It wasn't so much that they were a leftist audience, but more the fact that it seemed like a metropolitan audience, the BBC/ICM just seemed to have rounded up a bunch of Londoners and stuck them in a studio and only asked them their VI rather than views on issues like immigration and health. Whatever it was there is no way the audience was representative of the views of British people, it felt like a Westminster bubble type of audience.
I think what happened was that ICM might have chosen an audience based purely on opposition voters since it was an opposition debate, hence no 2010 Tories or LD's.
Yes it was obviously a biased audience, but unless the BBC gave instructions to that effect, which has not been proven, I don't see how they can be blamed for it if they handed the job to an independent company.
If I were to assign a company to produce me an audience I would give instructions as to how it should be picked i.e. what political leanings it should have. The weightings were ludicrous. So EITHER the BBC told ICM 'This is what we want' OR ICM produced an incompetent method of selecting voters. (In which case the BBC are culpable for choosing such an incompetent company.)
The aphorism "Don't assign to conspiracy what can be blamed on incompetence" suggests the latter.
UKIP holding up ok in this one I note, even as the LDs remain rooted to the mid to late single digits. Course for both of them its about clustering what little vote share they have in a few areas, even more than for the big two, but the higher the share the better a chance of managing that in more places. UKIP 3-4?
UKIP on 18.5% in England - take away London and we're looking at an AVERAGE of 20% surely?
Quite. And people think that ukip are just gonna evanesce, like morning dew in May? Nah. Barring a Tory wake up, they are here to stay, like the Nats in Scotland. Indeed I think the success of the Nats north of the Border will embolden WWC English people to vote for a new, unlazy party that more truly represents their interests.
As above, so below.
I've always thought UKIP would get 20% in England outside London and nothing's happened to change my mind recently. Of course that would give them an awful lot of second places in both safe Tory and Labour seats.
No chance of 20% this election. Next one maybe, if the cards fall right for them and they play them skilfully. 15% in England minus London perhaps.
They could be on 15% in the whole country now. The welsh poll had them on 13% and I doubt UKIP is going to perform the same or worse in England ex-London, Wales is not famous for being kippery.
Even in London they're on 9%. Also they're on 13% in the last Lab/Con marginals batch, 15% in the Con/LD marginals, all the second places in both Lab + Con safe seats, 20%+ in their strong regions, it's pretty much impossible that they could be as low as the 7% nationally as ICM had them.
Yes it was obviously a biased audience, but unless the BBC gave instructions to that effect, which has not been proven, I don't see how they can be blamed for it if they handed the job to an independent company.
If the BBC chose to farm the work out to a third-party they are responsible for the quality of the work produced. Much like senior managers claiming they are faultless after management consultants blow millions of pounds on projects which fail to deliver.
He can't have a ministerial job until next May, or he'd have to stand down as Mayor of London, which would trigger a Mayoral Election very quickly
Balancing off the hope that Boris could spark an upturn that would help Cameron stay as PM in 2015 vs sparking an early mayoral election the Tories will probably lose anyway?
The LD could demand the leadership of the house of lords (since they will have more lords than commoners in parliament).
They do already (and did before the dissolution, for the pedantic).
UKIP holding up ok in this one I note, even as the LDs remain rooted to the mid to late single digits. Course for both of them its about clustering what little vote share they have in a few areas, even more than for the big two, but the higher the share the better a chance of managing that in more places. UKIP 3-4?
UKIP on 18.5% in England - take away London and we're looking at an AVERAGE of 20% surely?
Quite. And people think that ukip are just gonna evanesce, like morning dew in May? Nah. Barring a Tory wake up, they are here to stay, like the Nats in Scotland. Indeed I think the success of the Nats north of the Border will embolden WWC English people to vote for a new, unlazy party that more truly represents their interests.
As above, so below.
I've always thought UKIP would get 20% in England outside London and nothing's happened to change my mind recently. Of course that would give them an awful lot of second places in both safe Tory and Labour seats.
No chance of 20% this election. Next one maybe, if the cards fall right for them and they play them skilfully. 15% in England minus London perhaps.
That would put them on about 10-12% overall which seems a bit low to me.
It's where I would set the spread were I doing so. UKIP has been on a steady downwards trajectory since last autumn and I can see a little more squeeze in the next three weeks.
Yes it was obviously a biased audience, but unless the BBC gave instructions to that effect, which has not been proven, I don't see how they can be blamed for it if they handed the job to an independent company.
So EITHER the BBC told ICM 'This is what we want' OR ICM produced an incompetent method of selecting voters. (In which case the BBC are culpable for choosing such an incompetent company.)
That seems fair enough - what we are seeing however is automatic 'I hate the BBC so everything shows they are not fit for purpose' reactions (incidentally something which undermines those times when they very much do deserve a kicking, when they are attacked in hyperbolic terms over everything from such quarters), If they asked for that audience, which was definitely biased in my opinion, they deserve a kicking. If ICM were incompetent, the BBC deserve a wrist slap and to do better next time. If they fail again, that shows a bigger problem. But ICM are not some renowned group of tricksters, it was hardly outrageous incompetence in choosing them, even though it worked out badly. Whether a choice was reasonable at the time it was made plays a factor in how badly someone needs to be punished if that choice goes badly.
Overall the audience was not biased as such but it would invariably include those that are rude enough to heckle UKIP. As always with booing and heckling its only the booers that are heard.
Fairly sensible to not let audiences make a noise beyond asking questions I would have thought
It wasn't so much that they were a leftist audience, but more the fact that it seemed like a metropolitan audience, the BBC/ICM just seemed to have rounded up a bunch of Londoners and stuck them in a studio and only asked them their VI rather than views on issues like immigration and health. Whatever it was there is no way the audience was representative of the views of British people, it felt like a Westminster bubble type of audience.
I think what happened was that ICM might have chosen an audience based purely on opposition voters since it was an opposition debate, hence no 2010 Tories or LD's.
No, even the Express has given the numbers.
The Express is pretending they are unfair by defining LDs as left leaning.
The weighting are entirely sensible given the 2010 result and subsequent OFCOM ruling re Major party status - which is why those weightings were used.
Yes it was obviously a biased audience, but unless the BBC gave instructions to that effect, which has not been proven, I don't see how they can be blamed for it if they handed the job to an independent company.
If I were to assign a company to produce me an audience I would give instructions as to how it should be picked i.e. what political leanings it should have. The weightings were ludicrous. So EITHER the BBC told ICM 'This is what we want' OR ICM produced an incompetent method of selecting voters. (In which case the BBC are culpable for choosing such an incompetent company.)
The aphorism "Don't assign to conspiracy what can be blamed on incompetence" suggests the latter.
Re - ICM. I would have thought are going to have to tell us why they selected as they did. If they don't then who is going to trust them again to run a poll, if their methodology was so far out?
Amazing Scottish Ashcroft polls earlier today. I'm glad I've been on the right side of the SNP tsunami from last autumn onwards. It'll be an amazing moment to see Jim Murphy lose in East Renfrewshire if it comes to pass. To think when he first won in 1997 he was disappointed, as he thought he would be a one term MP with a natural swing back to the Tories....or so he thought then. Can the unionist vote coalesce around anti-SNP options in the 3 weeks that remain? What happens in BRS now - does Lamont put out some fresh material saying only he can beat the SNP? And similarly with Russell Brown in Dumfries and Galloway?
I'd go DCT SNP, BRS Conservative D&G Labour if I had to call the 3 border seats right now, with just Orkney & Shetland Lib Dem. I still think Edinburgh South will stay Labour - remember that it is the most 'English' seat in Scotland in terms of numbers born in England. So I'm going SNP 55 , Labour 2, Lib Dem 1, Tory 1 now.
Overall the audience was not biased as such but it would invariably include those that are rude enough to heckle UKIP. As always with booing and heckling its only the booers that are heard
My recollection was that Farage had the first applause from the audience, so he clearly had his share of support too.
Such comments as his about bias always seem to me to be about delegitimising disagreement, but then some of the booing of Farage was no doubt motivated by a desire to silence him, so sounds like they have more in common then either would care to admit.
I met Janner once. He exuded a kind of gross, malignant self-satisfaction. I've seldom encountered a character so obviously unpleasant after just a few seconds of chat.
And he is still in the House of Lords. God help us.
Maybe the CPS could check to see if he's been pruning the hedge excessively.
Charges against nine journalists accused of making illegal payments to public officials have been dropped by the Crown Prosecution Service. Nine of the 12 journalists awaiting trial under Operation Elveden will not be prosecuted, after an urgent review. The Society of Editors called the investigation and prosecution of journalists an "incredible fiasco". But the director of public prosecutions defended the decisions to prosecute the journalists. Duncan Larcombe, royal editor at The Sun, said the investigation and prosecutions had been "politically motivated" and "without justification".
This minister thing. Labour surely? It's a wonks game mixed with celebrity, which is more Team Red than Blue. For the Cons, apart from Boris, who will obviously go to the front bench asap (but asap may be 2016), who else does the public know or care about who's already in parliament? Presumably it could be a lord but again, being a minister is a serious business. Who's left-field enough to be a surprise but credible enough to do a job and interesting enough to make a story? Answer, I suspect, no-one.
