning press conferences every day, which are missing this time round
Does anyone more informed about the Labour rulebook know if Harriet Harman's proposed rule that the leader/deputy had to be one man, one woman ever went through?
So, if both Ed and Hattie were to stand down after an election defeat, the replacements would have to be gender-balanced?
Yes, the rule went through.
No, they don't have to be gender balanced. Two wimmin is fine
I'm wondering how that's going to work logistically. If Ed and Harriet stand down at the same time, and the contests for leader and deputy run simultaneously, what happens if both contests return men?
The Greens have the same rule. When Bennett was elected they had male and female candidates for deputy. The Female candidates were then effectively disqualified, although they use STV so their voters could vote for one of the male candidates as second choice
The Greens learnt from that experience and now have two deputy leaders, one male and one female.
Even better, they went for full balance on the leadership itself. It was a bit unbalanced with one talented female leader, so they sensibly switched to an untalented female leader to even things up.
Comments
The Tories have drifted up with them as UKIP and the Lib Dems have drifted down.
Most polls are now picking up the UKIP fall, and yesterday's SW Comres for the Liberals was in tune with ICM.
RUMOUR: Dirty Desmond 'About to Donate UKIP a Million' http://order-order.com/2015/04/16/rumour-dirty-desmond-about-to-donate-ukip-a-million/#_@/tLcaCpopmBrcLA …
Still very nervous about Labour's chances. That ICM is troubling me!
I see Labour have suspended him. But if he really is so far gone how on earth is he a member in the first place? I know, I know ... :-D
A million of what?
Intriguing though.
Would he be donating if he thought UKIP were going to get slaughtered????
If you disagree, backing the Conservatives at odds against in the seats that would get them between 270 and 300 seats is the action.
If you can't make up your mind, do both in appropriate proportions. You should come out well ahead one way or another, and if you have moderate luck, you might win on both sides of the bets.
20-20-20-20-20
Or will Cons and Libs be there.
Hecklers, undecided plants, moustaches ?
It reminds me of the old method on how to pick stocks and shares - stick the FTSE-100 list to the back of a door and throw 3 darts at it, buy whatever stocks the darts hit and you will probably do better than a stockbroker's reccommendation
The Wall Street Journal used to use a monkey.
They delighted in the headline 'monkey beats stockpickers again...'
Incidentally do we have the first visages of turnout from postal voting yet ^^; ?
Same as local elections all held on the same day aren't technically a national election either.
Do you want a cookie with your 7% at the GE?
Are MPs given blanket immunity to child abuse laws or something?
Fit to be a member of legislature of the United Kingdom.
LAB 35 / CON 33 --> LAB 34 / CON 35
seems a lot more bouncy than
LAB 41 / CON 31 --> LAB 40 / CON 33
Probably the biggest danger facing UKIP is the media putting up forecasts in the final 24 to 48 hours showing UKIP only winning one or two seats.
People will have seen polls showing UKIP on 10 to 15% and will be thinking that's not bad. But when they see forecasts of only one or two seats many will think voting UKIP is just a complete waste of time and give up - ie go back to Con or Lab.
They aren't even allowed to show polls on Israeli TV during voting so it is odd that Netanyahu could say such a thing to be honest - but I think he can make up the rules...
I have Dave down as more of a stickler for sticking to election rules/ avoiding foghorn politics than Netanyahu though.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/11542159/Apple-ramps-up-patent-portfolio-to-take-on-Samsung.html
@steve_hawkes: Deficit not an option in new Labour poll of 'What Matters to You?' http://t.co/7Msiu2OjCi
"ARSE Dumps On Pollsters"
"2. The CPS has carefully considered whether it is appropriate to make a public statement in relation to this case, explaining the reasons for this decision and has decided that it is appropriate to do so. There has been considerable public interest, and media coverage, of the fact of the investigations including identifying Lord Janner as the subject of them. Indeed, concern has been expressed publicly of a ‘cover up’. The allegations that have been made against Lord Janner are extremely serious. Those who have made them are, entirely understandably, vociferous in urging the taking of action against Lord Janner. The reasons for the decision not to do so require explanation in some detail in order to be properly understood and to avoid the inevitable speculation that would follow were no explanation to be given. As appears below, this is not a straightforward case in which the conclusion is simply that the evidence does not warrant taking further action. Moreover, the CPS considers that some of the decisions made by both itself and by the police in relation to past investigations relating to Lord Janner were wrong. This statement is also necessary in order for it to be made clear what the role of the CPS is in making this decision – including in particular to emphasise that the CPS is in no sense deciding or implying that the allegations that have been made are established or that Lord Janner is guilty of any offence. For all of those reasons, it is right in this case that there should be a public explanation of the conclusions reached by the CPS."
You know the guy is in a whole heap of trouble when he cant even count on Roger's support.
It's very difficult because, as well as announcing their decision, they are also anouncing the inquiry into why the CPS made different decisions on two previous occasions and so it is hard to avoid giving the relevant information. Plus - as I read it - if he were not suffering from dementia and therefore effectively unable to defend himself, the decision to prosecute might well have been different.
After all this Ed is Crap business, we have come to this: The sitting Prime Minister leads the LOTO by just 5 points.
How much did Callaghan lead Thatchet ?
UKIP holding the balance of power is about as plausible as Swansea finishing in the Top 4 and being in the Champions League next season - but many I know would see UKIP more as Arsenal.
And there are lots of people who think like that too; some of them post on here. If Labour form the government, we will see whether they are right.
https://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Polls/tables-political-monitor-april-2015.pdf
It will be an interesting night on May 7th
On the spreads I like UKIP at 10 in Basildon South and at 0.5 in Kingswood Rotherham, British men fighting for ISIS, 5th column?
Wage depression of the working class through mass immigration?
Someone said re Carswell they were surprised UKIP hadn't made more of the SNP style good cop / bad cop routine with Sturgeon and Salmond
Seems obvious to me that's exactly what they have been doing. Carswell is on QT after the debate tonight