This is an attempt to get tactical Lab voters isn't it? Another coalition between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats is not going to happen, Andrew George, the Liberal Democrat MP for the highly marginal seat of St Ives has declared. But George told a public meeting last week a second coalition with the Tories “is not going to happen. We have had enough of it. The Tories would not want it and I am sure my party would not go for it.” http://bit.ly/1Hna8ZF
No, Mr Eagles. I think Andrew George is just telling things as he sees them.
And I agree with him.
Well if more Lib Dems start saying things like that, then I might have to reconsider voting Lib Dem.
This probably won't get traction because national trends seem to swamp local matters in Scotland, but the SNP in this area seems to be a nest of vipers.
Did you even read the non-story?
It's another baseless smear. And will have the same effect as the previous attempts. The DayLate Record is already a laughing stock and it's sub 200k readership matters less and less.
There are some very specific quotes. If you think that sounds like a bunch of happy campers, you read those very differently from me.
I think the problem is that you're maybe reading it with the idea that Independence is a "back burner" issue in Scotland and there is some political harm in being "caught" advocating Independence sooner rather than later.
Enough people in Scotland do not read it that way to give the SNP 50% of the vote. If this sort of tactic worked, it would have worked already. Everyone knows the SNP still want independence, it's not a secret. Enough people also know they get decent, competent government as the SNP try to demonstrate the merits of independence.
I think the problem is that you read everything with the idea that independence takes precedence over everything, including the truth.
When one SNP councillor writes that he was "extremely embarrassed by the conduct and management of the group" and in response another calls him "spineless" and a third activist "lazy", we can safely conclude that this is not a happy ship.
This is an attempt to get tactical Lab voters isn't it? Another coalition between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats is not going to happen, Andrew George, the Liberal Democrat MP for the highly marginal seat of St Ives has declared. But George told a public meeting last week a second coalition with the Tories “is not going to happen. We have had enough of it. The Tories would not want it and I am sure my party would not go for it.” http://bit.ly/1Hna8ZF
No, Mr Eagles. I think Andrew George is just telling things as he sees them.
And I agree with him.
You'd have thought that he would have learned from tuition fees not to make categorical statements about things outside his control.
I have the impression (but no more than that) that every time every time the Lib Dems attack the Conservatives, their polling rating goes up. And each time Clegg and his circle talk about entering another coalition, the rating goes down.
It could indeed be like 1992, i.e. a CON majority.
Watch the odds on a hung parliament lengthen between now and 7 May.
That 90% of the chatter about scenarios, some of them quite complex, assumes a hung parliament is ridiculous.
Someone had better say it: the SNP brought down the LAB government in 1979. Are they going to help keep CON in office in 2015, by taking LAB seats and either bringing about a CON absolute majority (still more likely than a hung parliament in my view) or a CON-SNP pact?
The SNP aren't on the other side of LAB from CON. Theirs is nationalist politics, not wingist politics. They are dissimilar from the LAB, CON, LD and even UKIP in that regard.
People are speculating about a CON-LAB pact in a Belgian scenario, and there are other examples of grand coalition that might also be mentioned, such as West Germany in the 1960s. But for goodness sake, the CON leadership would far rather do a deal with SNP than with LAB. They would probably also rather do a deal with the SNP than with UKIP, not that UKIP is likely to be a big player in he post-election horse trading.
A few pundits are saying "one thing is for certain". If anything is for certain, I think it's that we're bound to see the rise of the ENGLISH QUESTION after the election.
1. Polling methodology (1). Pollsters tend to down-weight people who didn't vote at the last election. Because UKIP is giving voice to people who weren't well represented before, it is not surprising their support should include a lot of people who didn't vote before.
2. Polling methodology (2). Pollsters try and get representative samples. Because people misremember who they voted for in 2010 (perhaps confusing it with a vote for UKIP at the Euros) you end up (again) downweighting UKIP support.
3. Shy Kippers. To some people, UKIP is a controversial political party. Are some UKIP supporters put off answering "UKIP" when asked on the phone, in a way they are not when they are facing a computer screen?
Reasons UKIP could be overstated:
1. People who didn't vote last time - statistically - have a lower likelihood of voting this time.
2. In recent French (municipal) and Spanish (Andalucia) elections, insurgent parties underperformed their poll ratings quite substantially.
3. On-line panels - which tend to give UKIP the highest ratings - may be unrepresentative samples. The most motivated political supporters tend to be those most likely to sign up to take part in surveys.
Reasons the LibDems could be understated:
1. A very high proportion of LibDem voters in 2010 say "don't know" about 2015. This could be evidence of "shy LibDems"
2. When asked how "proud" they are of supporting a political party, LibDem supporters have the lowest "pride" rating. This could be evidence of "shy LibDems".
3. LibDem support appears to be very concentrated geographically. This might make getting a representative sample harder.
Reasons the LibDems could be overstated:
1. The LibDems did no better than the lowest of the forecasters at the 2014 Euro elections.
2. Spiral of silence adjustments with some pollsters already boost the party.
I guess we'll know in two and a half weeks time...
Meanwhile, the shy Tory phenomenon could be most pronounced in the Midlands. Nothing in sub-samples (I know) or the local or EU elections indicates any groundswell of support for Labour.
I don't have a general Midlands overview, but I expect the regional result to reflect the national swing (whatever it is). If we want to talk subsamples, today's YG has a big swing to Labour in Midlands/Wales (38-32), but others have shown nothing special.
It might be worth looking at previous polling failures (UK and abroad) and seeing what they have in common.
What other examples can people think of?
The recent French local elections had a FN surge significantly overstated by the polls (and the Socialist drop as well). As with the Cleggasm, drastic changes arguably tend to be dampened in the result.