Tories need converts from UKIP, not an 'aggressive counter reaction'.
Hannan's the man!
Hannan would be a very interesting choice. He is one of the few popular Tories among UKIP supporters and it would send a very strong message of intent how serious we are about tackling issues with Europe. Given Dave doesn't exactly see things the same way as Hannan though unfortunately means it's a definite nonstarter.
I know the LDs are trying to say they are neither left or right leaning, in effect, but is that possibly true? I find it hard to square with my mental picture of them.
UKIP holding up ok in this one I note, even as the LDs remain rooted to the mid to late single digits. Course for both of them its about clustering what little vote share they have in a few areas, even more than for the big two, but the higher the share the better a chance of managing that in more places. UKIP 3-4?
UKIP on 18.5% in England - take away London and we're looking at an AVERAGE of 20% surely?
Quite. And people think that ukip are just gonna evanesce, like morning dew in May? Nah. Barring a Tory wake up, they are here to stay, like the Nats in Scotland. Indeed I think the success of the Nats north of the Border will embolden WWC English people to vote for a new, unlazy party that more truly represents their interests.
As above, so below.
The Tories can gain UKIP voters back. Or they can keep the metropolitan, professional classes on board.
They cannot do both.
We know from the "forced coalition" choice question that remaining Conservative voters split 60 LibDem, 40 UKIP.
This essentially means there are three voting blocks of about 33% each in the UK:
UKIP-Con LibCon Labour-SNP-Green
Welcome to my theory of political alignments.
Politics always splits roughly in 3 equal pieces in economic and social affairs with priorities changing between economic problems or social problems, each 1/3 is essentially represented by a conservative, a liberal, and a lefty party, with their strengths and positioning changing with each leader and policy priority, but there is only enough space for 3 major parties.
The order today is: UKIP is the conservative party Tories are the liberal party Labour is the lefty party
Pre-2010 it was: Tories the conservative party Labour as the liberal party LD as the lefty party
And pre-1997 it was Tories the conservative party LD as the liberal party Labour as the lefty party
Tories in front with Survation on a 40% ABC1 weighting relative to 60% in C2DE has to be seriously good news for them. Will other pollsters back up what ICM, Survation and Panelbase have shown in their last polls?
A great imponderable for me is if the Tories do suddenly move higher in the polls, will that be the only thing that can save 10-12 SLAB seats in Scotland right now?
Left field guess- Michael Gove back to education. I'm not sure what the purpose of this would be though.
No way. They have detoxified education as a campaign issue and Nicky Morgan has won a lot of support from teachers, reversing the pure hatred they had for Gove. It would be suicidal to make education a prime issue by pre-announcing Gove. My guess is that it will be someone like UKIP saying they would require Nige to be Europe minister as a part of any coalition.
Norman Lamb to Health is a possible one, Health would be a coup for the Lib Dems, but the way the tweet was worded suggests it's one of the big two parties since it said "if they win the election", didn't it?
UKIP holding up ok in this one I note, even as the LDs remain rooted to the mid to late single digits. Course for both of them its about clustering what little vote share they have in a few areas, even more than for the big two, but the higher the share the better a chance of managing that in more places. UKIP 3-4?
UKIP on 18.5% in England - take away London and we're looking at an AVERAGE of 20% surely?
Quite. And people think that ukip are just gonna evanesce, like morning dew in May? Nah. Barring a Tory wake up, they are here to stay, like the Nats in Scotland. Indeed I think the success of the Nats north of the Border will embolden WWC English people to vote for a new, unlazy party that more truly represents their interests.
As above, so below.
The Tories can gain UKIP voters back. Or they can keep the metropolitan, professional classes on board.
They cannot do both.
We know from the "forced coalition" choice question that remaining Conservative voters split 60 LibDem, 40 UKIP.
This essentially means there are three voting blocks of about 33% each in the UK:
UKIP-Con LibCon Labour-SNP-Green
Welcome to my theory of political alignments.
Politics always splits roughly in 3 equal pieces in economic and social affairs with priorities changing between economic problems or social problems, each 1/3 is essentially represented by a conservative, a liberal, and a lefty party, with their strengths and positioning changing with each leader and policy, but there is only enough space for 3 major parties.
The order today is: UKIP is the conservative party Tories are the liberal party Labour is the lefty party
Pre-2010 it was: Tories the conservative party Labour as the liberal party LD as the lefty party
And pre-1997 it was Tories the conservative party LD as the liberal party Labour as the lefty party
Labour did not strike me as very liberal pre-2010.
Amazing Scottish Ashcroft polls earlier today. I'm glad I've been on the right side of the SNP tsunami from last autumn onwards. It'll be an amazing moment to see Jim Murphy lose in East Renfrewshire if it comes to pass. To think when he first won in 1997 he was disappointed, as he thought he would be a one term MP with a natural swing back to the Tories....or so he thought then. Can the unionist vote coalesce around anti-SNP options in the 3 weeks that remain? What happens in BRS now - does Lamont put out some fresh material saying only he can beat the SNP? And similarly with Russell Brown in Dumfries and Galloway?
I'd go DCT SNP, BRS Conservative D&G Labour if I had to call the 3 border seats right now, with just Orkney & Shetland Lib Dem. I still think Edinburgh South will stay Labour - remember that it is the most 'English' seat in Scotland in terms of numbers born in England. So I'm going SNP 55 , Labour 2, Lib Dem 1, Tory 1 now.
I suspect you're wrong re O&S - simply because it only has a 35% "Yes" to play with, and because unionists have no other banner - other than the LibDems - to rally around.
The simplest way the BBC could have prevented any accusations about the audience would have been to have told them not to applaud, at least not regularly. ITV managed to do this.
It's very simple - left wing people are generally younger, more passionate and make more noise.
So a balanced audience appears unbalanced.
Nothing the BBC, ICM (or anyone else) can do about that.
I suppose they could have asked beforehand for them to be a bit quieter. The ITV crowd was much less obnoxious. As pointed out, Dimbleby had to tell them to be quiet at one point!
UKIP holding up ok in this one I note, even as the LDs remain rooted to the mid to late single digits. Course for both of them its about clustering what little vote share they have in a few areas, even more than for the big two, but the higher the share the better a chance of managing that in more places. UKIP 3-4?
UKIP on 18.5% in England - take away London and we're looking at an AVERAGE of 20% surely?
Quite. And people think that ukip are just gonna evanesce, like morning dew in May? Nah. Barring a Tory wake up, they are here to stay, like the Nats in Scotland. Indeed I think the success of the Nats north of the Border will embolden WWC English people to vote for a new, unlazy party that more truly represents their interests.
As above, so below.
The Tories can gain UKIP voters back. Or they can keep the metropolitan, professional classes on board.
They cannot do both.
We know from the "forced coalition" choice question that remaining Conservative voters split 60 LibDem, 40 UKIP.
This essentially means there are three voting blocks of about 33% each in the UK:
UKIP-Con LibCon Labour-SNP-Green
I agree with that, and the Conservatives have made their strategic choice. They'd like as much support as possible from UKIP/Con, but they'd prefer Lib Con, and think that's the future.
Tories in front with Survation on a 40% ABC1 weighting relative to 60% in C2DE has to be seriously good news for them. Will other pollsters back up what ICM, Survation and Panelbase have shown in their last polls?
A great imponderable for me is if the Tories do suddenly move higher in the polls, will that be the only thing that can save 10-12 SLAB seats in Scotland right now?
Why would it? An SNP MP will back Miliband for No 10. In any case, are the voters in seats like that really paying so much attention to English sub-samples, or even the polls as a whole? And if they are, might it not just emphasise a sense of difference and lead to a swing to independence and the SNP?
UKIP holding up ok in this one I note, even as the LDs remain rooted to the mid to late single digits. Course for both of them its about clustering what little vote share they have in a few areas, even more than for the big two, but the higher the share the better a chance of managing that in more places. UKIP 3-4?
UKIP on 18.5% in England - take away London and we're looking at an AVERAGE of 20% surely?
Quite. And people think that ukip are just gonna evanesce, like morning dew in May? Nah. Barring a Tory wake up, they are here to stay, like the Nats in Scotland. Indeed I think the success of the Nats north of the Border will embolden WWC English people to vote for a new, unlazy party that more truly represents their interests.
As above, so below.
The Tories can gain UKIP voters back. Or they can keep the metropolitan, professional classes on board.
They cannot do both.
We know from the "forced coalition" choice question that remaining Conservative voters split 60 LibDem, 40 UKIP.
This essentially means there are three voting blocks of about 33% each in the UK:
UKIP-Con LibCon Labour-SNP-Green
Welcome to my theory of political alignments.
Politics always splits roughly in 3 equal pieces in economic and social affairs with priorities changing between economic problems or social problems, each 1/3 is essentially represented by a conservative, a liberal, and a lefty party, with their strengths and positioning changing with each leader and policy, but there is only enough space for 3 major parties.
The order today is: UKIP is the conservative party Tories are the liberal party Labour is the lefty party
Pre-2010 it was: Tories the conservative party Labour as the liberal party LD as the lefty party
And pre-1997 it was Tories the conservative party LD as the liberal party Labour as the lefty party
Labour did not strike me as very liberal pre-2010.
Well it was very liberal on economic issues even if they were very authoritarian on some social issues. And today the Tory party maybe a little conservative on economic issues but they are very liberal on social issues.
UKIP holding up ok in this one I note, even as the LDs remain rooted to the mid to late single digits. Course for both of them its about clustering what little vote share they have in a few areas, even more than for the big two, but the higher the share the better a chance of managing that in more places. UKIP 3-4?
UKIP on 18.5% in England - take away London and we're looking at an AVERAGE of 20% surely?
Quite. And people think that ukip are just gonna evanesce, like morning dew in May? Nah. Barring a Tory wake up, they are here to stay, like the Nats in Scotland. Indeed I think the success of the Nats north of the Border will embolden WWC English people to vote for a new, unlazy party that more truly represents their interests.
As above, so below.
The Tories can gain UKIP voters back. Or they can keep the metropolitan, professional classes on board.
They cannot do both.
We know from the "forced coalition" choice question that remaining Conservative voters split 60 LibDem, 40 UKIP.
This essentially means there are three voting blocks of about 33% each in the UK:
UKIP-Con LibCon Labour-SNP-Green
Welcome to my theory of political alignments.
Politics always splits roughly in 3 equal pieces in economic and social affairs with priorities changing between economic problems or social problems, each 1/3 is essentially represented by a conservative, a liberal, and a lefty party, with their strengths and positioning changing with each leader and policy priority, but there is only enough space for 3 major parties.
The order today is: UKIP is the conservative party Tories are the liberal party Labour is the lefty party
Pre-2010 it was: Tories the conservative party Labour as the liberal party LD as the lefty party
And pre-1997 it was Tories the conservative party LD as the liberal party Labour as the lefty party
UKIP holding up ok in this one I note, even as the LDs remain rooted to the mid to late single digits. Course for both of them its about clustering what little vote share they have in a few areas, even more than for the big two, but the higher the share the better a chance of managing that in more places. UKIP 3-4?
UKIP on 18.5% in England - take away London and we're looking at an AVERAGE of 20% surely?
Quite. And people think that ukip are just gonna evanesce, like morning dew in May? Nah. Barring a Tory wake up, they are here to stay, like the Nats in Scotland. Indeed I think the success of the Nats north of the Border will embolden WWC English people to vote for a new, unlazy party that more truly represents their interests.
As above, so below.
I think some people forseeing the end of UKIP have made the mistake of thinking that just because they have slipped back from the very highest they have managed in the polls, and the implications arising from that, that what they will probably end up getting is not worth anything.
As you say, the level of their vote will be hugely significant. 2 years ago I had doubts if they could maintain a presence and growth if their vote went up but they still go no MPs (as seemed probable at the time). Now they will have that to help drive them forward, not just a bunch of second places in by-elections.
I can see UKIP, led by someone like Diane James, with Carswell the grave and sensible Chancellor, and Farage as John Prescott, seriously cheering up the masses, doing rather well. Maybe pressing the Tories quite closely.
They need the luck that the SNP had, finding two talented leaders in a row - Salmond and Sturgeon. Without those two the SNP would be nowhere and Indy but a dream.
Southam Observer rightly observes that all three parties are led by Metropolitan Social Liberals. Therefore, there has to be a party for people who aren't Metropolitan Social Liberals.
Tories in front with Survation on a 40% ABC1 weighting relative to 60% in C2DE has to be seriously good news for them. Will other pollsters back up what ICM, Survation and Panelbase have shown in their last poll?
I do think this 40/60 split compared to other pollsters 60/40 split is probably responsible for the larger vote share for UKIP that Survation tends to find as well
Charges against nine journalists accused of making illegal payments to public officials have been dropped by the Crown Prosecution Service. Nine of the 12 journalists awaiting trial under Operation Elveden will not be prosecuted, after an urgent review. The Society of Editors called the investigation and prosecution of journalists an "incredible fiasco". But the director of public prosecutions defended the decisions to prosecute the journalists. Duncan Larcombe, royal editor at The Sun, said the investigation and prosecutions had been "politically motivated" and "without justification".
This minister thing. Labour surely? It's a wonks game mixed with celebrity, which is more Team Red than Blue. For the Cons, apart from Boris, who will obviously go to the front bench asap (but asap may be 2016), who else does the public know or care about who's already in parliament? Presumably it could be a lord but again, being a minister is a serious business. Who's left-field enough to be a surprise but credible enough to do a job and interesting enough to make a story? Answer, I suspect, no-one.
Or Nick Palmer.
If this were a TV show it'd be David Miliband.
As it isn't, it'll likely be Boris, but for 2016, which will be a bit annoying like when UKIP teased a defection and it turned out to just be a bigger donation
I know the LDs are trying to say they are neither left or right leaning, in effect, but is that possibly true? I find it hard to square with my mental picture of them.
There are at least two different LD parties (and possibly three):
1. There are the Orange Bookers, who are a bunch of socially liberal, economically free market, metropolitans. They are in favour of gay marriage, legalising drugs, and the free movement of goods and services. By and large, they are fairly small state, and if there is a difference with the historic conservative party it is on the subject of law and order.
2. There are the sandal wearing liberals, who are economically left wing and awkward; they are descendents of the dissenters (and the quakers and the unitarians), and would like to be in the Labour Party but loathe its links to the unions.
3. There is the (diminished) Social Democratic element, who came from the Labour Party, and feel that what the UK needs is a good continental style social democrat party.
1 is represented by David Laws and Danny Alexander; 2 by Tim Farron and Sarah Teather; and 3 by Vince Cable.
What - historically - united 1 and 2 was a strong belief in the primacy of the individual, as regards sodomy, civil rights, divorce, and the like.
During the 2010 to 2015 period, almost all the 3s have left, and so have a lot of 2s. What remains is a lot of Orange Bookers.
If the SNP do get 55 seats in 3 weeks time, then I can see them being a very cohesive block with 49 newbies not wanting to rock the boat. Such discipline will only make the job of any government that emerges all the tougher. They owe everything to Salmond and Sturgeon. It'll be amazing to see people like Mhari Black and Kirsten Oswald in Westminster!
And if Miliband got in with 55 SNP MP's, who would be promoted into the cabinet to replace the likes of Jim Murphy, Douglas Alexander and Margaret Curran? Will presumably Russell Brown would replace Curran if he was one of the few survivors in D&G. And who would be Labour Foreign Secretary? Some incredible scenarios to ponder!
Charges against nine journalists accused of making illegal payments to public officials have been dropped by the Crown Prosecution Service. Nine of the 12 journalists awaiting trial under Operation Elveden will not be prosecuted, after an urgent review. The Society of Editors called the investigation and prosecution of journalists an "incredible fiasco". But the director of public prosecutions defended the decisions to prosecute the journalists. Duncan Larcombe, royal editor at The Sun, said the investigation and prosecutions had been "politically motivated" and "without justification".
It does give the impression that action was taken purely to dissolve perceived public or political anger, knowing there was not enough to actually convict on, I have to agree with Mr Larcombe on that.
I know the LDs are trying to say they are neither left or right leaning, in effect, but is that possibly true? I find it hard to square with my mental picture of them.
There are at least two different LD parties (and possibly three):
1. There are the Orange Bookers, who are a bunch of socially liberal, economically free market, metropolitans. They are in favour of gay marriage, legalising drugs, and the free movement of goods and services. By and large, they are fairly small state, and if there is a difference with the historic conservative party it is on the subject of law and order.
2. There are the sandal wearing liberals, who are economically left wing and awkward; they are descendents of the dissenters (and the quakers and the unitarians), and would like to be in the Labour Party but loathe its links to the unions.
3. There is the (diminished) Social Democratic element, who came from the Labour Party, and feel that what the UK needs is a good continental style social democrat party.
1 is represented by David Laws and Danny Alexander; 2 by Tim Farron and Sarah Teather; and 3 by Vince Cable.
What - historically - united 1 and 2 was a strong belief in the primacy of the individual, as regards sodomy, civil rights, divorce, and the like.
During the 2010 to 2015 period, almost all the 3s have left, and so have a lot of 2s. What remains is a lot of Orange Bookers.
Sounds more appealing to me, but apparently a maximum of 10% of the country agrees with me on that.
Tories in front with Survation on a 40% ABC1 weighting relative to 60% in C2DE has to be seriously good news for them. Will other pollsters back up what ICM, Survation and Panelbase have shown in their last polls?
A great imponderable for me is if the Tories do suddenly move higher in the polls, will that be the only thing that can save 10-12 SLAB seats in Scotland right now?
Why would it? An SNP MP will back Miliband for No 10. In any case, are the voters in seats like that really paying so much attention to English sub-samples, or even the polls as a whole? And if they are, might it not just emphasise a sense of difference and lead to a swing to independence and the SNP?
Residual fear of a Tory government despite 55 SNP MP's - although I agree, I think it has largely disippated now after the Smith commission report. There doesn't seem to be anything which can save SLAB now.