Biggest factor for me why the polls might be wrong is voter registration. People might either not realise they need to register or intend to register but not get round to it. Tory voters tend to be older and have more fixed addresses so this is bound to favour them (hardly surprising because the change was made during their "watch"). I'm topping up on a Tory majority most days.
Welcome to the forum. I agree this is a factor, but the sort of people who don't get round to registering overlaps heavily with the sort of people who don't vote even if they ARE registered. I met one yesterday - he said his wife was registered, he wasn't and thought she was well weird for bothering. She was indeed registered, but has a record of rarely voting. I didn't spend much time at that house...
A point to consider as the election nears is what sort of spin we might all be tempted to produce. There's the natural "we're gonna win!" spin, which just makes you feel good. There's the "it's very close, get out and vote" spin, which everyone uses for polling day (I remember someone's by-election leaflet for polling day afternoon which claimed that "early voting this morning shows it's very close", clearly printed days earlier - I refused to deliver this blatant lie). And there's even the "we're losing, and it'll be awful if you don't change your mind" spin, which seems to be the current Conservative strategy. The Nottingham Post asked me yesterday how we were doing, and I couldn't decide what I ought to spin, so in desperation I told him the truth (a guessed 5-6% lead). :-)
You are so classy at this stuff, Nick. I am sorely tempted to get a fiver on Anna S, just for fun...
This probably won't get traction because national trends seem to swamp local matters in Scotland, but the SNP in this area seems to be a nest of vipers.
Did you even read the non-story?
It's another baseless smear. And will have the same effect as the previous attempts. The DayLate Record is already a laughing stock and it's sub 200k readership matters less and less.
Its mostly the knuckle dragging dinosaurs that just look at the pictures , as the words will be hard for them the impact will be zero.
Malc I'm sure you can relax. The SNP is going to win by an unprecedented landslide in Scotland and SLAB is going to get wiped off the map. I'm even left wondering if Tory MPs may outnumber Labour ones! Unthinkable only a short while ago.
I'm also sure that whoever gets to be PM there is nothing - NOTHING - that will be in the SNP's interest to play nice. They don't come to Westminster to build bridges, they come to bury the UK. Being a good partner in the UK would destroy their USP. I am expecting an unending series of constitutional crises around Trident/Barnett/public spend per capita / whatever. The SNP should come to make itself and Scotland detested in England. That road leads to separation - which is, after all, precisely what they want.
That indeed is their strategy - a smart one too ! If we can't win a referendum, then make them throw us out. Same result.
The Scottish people are more canny than the SNP. They are getting the best of the two worlds. Guaranteed Barnett money, highest spending per capita and "Aengland" gets all the blame !
This is an attempt to get tactical Lab voters isn't it?
Another coalition between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats is not going to happen, Andrew George, the Liberal Democrat MP for the highly marginal seat of St Ives has declared.
His leader, Nick Clegg, has insisted his party is determined to form a coalition with either the Tories or Labour. Clegg is due to campaign in the seat for George on Monday.
But George told a public meeting last week a second coalition with the Tories “is not going to happen. We have had enough of it. The Tories would not want it and I am sure my party would not go for it.”
Bercow won't be doing the Conservatives any favours after their cack-handed effort to change the confirmation of the Speaker [even though he himself proposed the change prior to getting the job...].
His granting of three urgent questions to Labour, enabling them to get enough MPs back to win the vote and make it more difficult to unseat him, is a good indicator of how he'll behave.
Of course, Bercow's disposition only matters if things are extremely close. If there's only one viable coalition, his proclivities won't come into it.
It's not shy tories that are the main point in these polls, ( I mean what have they to be shy about? ), it's shy UKIP support that is not showing up, mainly because of the daily smear campaign that kippers have to suffer.
I've always said that these polls are wrong - for whatever reason - and it now seems that my fears will be proven right.
What is your current forecast for kipper vote share and seats? I would go with 9% and 3 seats myself.
Do you think the LDs will contest the 2020 election, or will they have merged with the Bus Pass Elvis Party by then?
The two main UK political parties are neck and neck among university students, according to a new poll that puts both Labour and the Conservatives at 31 per cent support ahead of next month’s general election.
The survey of more than 13,000 final-year students at 30 universities — conducted by recruitment analysts High Fliers Research — found that the Greens were the next most popular party, with 25 per cent support, followed by just 6 per cent for the Liberal Democrats and 1 per cent for the UK Independence party.
This represents a significant drop in Lib Dem popularity compared with the same survey in 2010, which found that 23 per cent of students were intending to vote for Nick Clegg’s party. Students have moved away from the Lib Dems after the party broke their 2010 election pledge not to increase tuition fees.
The poll also divided universities by their majority political leanings, showing that support for the Tories was strongest at Imperial College London, the London School of Economics, Durham, Bath, Exeter, and Loughborough — a key marginal seat held by the Tory education secretary Nicky Morgan.
Meanwhile, Oxford, Cambridge, Warwick, Liverpool, Lancaster, Manchester and Sheffield universities were all dominated by Labour voters.
I should have added - the SNP are nationalist and porkist. To hear Salmond say he could advise after the election on how to run a minority government as hilarious. Scotland has far fewer people than London and about the same number as the metropolitan areas of Manchester and Liverpool added together. He's a man whose main political aim was rejected y the Scottish population. I' not saying the SNP leadership are stupid. But independence is only pork in different colours. Now the battle is just openly for pork.
One might ask, why on earth should a party with hardly any all-UK policies have so much power at Westminster and possibly even get seats in the cabinet? This question illustrates how, as I've said, how the English question (or the revision of the Union, if you like) will raise its head in the near future. UKIP have obviously also got a big part to play in this.