Prepare for some scanners like head implosions from the left. To be fair I think such bodies shouldavoid making statements during an election period but still.
Britain's economic plan is working and delivering growth while balancing the books, the International Monetary Fund has declared in a stunning endorsement for George Osborne. The Chancellor was in Washington to hear IMF chief Christine Lagarde praise the coalition's management of the British economy. And German finance minister Wolfgang Schaeuble said Mr Osborne had done 'a wonderful job' in the past two years after strong economic growth.
If the SNP do get 55 seats in 3 weeks time, then I can see them being a very cohesive block with 49 newbies not wanting to rock the boat. Such discipline will only make the job of any government that emerges all the tougher.
That's an interesting question.
49 newbies who will almost certainly vote as they are told, and are forbidden to criticise their own party but, as many of them did not really expect to get elected, some of them will be well out on the fringes of what is normally expected of candidates. Behaviour such as threatening to nut opponents, for example. I will be amazed if they all make it 5 years without some serious scandal
UKIP holding up ok in this one I note, even as the LDs remain rooted to the mid to late single digits. Course for both of them its about clustering what little vote share they have in a few areas, even more than for the big two, but the higher the share the better a chance of managing that in more places. UKIP 3-4?
UKIP on 18.5% in England - take away London and we're looking at an AVERAGE of 20% surely?
Quite. And people think that ukip are just gonna evanesce, like morning dew in May? Nah. Barring a Tory wake up, they are here to stay, like the Nats in Scotland. Indeed I think the success of the Nats north of the Border will embolden WWC English people to vote for a new, unlazy party that more truly represents their interests.
As above, so below.
The Tories can gain UKIP voters back. Or they can keep the metropolitan, professional classes on board.
They cannot do both.
We know from the "forced coalition" choice question that remaining Conservative voters split 60 LibDem, 40 UKIP.
This essentially means there are three voting blocks of about 33% each in the UK:
UKIP-Con LibCon Labour-SNP-Green
Welcome to my theory of political alignments.
Politics always splits roughly in 3 equal pieces in economic and social affairs with priorities changing between economic problems or social problems, each 1/3 is essentially represented by a conservative, a liberal, and a lefty party, with their strengths and positioning changing with each leader and policy priority, but there is only enough space for 3 major parties.
The order today is: UKIP is the conservative party Tories are the liberal party Labour is the lefty party
Pre-2010 it was: Tories the conservative party Labour as the liberal party LD as the lefty party
And pre-1997 it was Tories the conservative party LD as the liberal party Labour as the lefty party
Prepare for some scanners like head implosions from the left. To be fair I think such bodies shouldavoid making statements during an election period but still.
Britain's economic plan is working and delivering growth while balancing the books, the International Monetary Fund has declared in a stunning endorsement for George Osborne. The Chancellor was in Washington to hear IMF chief Christine Lagarde praise the coalition's management of the British economy. And German finance minister Wolfgang Schaeuble said Mr Osborne had done 'a wonderful job' in the past two years after strong economic growth.
Were we expected to listen to her and the IMF if they were critical of Osborne and co though? That's the key for me. If no, then why should praise from them now be something that should sway me?
I know the LDs are trying to say they are neither left or right leaning, in effect, but is that possibly true? I find it hard to square with my mental picture of them.
There are at least two different LD parties (and possibly three):
1. There are the Orange Bookers, who are a bunch of socially liberal, economically free market, metropolitans. They are in favour of gay marriage, legalising drugs, and the free movement of goods and services. By and large, they are fairly small state, and if there is a difference with the historic conservative party it is on the subject of law and order.
2. There are the sandal wearing liberals, who are economically left wing and awkward; they are descendents of the dissenters (and the quakers and the unitarians), and would like to be in the Labour Party but loathe its links to the unions.
3. There is the (diminished) Social Democratic element, who came from the Labour Party, and feel that what the UK needs is a good continental style social democrat party.
1 is represented by David Laws and Danny Alexander; 2 by Tim Farron and Sarah Teather; and 3 by Vince Cable.
What - historically - united 1 and 2 was a strong belief in the primacy of the individual, as regards sodomy, civil rights, divorce, and the like.
During the 2010 to 2015 period, almost all the 3s have left, and so have a lot of 2s. What remains is a lot of Orange Bookers.
Which faction is Ed Davey in, he's seriously the one who I can't work out where on earth his personal vote comes from.
UKIP holding up ok in this one I note, even as the LDs remain rooted to the mid to late single digits. Course for both of them its about clustering what little vote share they have in a few areas, even more than for the big two, but the higher the share the better a chance of managing that in more places. UKIP 3-4?
UKIP on 18.5% in England - take away London and we're looking at an AVERAGE of 20% surely?
As above, so below.
The Tories can gain UKIP voters back. Or they can keep the metropolitan, professional classes on board.
They cannot do both.
We know from the "forced coalition" choice question that remaining Conservative voters split 60 LibDem, 40 UKIP.
This essentially means there are three voting blocks of about 33% each in the UK:
UKIP-Con LibCon Labour-SNP-Green
Welcome to my theory of political alignments.
Politics always splits roughly in 3 equal pieces in economic and social affairs with priorities changing between economic problems or social problems, each 1/3 is essentially represented by a conservative, a liberal, and a lefty party, with their strengths and positioning changing with each leader and policy priority, but there is only enough space for 3 major parties.
The order today is: UKIP is the conservative party Tories are the liberal party Labour is the lefty party
Pre-2010 it was: Tories the conservative party Labour as the liberal party LD as the lefty party
And pre-1997 it was Tories the conservative party LD as the liberal party Labour as the lefty party
Where does that leave Scottish Labour?
That's an interesting question. In scotland you have a clear split between all those who believe that independence will solve any kind of economic or social problem with north sea oil, and those who do not.
Those who do (45%), vote SNP regardless if they are conservative, liberal or lefty because they genuinely believe that all of their demands will be granted by the new scotish state even if those are conflicting demands.
Those who do not (55%), split in the traditional 3 parts but since scotland is more left leaning than normal, the lions share of that 55% goes to Labour, but realistically the 55% split in 3 will never beat the 45% who is united, you will have to reduce the 45% by either discouraging the SNP that it can succeed or starve it by removing the root of all this evil (North Sea Oil).
In short, all parties apart from the SNP are doomed in FPTP elections until either the SNP voters get bored and frustrated or you make scottish independence economically and politically unfeasible.
Odds on the SNP in Berwickshire Roxburgh and Selkirk look value to me
Ashcroft implies their vote is 30% max there. Any (net) Unionist collusion between the Lib Dems and the Tories would be enough to see off the SNP here. And Lamont has been working the seat like mad here. So I'm still on the Tories (just) here.
I know the LDs are trying to say they are neither left or right leaning, in effect, but is that possibly true? I find it hard to square with my mental picture of them.
There are at least two different LD parties (and possibly three):
1. There are the Orange Bookers, who are a bunch of socially liberal, economically free market, metropolitans. They are in favour of gay marriage, legalising drugs, and the free movement of goods and services. By and large, they are fairly small state, and if there is a difference with the historic conservative party it is on the subject of law and order.
2. There are the sandal wearing liberals, who are economically left wing and awkward; they are descendents of the dissenters (and the quakers and the unitarians), and would like to be in the Labour Party but loathe its links to the unions.
3. There is the (diminished) Social Democratic element, who came from the Labour Party, and feel that what the UK needs is a good continental style social democrat party.
1 is represented by David Laws and Danny Alexander; 2 by Tim Farron and Sarah Teather; and 3 by Vince Cable.
What - historically - united 1 and 2 was a strong belief in the primacy of the individual, as regards sodomy, civil rights, divorce, and the like.
During the 2010 to 2015 period, almost all the 3s have left, and so have a lot of 2s. What remains is a lot of Orange Bookers.
Sounds more appealing to me, but apparently a maximum of 10% of the country agrees with me on that.
The problem is that many of those who would find the Orange Bookers appealing as defined by Robert are driven away by their Europhilia - which is very much at odds with the small state claims.
UKIP holding up ok in this one I note, even as the LDs remain rooted to the mid to late single digits. Course for both of them its about clustering what little vote share they have in a few areas, even more than for the big two, but the higher the share the better a chance of managing that in more places. UKIP 3-4?
UKIP on 18.5% in England - take away London and we're looking at an AVERAGE of 20% surely?
Quite. And people think that ukip are just gonna evanesce, like morning dew in May? Nah. Barring a Tory wake up, they are here to stay, like the Nats in Scotland. Indeed I think the success of the Nats north of the Border will embolden WWC English people to vote for a new, unlazy party that more truly represents their interests.
As above, so below.
I think some people forseeing the end of UKIP have made the mistake of thinking that just because they have slipped back from the very highest they have managed in the polls, and the implications arising from that, that what they will probably end up getting is not worth anything.
As you say, the level of their vote will be hugely significant. 2 years ago I had doubts if they could maintain a presence and growth if their vote went up but they still go no MPs (as seemed probable at the time). Now they will have that to help drive them forward, not just a bunch of second places in by-elections.
I can see UKIP, led by someone like Diane James, with Carswell the grave and sensible Chancellor, and Farage as John Prescott, seriously cheering up the masses, doing rather well. Maybe pressing the Tories quite closely.
They need the luck that the SNP had, finding two talented leaders in a row - Salmond and Sturgeon. Without those two the SNP would be nowhere and Indy but a dream.
Paul Nuttall is Prescott. Not sure what Farage is if he isn't Leader. The right-winger's Ken Clarke?
im puzzled by the polls, especially the ones that show a strong swing against the conservatives in the north west. From experience and talking to other candidates in marginals, this is not showing out. There is no trend working against the conservatives coming up in the figures, and the Labour vote is certainly not enthusiastic.
I'm putting my mark down that in the north west the Tory vote will be largely the same as it was last time. Of course how the Labour vote and the others from 2010 combine in 2015 could be enough to lose seats for the Cons.
Amazing Scottish Ashcroft polls earlier today. I'm glad I've been on the right side of the SNP tsunami from last autumn onwards. It'll be an amazing moment to see Jim Murphy lose in East Renfrewshire if it comes to pass. To think when he first won in 1997 he was disappointed, as he thought he would be a one term MP with a natural swing back to the Tories....or so he thought then. Can the unionist vote coalesce around anti-SNP options in the 3 weeks that remain? What happens in BRS now - does Lamont put out some fresh material saying only he can beat the SNP? And similarly with Russell Brown in Dumfries and Galloway?
I'd go DCT SNP, BRS Conservative D&G Labour if I had to call the 3 border seats right now, with just Orkney & Shetland Lib Dem. I still think Edinburgh South will stay Labour - remember that it is the most 'English' seat in Scotland in terms of numbers born in England. So I'm going SNP 55 , Labour 2, Lib Dem 1, Tory 1 now.
I suspect you're wrong re O&S - simply because it only has a 35% "Yes" to play with, and because unionists have no other banner - other than the LibDems - to rally around.
Along the same lines. the fact that Glasgow voted Yes is also the reason why it should not be any surprise that the SNP could win all 7 seats there inspite of the large majorities that Labour are defending. The incumbency factor does not matter to the nationalist voters, they are just voting for their movement and the individual candidates don't matter to them. (IIRC Dair has previously mentioned this as well). Most voters also will probably be unaware of the tactical vote considerations in their individual seats and unless something major changes I think that the SNP are likely to win all the sests in between the 3 in the borders and the 1 or 2 most northern ones.
Forget the polls, Jimmy Anderson has just become England's greatest ever test wicket bowler. Does this achievement not deserve at least a single mention?
UKIP holding up ok in this one I note, even as the LDs remain rooted to the mid to late single digits. Course for both of them its about clustering what little vote share they have in a few areas, even more than for the big two, but the higher the share the better a chance of managing that in more places. UKIP 3-4?
UKIP on 18.5% in England - take away London and we're looking at an AVERAGE of 20% surely?
As above, so below.
The Tories can gain UKIP voters back. Or they can keep the metropolitan, professional classes on board.
They cannot do both.
We know from the "forced coalition" choice question that remaining Conservative voters split 60 LibDem, 40 UKIP.
This essentially means there are three voting blocks of about 33% each in the UK:
UKIP-Con LibCon Labour-SNP-Green
Welcome to my theory of political alignments.
Politics always splits roughly in 3 equal pieces in economic and social affairs with priorities changing between economic problems or social problems, each 1/3 is essentially represented by a conservative, a liberal, and a lefty party, with their strengths and positioning changing with each leader and policy priority, but there is only enough space for 3 major parties.
The order today is: UKIP is the conservative party Tories are the liberal party Labour is the lefty party
Pre-2010 it was: Tories the conservative party Labour as the liberal party LD as the lefty party
And pre-1997 it was Tories the conservative party LD as the liberal party Labour as the lefty party
Where does that leave Scottish Labour?
you make scottish independence economically and politically unfeasible.
The economy turning down from the start of October will be the final ingredient that makes Scottish independence possible. Thought that Sturgeon's line of another referendum given a change in circumstances was extremely clever. Well that 'changed circumstance' will be a UK sovereign debt crisis which will be the final rocket fuel needed to secure the SNP dream of an independent Scotland. And until that moment is reached, no government in Westminster is going to be in a remotely powerful position.
The last time Labour returned fewer than 40 Scottish MPs was 1959. The last time they returned fewer than 30 was 1935, when they won just twenty. The last time they returned fewer than 20 was 1931, when they won only seven. The last time they returned fewer than 7 was 1918, when they won six. The last time they returned fewer than 6 was Dec 1910, when they won three. The last time they returned fewer than 3 was Jan 1910, when they won two. The last time no Labour MP of any description was returned was 1900.
For the Tories it's simpler: wipeout in 1997, one seat since (though ironically fourth in votes since 2001; third in 1997, ahead of the Lib Dems).
For the Lib Dems, they last failed to win a seat in Scotland in 1945, last were as low as one in 1959, have always had three or more since 1970, eight or more since 1983, nine or more since 1987, ten or more since 1997 and eleven since 2005.
Amazing Scottish Ashcroft polls earlier today. I'm glad I've been on the right side of the SNP tsunami from last autumn onwards. It'll be an amazing moment to see Jim Murphy lose in East Renfrewshire if it comes to pass. To think when he first won in 1997 he was disappointed, as he thought he would be a one term MP with a natural swing back to the Tories....or so he thought then. Can the unionist vote coalesce around anti-SNP options in the 3 weeks that remain? What happens in BRS now - does Lamont put out some fresh material saying only he can beat the SNP? And similarly with Russell Brown in Dumfries and Galloway?
I'd go DCT SNP, BRS Conservative D&G Labour if I had to call the 3 border seats right now, with just Orkney & Shetland Lib Dem. I still think Edinburgh South will stay Labour - remember that it is the most 'English' seat in Scotland in terms of numbers born in England. So I'm going SNP 55 , Labour 2, Lib Dem 1, Tory 1 now.
I suspect you're wrong re O&S - simply because it only has a 35% "Yes" to play with, and because unionists have no other banner - other than the LibDems - to rally around.
Along the same lines. the fact that Glasgow voted Yes is also the reason why it should not be any surprise that the SNP could win all 7 seats there inspite of the large majorities that Labour are defending. The incumbency factor does not matter to the nationalist voters, they are just voting for their movement and the individual candidates don't matter to them. (IIRC Dair has previously mentioned this as well). Most voters also will probably be unaware of the tactical vote considerations in their individual seats and unless something major changes I think that the SNP are likely to win all the sests in between the 3 in the borders and the 1 or 2 most northern ones.
Massive value in backing SNP in Glasgow NE in my opinion. Ever since the referendum, many have been 'anchoring' on the 2010 GE results and hence consistently underestimating the SNP. Anchoring is a well known social phenomenon, with people unable to compute just what a changed electoral game Scotland is in 2015 when compared with 2010.
The last time Labour returned fewer than 40 Scottish MPs was 1959. The last time they returned fewer than 30 was 1935, when they won just twenty. The last time they returned fewer than 20 was 1931, when they won only seven. The last time they returned fewer than 7 was 1918, when they won six. The last time they returned fewer than 6 was Dec 1910, when they won three. The last time they returned fewer than 3 was Jan 1910, when they won two. The last time no Labour MP of any description was returned was 1900.
For the Tories it's simpler: wipeout in 1997, one seat since (though ironically fourth in votes since 2001; third in 1997, ahead of the Lib Dems).
For the Lib Dems, they last failed to win a seat in Scotland in 1945, last were as low as one in 1959, have always had three or more since 1970, eight or more since 1983, nine or more since 1987, ten or more since 1997 and eleven since 2005.
Scotland did have a representation of 72 Westminster MP's until being reduced to 59 as a consequence of the Scottish parliament in the late 90's though, but nonetheless that gives a great historical representation of the SLAB collapse.
I know the LDs are trying to say they are neither left or right leaning, in effect, but is that possibly true? I find it hard to square with my mental picture of them.
There are at least two different LD parties (and possibly three):
1. There are the Orange Bookers, who are a bunch of socially liberal, economically free market, metropolitans. They are in favour of gay marriage, legalising drugs, and the free movement of goods and services. By and large, they are fairly small state, and if there is a difference with the historic conservative party it is on the subject of law and order.
2. There are the sandal wearing liberals, who are economically left wing and awkward; they are descendents of the dissenters (and the quakers and the unitarians), and would like to be in the Labour Party but loathe its links to the unions.
3. There is the (diminished) Social Democratic element, who came from the Labour Party, and feel that what the UK needs is a good continental style social democrat party.
1 is represented by David Laws and Danny Alexander; 2 by Tim Farron and Sarah Teather; and 3 by Vince Cable.
What - historically - united 1 and 2 was a strong belief in the primacy of the individual, as regards sodomy, civil rights, divorce, and the like.
During the 2010 to 2015 period, almost all the 3s have left, and so have a lot of 2s. What remains is a lot of Orange Bookers.
Sounds more appealing to me, but apparently a maximum of 10% of the country agrees with me on that.