This is an attempt to get tactical Lab voters isn't it? Another coalition between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats is not going to happen, Andrew George, the Liberal Democrat MP for the highly marginal seat of St Ives has declared. His leader, Nick Clegg, has insisted his party is determined to form a coalition with either the Tories or Labour. Clegg is due to campaign in the seat for George on Monday. But George told a public meeting last week a second coalition with the Tories “is not going to happen. We have had enough of it. The Tories would not want it and I am sure my party would not go for it.” http://bit.ly/1Hna8ZF
Clegg has built the entire national campaign message on a "vote for us we will work with one of the other two" theme. Andrew George completely undermines that, but he is a socialist at heart. It is in the Guardian so the BBC should notice it.... But will Clegg have the national media quizing him about this gaffe?
This is an attempt to get tactical Lab voters isn't it? Another coalition between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats is not going to happen, Andrew George, the Liberal Democrat MP for the highly marginal seat of St Ives has declared. His leader, Nick Clegg, has insisted his party is determined to form a coalition with either the Tories or Labour. Clegg is due to campaign in the seat for George on Monday. But George told a public meeting last week a second coalition with the Tories “is not going to happen. We have had enough of it. The Tories would not want it and I am sure my party would not go for it.” http://bit.ly/1Hna8ZF
Clegg has built the entire national campaign message on a "vote for us we will work with one of the other two" theme. Andrew George completely undermines that, but he is a socialist at heart. It is in the Guardian so the BBC should notice it.... But will Clegg have the national media quizing him about this gaffe?
Yup, totally undermines, Nick Clegg's I'll give David Cameron heart, and Ed Miliband head strategy
This probably won't get traction because national trends seem to swamp local matters in Scotland, but the SNP in this area seems to be a nest of vipers.
Did you even read the non-story?
It's another baseless smear. And will have the same effect as the previous attempts. The DayLate Record is already a laughing stock and it's sub 200k readership matters less and less.
Its mostly the knuckle dragging dinosaurs that just look at the pictures , as the words will be hard for them the impact will be zero.
Malc I'm sure you can relax. The SNP is going to win by an unprecedented landslide in Scotland and SLAB is going to get wiped off the map. I'm even left wondering if Tory MPs may outnumber Labour ones! Unthinkable only a short while ago.
I'm also sure that whoever gets to be PM there is nothing - NOTHING - that will be in the SNP's interest to play nice. They don't come to Westminster to build bridges, they come to bury the UK. Being a good partner in the UK would destroy their USP. I am expecting an unending series of constitutional crises around Trident/Barnett/public spend per capita / whatever. The SNP should come to make itself and Scotland detested in England. That road leads to separation - which is, after all, precisely what they want.
That indeed is their strategy - a smart one too ! If we can't win a referendum, then make them throw us out. Same result.
The Scottish people are more canny than the SNP. They are getting the best of the two worlds. Guaranteed Barnett money, highest spending per capita and "Aengland" gets all the blame !
The Times... ' Scottish Nationalists have threatened to hold Britain’s security to ransom by trying to block the military budget until the renewal of Trident, the country’s nuclear deterrent, is halted. Nicola Sturgeon claimed yesterday that her party would have more power than ever before if the SNP were to prop up a Labour government in the next parliament. ' 'Stewart Hosie, the SNP’s deputy leader, said that the party was looking “to vote against or table amendments to estimates” if they included the nuclear deterrent. '
Its not the Scots but the SNP that need throwing out. Its comments like the above which make me think that Labour voters, as opposed to loony left, will still reject the SNP. In both Scotland and England though by far the safest vote is Conservative. It prevents a minority Labour being manipulated by the SNP and hands a defeat to the far left.
Mr. Eagles, Vine has a very odd way of putting it. Pollsters aren't trying to maliciously harm the public, they're trying to accurately forecast how things will play out in perhaps the most complicated General Election since World War Two.
Mr. N, I believe the daft sods of Yorkshire First are now allied to the SNP. Could be indicative of SNP support for balkanising England, if Labour try to fiddle political fiefdoms.
Edited extra bit: checked the Twitter feed. Some support to/from the SNP, but not sure there's a formal alliance.
1. Polling methodology (1). Pollsters tend to down-weight people who didn't vote at the last election. Because UKIP is giving voice to people who weren't well represented before, it is not surprising their support should include a lot of people who didn't vote before.
2. Polling methodology (2). Pollsters try and get representative samples. Because people misremember who they voted for in 2010 (perhaps confusing it with a vote for UKIP at the Euros) you end up (again) downweighting UKIP support.
3. Shy Kippers. To some people, UKIP is a controversial political party. Are some UKIP supporters put off answering "UKIP" when asked on the phone, in a way they are not when they are facing a computer screen?
Reasons UKIP could be overstated:
1. People who didn't vote last time - statistically - have a lower likelihood of voting this time.
2. In recent French (municipal) and Spanish (Andalucia) elections, insurgent parties underperformed their poll ratings quite substantially.
3. On-line panels - which tend to give UKIP the highest ratings - may be unrepresentative samples. The most motivated political supporters tend to be those most likely to sign up to take part in surveys.
Reasons the LibDems could be understated:
1. A very high proportion of LibDem voters in 2010 say "don't know" about 2015. This could be evidence of "shy LibDems"
2. When asked how "proud" they are of supporting a political party, LibDem supporters have the lowest "pride" rating. This could be evidence of "shy LibDems".
3. LibDem support appears to be very concentrated geographically. This might make getting a representative sample harder.