The problem is that many of those who would find the Orange Bookers appealing as defined by Robert are driven away by their Europhilia - which is very much at odds with the small state claims.
Agreed. I don't find much to disagree with the Orange Bookers as defined above, but presumably these folk still genuflect reflexively before the old religion of Brussels and are the clueless Muppets that wanted to take us into the Euro. That would've worked out well! A little bit more circumspection and perspective that Europe does not automatically equal good might nudge me. Butt hell will freeze first I suspect.
Would it not help relations with Russia if the west collectively apologised for rushing to judgement at the time that it was a Russian sub. We really don't help ourselves a lot of the time. Made absolutely zero news in the MSM a few days ago when the story broke.
I find it a shame that foreign policy hasn't featured at all in this election campaign. One of the many reasons why I won't vote Tory this time, having voted for them in 1997, 2001 (Ed Matts in Oxwab!), 2005 and 2010 is the foreign policy misadventures with economic sanctions against Russia, the Libya misadventure and then Syria (thank goodness for those Tory MP's who rebelled against the party line, I might have voted for Caroline Nokes here in Romsey if she had wasn't such a Tory stooge and had been amongst the rebels over Syria).
The last time Labour returned fewer than 40 Scottish MPs was 1959. The last time they returned fewer than 30 was 1935, when they won just twenty. The last time they returned fewer than 20 was 1931, when they won only seven. The last time they returned fewer than 7 was 1918, when they won six. The last time they returned fewer than 6 was Dec 1910, when they won three. The last time they returned fewer than 3 was Jan 1910, when they won two. The last time no Labour MP of any description was returned was 1900.
For the Tories it's simpler: wipeout in 1997, one seat since (though ironically fourth in votes since 2001; third in 1997, ahead of the Lib Dems).
For the Lib Dems, they last failed to win a seat in Scotland in 1945, last were as low as one in 1959, have always had three or more since 1970, eight or more since 1983, nine or more since 1987, ten or more since 1997 and eleven since 2005.
Regarding Labour I'm guessing that Scotland has never been the voting region with the smallest number of Labour MPs. For them to up with fewer here than SW, SE or Eastern England feels very strange but that is what is on the cards.
The last time Labour returned fewer than 40 Scottish MPs was 1959. The last time they returned fewer than 30 was 1935, when they won just twenty. The last time they returned fewer than 20 was 1931, when they won only seven. The last time they returned fewer than 7 was 1918, when they won six. The last time they returned fewer than 6 was Dec 1910, when they won three. The last time they returned fewer than 3 was Jan 1910, when they won two. The last time no Labour MP of any description was returned was 1900.
For the Tories it's simpler: wipeout in 1997, one seat since (though ironically fourth in votes since 2001; third in 1997, ahead of the Lib Dems).
For the Lib Dems, they last failed to win a seat in Scotland in 1945, last were as low as one in 1959, have always had three or more since 1970, eight or more since 1983, nine or more since 1987, ten or more since 1997 and eleven since 2005.
Scotland did have a representation of 72 Westminster MP's until being reduced to 59 as a consequence of the Scottish parliament in the late 90's though, but nonetheless that gives a great historical representation of the SLAB collapse.
'as a consequence of the Scottish Parliament'? Are Scottish constituencies required to be bigger by law?
Labour are facing near wipe out in Scotland. We have one of the fastest growing major economies. We have record unemployment and record low jobseekers claimant rate. The PM outperforms his party whereas Ed Miliband trails behind his. And it is notoriously difficult to kick out a government after just one term.
Suvation is a bit better for Team Blue, but these leads when they come are never sustained (except with ICM)
I wonder if we'll have any polling from Harris during this election? I remember they made a brief return in 2010 and their polls would often appear on a Friday evening.
The last time Labour returned fewer than 40 Scottish MPs was 1959. The last time they returned fewer than 30 was 1935, when they won just twenty. The last time they returned fewer than 20 was 1931, when they won only seven. The last time they returned fewer than 7 was 1918, when they won six. The last time they returned fewer than 6 was Dec 1910, when they won three. The last time they returned fewer than 3 was Jan 1910, when they won two. The last time no Labour MP of any description was returned was 1900.
For the Tories it's simpler: wipeout in 1997, one seat since (though ironically fourth in votes since 2001; third in 1997, ahead of the Lib Dems).
For the Lib Dems, they last failed to win a seat in Scotland in 1945, last were as low as one in 1959, have always had three or more since 1970, eight or more since 1983, nine or more since 1987, ten or more since 1997 and eleven since 2005.
Scotland did have a representation of 72 Westminster MP's until being reduced to 59 as a consequence of the Scottish parliament in the late 90's though, but nonetheless that gives a great historical representation of the SLAB collapse.
'as a consequence of the Scottish Parliament'? Are Scottish constituencies required to be bigger by law?
They were deliberately over represented before Scottish devolution - 59MP's is broadly in line with their population, although still over-represented slightly thanks to the special considerations of Western Isles and Orkney & Shetland.
Labour are facing near wipe out in Scotland. We have one of the fastest growing major economies. We have record unemployment and record low jobseekers claimant rate. The PM outperforms his party whereas Ed Miliband trails behind his. And it is notoriously difficult to kick out a government after just one term.
AND YET, David Cameron STILL can't seal the deal?
Great post from earlier today showing wage rise v inflation in the February of General Election year. That tells you why so many voters find the Tories economy going well narrative so nauseating.
Labour are facing near wipe out in Scotland. We have one of the fastest growing major economies. We have record unemployment and record low jobseekers claimant rate. The PM outperforms his party whereas Ed Miliband trails behind his. And it is notoriously difficult to kick out a government after just one term.
AND YET, David Cameron STILL can't seal the deal?
Broadly, yes, although Ed M is improving. I am finding it hard to see how the Tories could ever win a majority, and even a plurality is pretty hard. In fairness, if Labour don't take backa whole bunch of SNP seats next time, it's hard to see how they will either, although it's more possible at least if they did really well in England. They still have Wales after all, which helps.
Labour are facing near wipe out in Scotland. We have one of the fastest growing major economies. We have record unemployment and record low jobseekers claimant rate. The PM outperforms his party whereas Ed Miliband trails behind his. And it is notoriously difficult to kick out a government after just one term.
AND YET, David Cameron STILL can't seal the deal?
To a country brought up on a weird cocktail of Thatcherism and Old Labour, the toffocracy is complete anathema. From both perspectives.
Labour are facing near wipe out in Scotland. We have one of the fastest growing major economies. We have record unemployment and record low jobseekers claimant rate. The PM outperforms his party whereas Ed Miliband trails behind his. And it is notoriously difficult to kick out a government after just one term.
AND YET, David Cameron STILL can't seal the deal?
Those pesky Lib Dem switchers and UKIP traitors eh...
Lib Dems - obviously immediate prospects after the GE depend on Clegg holding Hallam (I think enough Tories will vote for him to see off the Labour threat). What does a Lib Dem party of 25-30MP's look like with only Carmichael left in Orkney & Shetland and a big SW meltdown? I would think the balance shifts somewhat away from the Orange Bookers?
The last time Labour returned fewer than 40 Scottish MPs was 1959. The last time they returned fewer than 30 was 1935, when they won just twenty. The last time they returned fewer than 20 was 1931, when they won only seven. The last time they returned fewer than 7 was 1918, when they won six. The last time they returned fewer than 6 was Dec 1910, when they won three. The last time they returned fewer than 3 was Jan 1910, when they won two. The last time no Labour MP of any description was returned was 1900.
For the Tories it's simpler: wipeout in 1997, one seat since (though ironically fourth in votes since 2001; third in 1997, ahead of the Lib Dems).
For the Lib Dems, they last failed to win a seat in Scotland in 1945, last were as low as one in 1959, have always had three or more since 1970, eight or more since 1983, nine or more since 1987, ten or more since 1997 and eleven since 2005.
Scotland did have a representation of 72 Westminster MP's until being reduced to 59 as a consequence of the Scottish parliament in the late 90's though, but nonetheless that gives a great historical representation of the SLAB collapse.
'as a consequence of the Scottish Parliament'? Are Scottish constituencies required to be bigger by law?
They are actually on number of constituents slightly smaller than average. (The 2 island seats do skew the figures somewhat with about 35000 votes likely to cast in those 2 seats combined)
UKIP holding up ok in this one I note, even as the LDs remain rooted to the mid to late single digits. Course for both of them its about clustering what little vote share they have in a few areas, even more than for the big two, but the higher the share the better a chance of managing that in more places. UKIP 3-4?
UKIP on 18.5% in England - take away London and we're looking at an AVERAGE of 20% surely?
As above, so below.
This essentially means there are three voting blocks of about 33% each in the UK:
UKIP-Con LibCon Labour-SNP-Green
Welcome to my theory of political alignments.
Politics always splits roughly in 3 equal pieces in economic and social affairs with priorities changing between economic problems or social problems, each 1/3 is essentially represented by a conservative, a liberal, and a lefty party, with their strengths and positioning changing with each leader and policy priority, but there is only enough space for 3 major parties.