Reasons the LibDems could be overstated:
1. The LibDems did no better than the lowest of the forecasters at the 2014 Euro elections.
2. Spiral of silence adjustments with some pollsters already boost the party.
I guess we'll know in two and a half weeks time...
Rallings and Thrasher's prediction based on council by-elections is:
Surprised there isn't more emphasis on demographic change in some seats since 2010. Looking at that list in 92, some of the seats figure very differently in the list now.
As it was a fine weekend, decided to walking in the hills and valleys of two adjacent constituencies - one rural and a very marginal LD and the other very strong Labour, ex-mining with high unemployment and high disability claimants and many children classed at school as 'deprived'.
The people in the LD seat were mostly concerned about falling milk prices and the prospect of dairy farms going out of business and the UK importing more milk and no party offering a solution. Otherwise keep the ship of state steady.
The ex-mining community people were very willing to chat whilst we admired the view and had our picnics. They see no solution to generations of unemployment as "the immigrants get all the jobs going." However, they were not bothered too much as they could manage on jsa (for 2), child credits, housing benefit etc, and there was always £50-£100 a week cash in hand odd jobs they could do which mainly paid for their holidays in Spain etc. Some of those also had disability allowance due to stress, bad leg/back etc.
However, whilst not really interested in any political party but may back Labour as usual, they were well informed on the waves of African immigrants trying to enter Europe and would back any party that kept them out of Britain as they did not want that culture change (their language used was far stronger).
The teenagers were equally relaxed about a life on benefits - one said that as he is classed as dyslexic, he could get disability as well. All did some cash in hand jobs for pocket money (up to £50 per week). Very few of them showed an aspiration for life improvement as they are happy as they are.
It's not shy tories that are the main point in these polls, ( I mean what have they to be shy about? ), it's shy UKIP support that is not showing up, mainly because of the daily smear campaign that kippers have to suffer.
I've always said that these polls are wrong - for whatever reason - and it now seems that my fears will be proven right.
What is your current forecast for kipper vote share and seats? I would go with 9% and 3 seats myself.
Do you think the LDs will contest the 2020 election, or will they have merged with the Bus Pass Elvis Party by then?
I suspect the LibDems will gain seats in 2020.
If Labour win as they should, with the LDs safely in opposition and have ditched Clegg and his cohorts and tacked left, the possibility does exist it seems of a fairly rapid recovery (outside Scotland). 5 years is a long time to be in the political wilderness though.
As it was a fine weekend, decided to walking in the hills and valleys of two adjacent constituencies - one rural and a very marginal LD and the other very strong Labour, ex-mining with high unemployment and high disability claimants and many children classed at school as 'deprived'.
The people in the LD seat were mostly concerned about falling milk prices and the prospect of dairy farms going out of business and the UK importing more milk and no party offering a solution. Otherwise keep the ship of state steady.
The ex-mining community people were very willing to chat whilst we admired the view and had our picnics. They see no solution to generations of unemployment as "the immigrants get all the jobs going." However, they were not bothered too much as they could manage on jsa (for 2), child credits, housing benefit etc, and there was always £50-£100 a week cash in hand odd jobs they could do which mainly paid for their holidays in Spain etc. Some of those also had disability allowance due to stress, bad leg/back etc.
However, whilst not really interested in any political party but may back Labour as usual, they were well informed on the waves of African immigrants trying to enter Europe and would back any party that kept them out of Britain as they did not want that culture change (their language used was far stronger).
The teenagers were equally relaxed about a life on benefits - one said that as he is classed as dyslexic, he could get disability as well. All did some cash in hand jobs for pocket money (up to £50 per week). Very few of them showed an aspiration for life improvement as they are happy as they are.
It's amazing that you managed to find so many people that share and confirm your prejudices.
As it was a fine weekend, decided to walking in the hills and valleys of two adjacent constituencies - one rural and a very marginal LD and the other very strong Labour, ex-mining with high unemployment and high disability claimants and many children classed at school as 'deprived'.
The people in the LD seat were mostly concerned about falling milk prices and the prospect of dairy farms going out of business and the UK importing more milk and no party offering a solution. Otherwise keep the ship of state steady.
The ex-mining community people were very willing to chat whilst we admired the view and had our picnics. They see no solution to generations of unemployment as "the immigrants get all the jobs going." However, they were not bothered too much as they could manage on jsa (for 2), child credits, housing benefit etc, and there was always £50-£100 a week cash in hand odd jobs they could do which mainly paid for their holidays in Spain etc. Some of those also had disability allowance due to stress, bad leg/back etc.
However, whilst not really interested in any political party but may back Labour as usual, they were well informed on the waves of African immigrants trying to enter Europe and would back any party that kept them out of Britain as they did not want that culture change (their language used was far stronger).
The teenagers were equally relaxed about a life on benefits - one said that as he is classed as dyslexic, he could get disability as well. All did some cash in hand jobs for pocket money (up to £50 per week). Very few of them showed an aspiration for life improvement as they are happy as they are.
It's amazing that you managed to find so many people that share and confirm your prejudices.
I should have added - the SNP are nationalist and porkist. To hear Salmond say he could advise after the election on how to run a minority government as hilarious. Scotland has far fewer people than London and about the same number as the metropolitan areas of Manchester and Liverpool added together. He's a man whose main political aim was rejected y the Scottish population. I' not saying the SNP leadership are stupid. But independence is only pork in different colours. Now the battle is just openly for pork.
One might ask, why on earth should a party with hardly any all-UK policies have so much power at Westminster and possibly even get seats in the cabinet? This question illustrates how, as I've said, how the English question (or the revision of the Union, if you like) will raise its head in the near future. UKIP have obviously also got a big part to play in this.
Hmm, you don't know that the SNP have hardly any all-UK policies: wait till the manifesto and then you may be able to assert that. This is a very important issue which a lot of commentators are, I'm sure in many cases quite deliberately, ignoring.
And - to repeat ad nauseam - Alex Salmond is not the leader of the SNP; while he is also in the almost unique position of having successfully run a minority administration in the UK to full term without coalition or beign voted out of office (admittedly with SLAB as the main opposition).
It's not shy tories that are the main point in these polls, ( I mean what have they to be shy about? ), it's shy UKIP support that is not showing up, mainly because of the daily smear campaign that kippers have to suffer. I've always said that these polls are wrong - for whatever reason - and it now seems that my fears will be proven right.
What is your current forecast for kipper vote share and seats? I would go with 9% and 3 seats myself.
Do you think the LDs will contest the 2020 election, or will they have merged with the Bus Pass Elvis Party by then?
I suspect the LibDems will gain seats in 2020.
Brave. Historically IMHO the LDs have not been very successful in recovering lost seats. Newbury, Guildford etc. They can defend an incumbent better than the average seat but once they are defeated their network of support seems to rapidly diminish. The same with Councils. They used to run Southampton in recent memory yet now barely have a single seat.
It's not shy tories that are the main point in these polls, ( I mean what have they to be shy about? ), it's shy UKIP support that is not showing up, mainly because of the daily smear campaign that kippers have to suffer.
I've always said that these polls are wrong - for whatever reason - and it now seems that my fears will be proven right.
What is your current forecast for kipper vote share and seats? I would go with 9% and 3 seats myself.
Do you think the LDs will contest the 2020 election, or will they have merged with the Bus Pass Elvis Party by then?
I suspect the LibDems will gain seats in 2020.
If Labour win as they should, with the LDs safely in opposition and have ditched Clegg and his cohorts and tacked left, the possibility does exist it seems of a fairly rapid recovery (outside Scotland). 5 years is a long time to be in the political wilderness though.
The LibDems managed about 80 years in the political wilderness previously...
As it was a fine weekend, decided to walking in the hills and valleys of two adjacent constituencies - one rural and a very marginal LD and the other very strong Labour, ex-mining with high unemployment and high disability claimants and many children classed at school as 'deprived'.
The people in the LD seat were mostly concerned about falling milk prices and the prospect of dairy farms going out of business and the UK importing more milk and no party offering a solution. Otherwise keep the ship of state steady.
The ex-mining community people were very willing to chat whilst we admired the view and had our picnics. They see no solution to generations of unemployment as "the immigrants get all the jobs going." However, they were not bothered too much as they could manage on jsa (for 2), child credits, housing benefit etc, and there was always £50-£100 a week cash in hand odd jobs they could do which mainly paid for their holidays in Spain etc. Some of those also had disability allowance due to stress, bad leg/back etc.
However, whilst not really interested in any political party but may back Labour as usual, they were well informed on the waves of African immigrants trying to enter Europe and would back any party that kept them out of Britain as they did not want that culture change (their language used was far stronger).
The teenagers were equally relaxed about a life on benefits - one said that as he is classed as dyslexic, he could get disability as well. All did some cash in hand jobs for pocket money (up to £50 per week). Very few of them showed an aspiration for life improvement as they are happy as they are.
What a sad indictment. But that attitude is substantially less than it used to be. That's what the sanctions are all about. Some people in London, scraping by on a £100k a year seem to think it absurd that people can be happy bubbling along in life on benefits.
IDS's reforms (and reforms of the last two years or so of previous government) have made this attitude much less prevalent.
This is an attempt to get tactical Lab voters isn't it? Another coalition between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats is not going to happen, Andrew George, the Liberal Democrat MP for the highly marginal seat of St Ives has declared. But George told a public meeting last week a second coalition with the Tories “is not going to happen. We have had enough of it. The Tories would not want it and I am sure my party would not go for it.” http://bit.ly/1Hna8ZF
No, Mr Eagles. I think Andrew George is just telling things as he sees them.
And I agree with him.
Well if more Lib Dems start saying things like that, then I might have to reconsider voting Lib Dem.
It's an election and candidates of all parties are going to say what they think will increase their vote. Some may actually believe what they say, too. After the election we'll have a result that MPs will have to live with. SNP won't be helpful and Labour may lose more than they gain by coming to an agreement with them. DUP only want money so can be bought off, but probably only by the Tories, would they ever support Labour? LibDems will be wary and would require some of their policies to be guaranteed to be implemented, however they could back either of the two big parties if that was done. If the numbers still don't add up we'll probably get a series of minority governments but eventually a Grand Coalition or Government of National Unity can't be ruled out.
As it was a fine weekend, decided to walking in the hills and valleys of two adjacent constituencies - one rural and a very marginal LD and the other very strong Labour, ex-mining with high unemployment and high disability claimants and many children classed at school as 'deprived'.
The people in the LD seat were mostly concerned about falling milk prices and the prospect of dairy farms going out of business and the UK importing more milk and no party offering a solution. Otherwise keep the ship of state steady.
The ex-mining community people were very willing to chat whilst we admired the view and had our picnics. They see no solution to generations of unemployment as "the immigrants get all the jobs going." However, they were not bothered too much as they could manage on jsa (for 2), child credits, housing benefit etc, and there was always £50-£100 a week cash in hand odd jobs they could do which mainly paid for their holidays in Spain etc. Some of those also had disability allowance due to stress, bad leg/back etc.
However, whilst not really interested in any political party but may back Labour as usual, they were well informed on the waves of African immigrants trying to enter Europe and would back any party that kept them out of Britain as they did not want that culture change (their language used was far stronger).