The order today is: UKIP is the conservative party Tories are the liberal party Labour is the lefty party
Pre-2010 it was: Tories the conservative party Labour as the liberal party LD as the lefty party
And pre-1997 it was Tories the conservative party LD as the liberal party Labour as the lefty party
Where does that leave Scottish Labour?
you make scottish independence economically and politically unfeasible.
The economy turning down from the start of October will be the final ingredient that makes Scottish independence possible. Thought that Sturgeon's line of another referendum given a change in circumstances was extremely clever. Well that 'changed circumstance' will be a UK sovereign debt crisis which will be the final rocket fuel needed to secure the SNP dream of an independent Scotland. And until that moment is reached, no government in Westminster is going to be in a remotely powerful position.
North Sea Oil ? Production has halved since the price peaked at 3 times today's level in 2008.
And production continues to halve at a rate of every 7-8 years, today the SNP would be very lucky to get 8 billion a year with a tax rate of 100% on oil companies and that will be reduced drastically as production continues to decline due to exhaustion of deposits.
At what point will scotland take more in subsidies from Britain than the total of North Sea Oil income?
Labour are facing near wipe out in Scotland. We have one of the fastest growing major economies. We have record unemployment and record low jobseekers claimant rate. The PM outperforms his party whereas Ed Miliband trails behind his. And it is notoriously difficult to kick out a government after just one term.
AND YET, David Cameron STILL can't seal the deal?
Those pesky Lib Dem switchers and UKIP traitors eh...
Tories will benefit from spanking the Lib Dems in the South West.
Labour are facing near wipe out in Scotland. We have one of the fastest growing major economies. We have record unemployment and record low jobseekers claimant rate. The PM outperforms his party whereas Ed Miliband trails behind his. And it is notoriously difficult to kick out a government after just one term.
AND YET, David Cameron STILL can't seal the deal?
That will only be evident afterwards but maybe Labour are going to pick up a lot of voters across the south from LDs for negligible increase in seats.
Labour are facing near wipe out in Scotland. We have one of the fastest growing major economies. We have record unemployment and record low jobseekers claimant rate. The PM outperforms his party whereas Ed Miliband trails behind his. And it is notoriously difficult to kick out a government after just one term.
AND YET, David Cameron STILL can't seal the deal?
Because we're still proposing cuts to clean Brown's mess. Nobody likes having to go without things they want, Cameron is like a dietitian telling an obese nation that we can't have unlimited sweeties.
IIRC, Purseybear was assuring us last night that UKIP's support would collapse, due to a left-wing audience showing hostility to Farage.
UKIP's support has collapsed to.........17%.
I thought Farage did well last night, and again this morning on 5 live. It is refreshing to listen to someone who genuinely seems to believe the words he is spouting. I don't like what he is saying, but I profess to liking Farage.
Labour are facing near wipe out in Scotland. We have one of the fastest growing major economies. We have record unemployment and record low jobseekers claimant rate. The PM outperforms his party whereas Ed Miliband trails behind his. And it is notoriously difficult to kick out a government after just one term.
AND YET, David Cameron STILL can't seal the deal?
Because we're still proposing cuts to clean Brown's mess. Nobody likes having to go without things they want, Cameron is like a dietitian telling an obese nation that we can't have unlimited sweeties.
Honesty isn't popular.
Miliband is promising the same thing, essentially, and yet he can still end up as PM though.
In scotland you have a clear split between all those who believe that independence will solve any kind of economic or social problem with north sea oil, and those who do not.
Those who do (45%), vote SNP regardless if they are conservative, liberal or lefty because they genuinely believe that all of their demands will be granted by the new scotish state even if those are conflicting demands.
Those who do not (55%), split in the traditional 3 parts but since scotland is more left leaning than normal, the lions share of that 55% goes to Labour, but realistically the 55% split in 3 will never beat the 45% who is united, you will have to reduce the 45% by either discouraging the SNP that it can succeed or starve it by removing the root of all this evil (North Sea Oil).
In short, all parties apart from the SNP are doomed in FPTP elections until either the SNP voters get bored and frustrated or you make scottish independence economically and politically unfeasible.
It's more complex than that. I voted Yes (despite not coming close to the belief you attribute to the 45%) and in this general election I will probably vote UKIP. The SNP's shift to the left is very offputting to me. If it kills off SLAB (atrocious troughers for the most part) I'll take it, but I can't bring myself to support it at the ballot box.
Oh, Prescott repeated Miliband's lie about his actions over Syria. Labour are really proud of stopping that action they weren't actually as a leadership opposed to doing, just not right away.
UKIP holding up ok in this one I note, even as the LDs remain rooted to the mid to late single digits. Course for both of them its about clustering what little vote share they have in a few areas, even more than for the big two, but the higher the share the better a chance of managing that in more places. UKIP 3-4?
UKIP on 18.5% in England - take away London and we're looking at an AVERAGE of 20% surely?
As above, so below.
This essentially means there are three voting blocks of about 33% each in the UK:
UKIP-Con LibCon Labour-SNP-Green
Welcome to my theory of political alignments.
Politics always splits roughly in 3 equal pieces in economic and social affairs with priorities changing between economic problems or social problems, each 1/3 is essentially represented by a conservative, a liberal, and a lefty party, with their strengths and positioning changing with each leader and policy priority, but there is only enough space for 3 major parties.
The order today is: UKIP is the conservative party Tories are the liberal party Labour is the lefty party
Pre-2010 it was: Tories the conservative party Labour as the liberal party LD as the lefty party
And pre-1997 it was Tories the conservative party LD as the liberal party Labour as the lefty party
Where does that leave Scottish Labour?
you make scottish independence economically and politically unfeasible.
The economy turning down from the start of October will be the final ingredient that makes Scottish independence possible. Thought that Sturgeon's line of another referendum given a change in circumstances was extremely clever. Well that 'changed circumstance' will be a UK sovereign debt crisis which will be the final rocket fuel needed to secure the SNP dream of an independent Scotland. And until that moment is reached, no government in Westminster is going to be in a remotely powerful position.
At what point will scotland take more in subsidies from Britain than the total of North Sea Oil income?
Don't know, but I suspect the old mantra 'in good times people come together, in bad times people split apart' holds for nations and Scotland will be only too glad to cut itself free from a UK ensnared in a sovereign debt crisis.
Labour are facing near wipe out in Scotland. We have one of the fastest growing major economies. We have record unemployment and record low jobseekers claimant rate. The PM outperforms his party whereas Ed Miliband trails behind his. And it is notoriously difficult to kick out a government after just one term.
AND YET, David Cameron STILL can't seal the deal?
Because we're still proposing cuts to clean Brown's mess. Nobody likes having to go without things they want, Cameron is like a dietitian telling an obese nation that we can't have unlimited sweeties.
Honesty isn't popular.
Unspecified benefits cuts, countered by rises in personal allowance and the 40p tax rate? You think that's being harsh on the electorate?
Forget the polls, Jimmy Anderson has just become England's greatest ever test wicket bowler. Does this achievement not deserve at least a single mention?
To overtake Botham is an impressive record. After a bright few years there's not been much to cheer about recently in English cricket; Anderson however has been consistently good for a long time though. He deserves this achievement.
Comments
I think what happened was that ICM might have chosen an audience based purely on opposition voters since it was an opposition debate, hence no 2010 Tories or LD's.
Yes it was obviously a biased audience, but unless the BBC gave instructions to that effect, which has not been proven, I don't see how they can be blamed for it if they handed the job to an independent company.
If I were to assign a company to produce me an audience I would give instructions as to how it should be picked i.e. what political leanings it should have. The weightings were ludicrous. So EITHER the BBC told ICM 'This is what we want' OR ICM produced an incompetent method of selecting voters. (In which case the BBC are culpable for choosing such an incompetent company.)
The aphorism "Don't assign to conspiracy what can be blamed on incompetence" suggests the latter.
So the LDs are defined as left-leaning?
If anyone bothers to open the link then the ratio of Party support appears entirely reasonable, ie:
Con 5
Lab 5
LD 4
UKIP 3
SNP 2
Green 2
PC 1
Very hard to argue that it is unreasonable.
Yes it was obviously a biased audience, but unless the BBC gave instructions to that effect, which has not been proven, I don't see how they can be blamed for it if they handed the job to an independent company.
If the BBC chose to farm the work out to a third-party they are responsible for the quality of the work produced. Much like senior managers claiming they are faultless after management consultants blow millions of pounds on projects which fail to deliver.
That seems fair enough - what we are seeing however is automatic 'I hate the BBC so everything shows they are not fit for purpose' reactions (incidentally something which undermines those times when they very much do deserve a kicking, when they are attacked in hyperbolic terms over everything from such quarters), If they asked for that audience, which was definitely biased in my opinion, they deserve a kicking. If ICM were incompetent, the BBC deserve a wrist slap and to do better next time. If they fail again, that shows a bigger problem. But ICM are not some renowned group of tricksters, it was hardly outrageous incompetence in choosing them, even though it worked out badly. Whether a choice was reasonable at the time it was made plays a factor in how badly someone needs to be punished if that choice goes badly.