The teenagers were equally relaxed about a life on benefits - one said that as he is classed as dyslexic, he could get disability as well. All did some cash in hand jobs for pocket money (up to £50 per week). Very few of them showed an aspiration for life improvement as they are happy as they are.
It's amazing that you managed to find so many people that share and confirm your prejudices.
This is an attempt to get tactical Lab voters isn't it?
Another coalition between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats is not going to happen, Andrew George, the Liberal Democrat MP for the highly marginal seat of St Ives has declared.
His leader, Nick Clegg, has insisted his party is determined to form a coalition with either the Tories or Labour. Clegg is due to campaign in the seat for George on Monday.
But George told a public meeting last week a second coalition with the Tories “is not going to happen. We have had enough of it. The Tories would not want it and I am sure my party would not go for it.”
Someone's going off message. His reasoning is solid, it's why I don't think a coalition will happen even if the LDs are in a position to offer that possibility to either side, but Clegg's position of bravado and appealing to the centre by not ruling out either is probably the best of a bunch of bad options in terms of what position to take, they can hope it permits individual LDs like George to appeal more firmly to one side or another as needed.
What is the point of voting LD then? Their policies are rubbish for a start, their MPs are charlatans, they have just rubbished their main USP, they are trying to pretend the last 5 years never happened, they are in most ways soft left (at least) indistinguishable from labour, their presence makes a Lab/SNP coalition more likely. The Libdems had their chance, they could have made a play for continuing in govt with the tories by supporting their own government and having real influence (whether you consider that benign or not) but they have blown it.
It's not shy tories that are the main point in these polls, ( I mean what have they to be shy about? ), it's shy UKIP support that is not showing up, mainly because of the daily smear campaign that kippers have to suffer. I've always said that these polls are wrong - for whatever reason - and it now seems that my fears will be proven right.
What is your current forecast for kipper vote share and seats? I would go with 9% and 3 seats myself.
Do you think the LDs will contest the 2020 election, or will they have merged with the Bus Pass Elvis Party by then?
I suspect the LibDems will gain seats in 2020.
Brave. Historically IMHO the LDs have not been very successful in recovering lost seats. Newbury, Guildford etc. They can defend an incumbent better than the average seat but once they are defeated their network of support seems to rapidly diminish. The same with Councils. They used to run Southampton in recent memory yet now barely have a single seat.
I know it's early days - but fancy an evens bet on 2020? £20?
All the great, astute political commentators in this country, put in a reference to classical history in their articles.
Boris:
You wouldn’t get Herod to run a baby farm, would you? It would not normally occur to you to interview a convicted jewel thief for the post of custodian of the Tower of London.
You would not dream of asking a fox to look after the henhouse or a temperance campaigner to run a brewery or Attila the Hun to work as a doorkeeper for the Roman senate – and no one in their right mind would enter into a contract with a bunch of voracious weevils to protect the lovely old timbers in the tower of the local church. Would they?
Any such course of action would be totally nuts.
So can someone tell me why in the name of all that is holy there are some apparently rational people who are even contemplating the elevation of the Scottish Nationalist Party to a position of effective dominance in the government of the United Kingdom – an entity that they are sworn to destroy?
It could indeed be like 1992, i.e. a CON majority.
Watch the odds on a hung parliament lengthen between now and 7 May. ....snip A few pundits are saying "one thing is for certain". If anything is for certain, I think it's that we're bound to see the rise of the ENGLISH QUESTION after the election.
The English Question needs to be addressed by English voters BEFORE the election.
Meanwhile, the shy Tory phenomenon could be most pronounced in the Midlands. Nothing in sub-samples (I know) or the local or EU elections indicates any groundswell of support for Labour.
It might be worth looking at previous polling failures (UK and abroad) and seeing what they have in common.
What other examples can people think of?
The recent French local elections had a FN surge significantly overstated by the polls (and the Socialist drop as well). As with the Cleggasm, drastic changes arguably tend to be dampened in the result.
Biggest factor for me why the polls might be wrong is voter registration. People might either not realise they need to register or intend to register but not get round to it. Tory voters tend to be older and have more fixed addresses so this is bound to favour them (hardly surprising because the change was made during their "watch"). I'm topping up on a Tory majority most days.
Welcome to the forum. I agree this is a factor, but the sort of people who don't get round to registering overlaps heavily with the sort of people who don't vote even if they ARE registered. I met one yesterday - he said his wife was registered, he wasn't and thought she was well weird for bothering. She was indeed registered, but has a record of rarely voting. I didn't spend much time at that house...
A point to consider as the election nears is what sort of spin we might all be tempted to produce. There's the natural "we're gonna win!" spin, which just makes you feel good. There's the "it's very close, get out and vote" spin, which everyone uses for polling day (I remember someone's by-election leaflet for polling day afternoon which claimed that "early voting this morning shows it's very close", clearly printed days earlier - I refused to deliver this blatant lie). And there's even the "we're losing, and it'll be awful if you don't change your mind" spin, which seems to be the current Conservative strategy. The Nottingham Post asked me yesterday how we were doing, and I couldn't decide what I ought to spin, so in desperation I told him the truth (a guessed 5-6% lead). :-)
You are so classy at this stuff, Nick. I am sorely tempted to get a fiver on Anna S, just for fun...
In a constituency im working in, we have seen nothing like that kind of swing. The conservative vote is absolutely at *least* where it was in 2010, the seat is almost as marginal as yours. We are seeing no trend away at all.
The fact is surely that even if (!) a polling company can predict vote shares accurately, it's vital to know how this is going to break down across the country, and widely different seat totals are possible from the same vote shares.