Fairly sensible to not let audiences make a noise beyond asking questions I would have thought
No, even the Express has given the numbers.
The Express is pretending they are unfair by defining LDs as left leaning.
The weighting are entirely sensible given the 2010 result and subsequent OFCOM ruling re Major party status - which is why those weightings were used.
The aphorism "Don't assign to conspiracy what can be blamed on incompetence" suggests the latter.
Re - ICM. I would have thought are going to have to tell us why they selected as they did. If they don't then who is going to trust them again to run a poll, if their methodology was so far out?
I'd go DCT SNP, BRS Conservative D&G Labour if I had to call the 3 border seats right now, with just Orkney & Shetland Lib Dem. I still think Edinburgh South will stay Labour - remember that it is the most 'English' seat in Scotland in terms of numbers born in England. So I'm going SNP 55 , Labour 2, Lib Dem 1, Tory 1 now.
Such comments as his about bias always seem to me to be about delegitimising disagreement, but then some of the booing of Farage was no doubt motivated by a desire to silence him, so sounds like they have more in common then either would care to admit.
Charges against nine journalists accused of making illegal payments to public officials have been dropped by the Crown Prosecution Service.
Nine of the 12 journalists awaiting trial under Operation Elveden will not be prosecuted, after an urgent review.
The Society of Editors called the investigation and prosecution of journalists an "incredible fiasco".
But the director of public prosecutions defended the decisions to prosecute the journalists.
Duncan Larcombe, royal editor at The Sun, said the investigation and prosecutions had been "politically motivated" and "without justification".
BBC News
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32355478
Or Nick Palmer.
PB Hodges I love you!
Politics always splits roughly in 3 equal pieces in economic and social affairs with priorities changing between economic problems or social problems, each 1/3 is essentially represented by a conservative, a liberal, and a lefty party, with their strengths and positioning changing with each leader and policy priority, but there is only enough space for 3 major parties.
The order today is:
UKIP is the conservative party
Tories are the liberal party
Labour is the lefty party
Pre-2010 it was:
Tories the conservative party
Labour as the liberal party
LD as the lefty party
And pre-1997 it was
Tories the conservative party
LD as the liberal party
Labour as the lefty party
A great imponderable for me is if the Tories do suddenly move higher in the polls, will that be the only thing that can save 10-12 SLAB seats in Scotland right now?
So a balanced audience appears unbalanced.
Nothing the BBC, ICM (or anyone else) can do about that.
http://sports.williamhill.com/bet/en-gb/betting/g/5527543/Total-Number-Of-Seats.html
Hills suspend betting on 0-5 slab seats.
last price 5/2.
I'd have that around evens tbh.
Do it, Ed M.
And today the Tory party maybe a little conservative on economic issues but they are very liberal on social issues.
Here look at this yougov survey that gives some substance on my political theory:
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/07/23/britains-changing-political-spectrum/
As it isn't, it'll likely be Boris, but for 2016, which will be a bit annoying like when UKIP teased a defection and it turned out to just be a bigger donation
1. There are the Orange Bookers, who are a bunch of socially liberal, economically free market, metropolitans. They are in favour of gay marriage, legalising drugs, and the free movement of goods and services. By and large, they are fairly small state, and if there is a difference with the historic conservative party it is on the subject of law and order.
2. There are the sandal wearing liberals, who are economically left wing and awkward; they are descendents of the dissenters (and the quakers and the unitarians), and would like to be in the Labour Party but loathe its links to the unions.
3. There is the (diminished) Social Democratic element, who came from the Labour Party, and feel that what the UK needs is a good continental style social democrat party.
1 is represented by David Laws and Danny Alexander; 2 by Tim Farron and Sarah Teather; and 3 by Vince Cable.
What - historically - united 1 and 2 was a strong belief in the primacy of the individual, as regards sodomy, civil rights, divorce, and the like.
During the 2010 to 2015 period, almost all the 3s have left, and so have a lot of 2s. What remains is a lot of Orange Bookers.
And if Miliband got in with 55 SNP MP's, who would be promoted into the cabinet to replace the likes of Jim Murphy, Douglas Alexander and Margaret Curran? Will presumably Russell Brown would replace Curran if he was one of the few survivors in D&G. And who would be Labour Foreign Secretary? Some incredible scenarios to ponder!
Britain's economic plan is working and delivering growth while balancing the books, the International Monetary Fund has declared in a stunning endorsement for George Osborne.
The Chancellor was in Washington to hear IMF chief Christine Lagarde praise the coalition's management of the British economy.
And German finance minister Wolfgang Schaeuble said Mr Osborne had done 'a wonderful job' in the past two years after strong economic growth.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3043496/Britain-working-IMF-chief-delivers-stunning-endorsement-Osborne-s-economic-plan.html#ixzz3Xb7JnASc
49 newbies who will almost certainly vote as they are told, and are forbidden to criticise their own party but, as many of them did not really expect to get elected, some of them will be well out on the fringes of what is normally expected of candidates. Behaviour such as threatening to nut opponents, for example. I will be amazed if they all make it 5 years without some serious scandal
What would be fun is if it were for the Conservatives rather than Labour.
In scotland you have a clear split between all those who believe that independence will solve any kind of economic or social problem with north sea oil, and those who do not.
Those who do (45%), vote SNP regardless if they are conservative, liberal or lefty because they genuinely believe that all of their demands will be granted by the new scotish state even if those are conflicting demands.
Those who do not (55%), split in the traditional 3 parts but since scotland is more left leaning than normal, the lions share of that 55% goes to Labour, but realistically the 55% split in 3 will never beat the 45% who is united, you will have to reduce the 45% by either discouraging the SNP that it can succeed or starve it by removing the root of all this evil (North Sea Oil).
In short, all parties apart from the SNP are doomed in FPTP elections until either the SNP voters get bored and frustrated or you make scottish independence economically and politically unfeasible.
Congatulations James Anderson!
Noticed this in alot of polls, differential turnout could be an issue for Labour there.
I'm putting my mark down that in the north west the Tory vote will be largely the same as it was last time. Of course how the Labour vote and the others from 2010 combine in 2015 could be enough to lose seats for the Cons.
The incumbency factor does not matter to the nationalist voters, they are just voting for their movement and the individual candidates don't matter to them. (IIRC Dair has previously mentioned this as well).
Most voters also will probably be unaware of the tactical vote considerations in their individual seats and unless something major changes I think that the SNP are likely to win all the sests in between the 3 in the borders and the 1 or 2 most northern ones.
UKIP's support has collapsed to.........17%.
The last time Labour returned fewer than 40 Scottish MPs was 1959.
The last time they returned fewer than 30 was 1935, when they won just twenty.
The last time they returned fewer than 20 was 1931, when they won only seven.
The last time they returned fewer than 7 was 1918, when they won six.
The last time they returned fewer than 6 was Dec 1910, when they won three.
The last time they returned fewer than 3 was Jan 1910, when they won two.
The last time no Labour MP of any description was returned was 1900.
For the Tories it's simpler: wipeout in 1997, one seat since (though ironically fourth in votes since 2001; third in 1997, ahead of the Lib Dems).
For the Lib Dems, they last failed to win a seat in Scotland in 1945, last were as low as one in 1959, have always had three or more since 1970, eight or more since 1983, nine or more since 1987, ten or more since 1997 and eleven since 2005.
Err...Embarrassing .....
I hope PB'ers remember this story from 6 months ago:
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/russian-submarine-sighted-near-stockholm-was-civilian-boat-claims-swedish-admiral-1496146
Would it not help relations with Russia if the west collectively apologised for rushing to judgement at the time that it was a Russian sub. We really don't help ourselves a lot of the time. Made absolutely zero news in the MSM a few days ago when the story broke.
I find it a shame that foreign policy hasn't featured at all in this election campaign. One of the many reasons why I won't vote Tory this time, having voted for them in 1997, 2001 (Ed Matts in Oxwab!), 2005 and 2010 is the foreign policy misadventures with economic sanctions against Russia, the Libya misadventure and then Syria (thank goodness for those Tory MP's who rebelled against the party line, I might have voted for Caroline Nokes here in Romsey if she had wasn't such a Tory stooge and had been amongst the rebels over Syria).
For them to up with fewer here than SW, SE or Eastern England feels very strange but that is what is on the cards.
Labour are facing near wipe out in Scotland.
We have one of the fastest growing major economies.
We have record unemployment and record low jobseekers claimant rate.
The PM outperforms his party whereas Ed Miliband trails behind his.
And it is notoriously difficult to kick out a government after just one term.
AND YET, David Cameron STILL can't seal the deal?
I wonder if we'll have any polling from Harris during this election? I remember they made a brief return in 2010 and their polls would often appear on a Friday evening.
Production has halved since the price peaked at 3 times today's level in 2008.
And production continues to halve at a rate of every 7-8 years, today the SNP would be very lucky to get 8 billion a year with a tax rate of 100% on oil companies and that will be reduced drastically as production continues to decline due to exhaustion of deposits.
At what point will scotland take more in subsidies from Britain than the total of North Sea Oil income?
Honesty isn't popular.