This is an attempt to get tactical Lab voters isn't it?
Another coalition between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats is not going to happen, Andrew George, the Liberal Democrat MP for the highly marginal seat of St Ives has declared.
His leader, Nick Clegg, has insisted his party is determined to form a coalition with either the Tories or Labour. Clegg is due to campaign in the seat for George on Monday.
But George told a public meeting last week a second coalition with the Tories “is not going to happen. We have had enough of it. The Tories would not want it and I am sure my party would not go for it.”
Someone's going off message. His reasoning is solid, it's why I don't think a coalition will happen even if the LDs are in a position to offer that possibility to either side, but Clegg's position of bravado and appealing to the centre by not ruling out either is probably the best of a bunch of bad options in terms of what position to take, they can hope it permits individual LDs like George to appeal more firmly to one side or another as needed.
What is the point of voting LD then? Their policies are rubbish for a start, their MPs are charlatans, they have just rubbished their main USP, they are trying to pretend the last 5 years never happened, they are in most ways soft left (at least) indistinguishable from labour, their presence makes a Lab/SNP coalition more likely. The Libdems had their chance, they could have made a play for continuing in govt with the tories by supporting their own government and having real influence (whether you consider that benign or not) but they have blown it.
Not wanting to appear the natural allies to the Tories is not an unreasonable position, they want to be able to influence whoever is in power not just be the Tory B team. And 'they' have not rubbished their USP, one candidate did. Also, rubbish policies have never prevented people from voting for a party - there are many who would say the Labour/Tory policies are rubbish, and yet millions of people will vote for both very happily.
All the great, astute political commentators in this country, put in a reference to classical history in their articles.
You wouldn’t get Herod to run a baby farm, would you? It would not normally occur to you to interview a convicted jewel thief for the post of custodian of the Tower of London.
You would not dream of asking a fox to look after the henhouse or a temperance campaigner to run a brewery or Attila the Hun to work as a doorkeeper for the Roman senate – and no one in their right mind would enter into a contract with a bunch of voracious weevils to protect the lovely old timbers in the tower of the local church. Would they?
Any such course of action would be totally nuts.
So can someone tell me why in the name of all that is holy there are some apparently rational people who are even contemplating the elevation of the Scottish Nationalist Party to a position of effective dominance in the government of the United Kingdom – an entity that they are sworn to destroy?
Couldn't have put it better. If the third largest force in the next parliament is the SNP, then Labour had better think very carefully. The Tories need to think carefully too. Grand Coalitions and Governments of National Unity only come about in extreme circumstances such as war. Is the potential breakup of the United Kingdom extreme enough?
As it was a fine weekend, decided to walking in the hills and valleys of two adjacent constituencies - one rural and a very marginal LD and the other very strong Labour, ex-mining with high unemployment and high disability claimants and many children classed at school as 'deprived'.
The people in the LD seat were mostly concerned about falling milk prices and the prospect of dairy farms going out of business and the UK importing more milk and no party offering a solution. Otherwise keep the ship of state steady.
The ex-mining community people were very willing to chat whilst we admired the view and had our picnics. They see no solution to generations of unemployment as "the immigrants get all the jobs going." However, they were not bothered too much as they could manage on jsa (for 2), child credits, housing benefit etc, and there was always £50-£100 a week cash in hand odd jobs they could do which mainly paid for their holidays in Spain etc. Some of those also had disability allowance due to stress, bad leg/back etc.
However, whilst not really interested in any political party but may back Labour as usual, they were well informed on the waves of African immigrants trying to enter Europe and would back any party that kept them out of Britain as they did not want that culture change (their language used was far stronger).
The teenagers were equally relaxed about a life on benefits - one said that as he is classed as dyslexic, he could get disability as well. All did some cash in hand jobs for pocket money (up to £50 per week). Very few of them showed an aspiration for life improvement as they are happy as they are.
What a sad indictment. But that attitude is substantially less than it used to be. That's what the sanctions are all about. Some people in London, scraping by on a £100k a year seem to think it absurd that people can be happy bubbling along in life on benefits.
IDS's reforms (and reforms of the last two years or so of previous government) have made this attitude much less prevalent.
In the later years of the Labour government they did start down the road that IDS built on and accelerated. Unfortunately Miliband will probably pull back on this, although Reeves has made a few encouraging noises on the matter. Beveridge listed idleness as an evil. Something socialists forget.
Boris: So can someone tell me why in the name of all that is holy there are some apparently rational people who are even contemplating the elevation of the Scottish Nationalist Party to a position of effective dominance in the government of the United Kingdom – an entity that they are sworn to destroy?
Because they like the positions of the SNP and/or erroneously feel that an SNP landslide does not in effect also serve as support for independence (whether one intends it to be or not, no matter who wins in a few weeks - with SNP either propping up a Lab gov or in opposition to a Tory one - if dozens of SNP MPs are in place independence is much much more likely).
Weird hearing this "hold Britain's security to ransom" stuff over the SNP. IIRC the LibDems had exactly the same policy, hence the lack of decision in the last five years, but I don't remember anyone talking about them like this - people who wanted Trident just talked like they were being dicks.
PS It's weird seeing this issue being fossilized since the 1980s like this. It's irrelevant to ISIS etc and the actual issue is how to credibly tell Russia not to mess with the Baltics, or whether they might invade them in the expectation that US/UK won't want to fry for Estonia. If you want a credible deterrent, you need a way for them to be able to press the button. Build the subs, give the Baltic states the keys and get the Germans to pay for them.
It's not shy tories that are the main point in these polls, ( I mean what have they to be shy about? ), it's shy UKIP support that is not showing up, mainly because of the daily smear campaign that kippers have to suffer. I've always said that these polls are wrong - for whatever reason - and it now seems that my fears will be proven right.
What is your current forecast for kipper vote share and seats? I would go with 9% and 3 seats myself.
Do you think the LDs will contest the 2020 election, or will they have merged with the Bus Pass Elvis Party by then?
I suspect the LibDems will gain seats in 2020.
Brave. Historically IMHO the LDs have not been very successful in recovering lost seats. Newbury, Guildford etc. They can defend an incumbent better than the average seat but once they are defeated their network of support seems to rapidly diminish. The same with Councils. They used to run Southampton in recent memory yet now barely have a single seat.
Haven't done much checking, but Eastbourne is one. I think that seats won in by-elections (by any party, please note Mr Reckless) are by definition difficult to retain.
As it was a fine weekend, decided to walking in the hills and valleys of two adjacent constituencies - one rural and a very marginal LD and the other very strong Labour, ex-mining with high unemployment and high disability claimants and many children classed at school as 'deprived'.
The people in the LD seat were mostly concerned about falling milk prices and the prospect of dairy farms going out of business and the UK importing more milk and no party offering a solution. Otherwise keep the ship of state steady.
The ex-mining community people were very willing to chat whilst we admired the view and had our picnics. They see no solution to generations of unemployment as "the immigrants get all the jobs going." However, they were not bothered too much as they could manage on jsa (for 2), child credits, housing benefit etc, and there was always £50-£100 a week cash in hand odd jobs they could do which mainly paid for their holidays in Spain etc. Some of those also had disability allowance due to stress, bad leg/back etc.
However, whilst not really interested in any political party but may back Labour as usual, they were well informed on the waves of African immigrants trying to enter Europe and would back any party that kept them out of Britain as they did not want that culture change (their language used was far stronger).
The teenagers were equally relaxed about a life on benefits - one said that as he is classed as dyslexic, he could get disability as well. All did some cash in hand jobs for pocket money (up to £50 per week). Very few of them showed an aspiration for life improvement as they are happy as they are.
What a sad indictment. But that attitude is substantially less than it used to be. That's what the sanctions are all about. Some people in London, scraping by on a £100k a year seem to think it absurd that people can be happy bubbling along in life on benefits.
IDS's reforms (and reforms of the last two years or so of previous government) have made this attitude much less prevalent.
Vote labour however and get more of the same. Illegal immigrants (well, legal ones as well) into the rest of the EU cannot come here legally because we are not in Schengen. This is something the BBC did not emphasise last night on the News (admittedly their reporter had got himself a nice little but pointless trip on a small boat in the Med and was perhaps enjoying himself too much).
If we walk out of the EU then any likely trade deal with the will in all probability have to involve joining Schengen (as well as rejoining the single market).
It's not shy tories that are the main point in these polls, ( I mean what have they to be shy about? ), it's shy UKIP support that is not showing up, mainly because of the daily smear campaign that kippers have to suffer. I've always said that these polls are wrong - for whatever reason - and it now seems that my fears will be proven right.
What is your current forecast for kipper vote share and seats? I would go with 9% and 3 seats myself.
Do you think the LDs will contest the 2020 election, or will they have merged with the Bus Pass Elvis Party by then?
I suspect the LibDems will gain seats in 2020.
Brave. Historically IMHO the LDs have not been very successful in recovering lost seats. Newbury, Guildford etc. They can defend an incumbent better than the average seat but once they are defeated their network of support seems to rapidly diminish. The same with Councils. They used to run Southampton in recent memory yet now barely have a single seat.
I know it's early days - but fancy an evens bet on 2020? £20?
That is why Ed Davey is more in trouble in Kingston than LDs will admit. The council was lost last year,the stench of a convicted sex offender as their previous long term council leader still hangs across the political scene there no matter what Mark Senior or OGH will care to offer in mitigation.
All the great, astute political commentators in this country, put in a reference to classical history in their articles.
You wouldn’t get Herod to run a baby farm, would you? It would not normally occur to you to interview a convicted jewel thief for the post of custodian of the Tower of London.
You would not dream of asking a fox to look after the henhouse or a temperance campaigner to run a brewery or Attila the Hun to work as a doorkeeper for the Roman senate – and no one in their right mind would enter into a contract with a bunch of voracious weevils to protect the lovely old timbers in the tower of the local church. Would they?
Any such course of action would be totally nuts.
So can someone tell me why in the name of all that is holy there are some apparently rational people who are even contemplating the elevation of the Scottish Nationalist Party to a position of effective dominance in the government of the United Kingdom – an entity that they are sworn to destroy?
Couldn't have put it better. If the third largest force in the next parliament is the SNP, then Labour had better think very carefully. The Tories need to think carefully too. Grand Coalitions and Governments of National Unity only come about in extreme circumstances such as war. Is the potential breakup of the United Kingdom extreme enough?
Mr Johnson is merely one of a long list of self-interested commentators portraying the SNP as destructive vandals. We don't know that yet - as I pointed out earlier. We haven't even seen their manifesto to judge their policies in Westminster.
The problems with a Grand Coalition are
(a) the SNP become the official opposition (on current polling, and given the conditions for a GC to occur in the first place) (b) the Labour Party in Scotland (and elsewhere, esp. in Wales and N. England) would get a second massive defeat because of its continuing alliance with the Tories
The two main UK political parties are neck and neck among university students, according to a new poll that puts both Labour and the Conservatives at 31 per cent support ahead of next month’s general election.
The survey of more than 13,000 final-year students at 30 universities — conducted by recruitment analysts High Fliers Research — found that the Greens were the next most popular party, with 25 per cent support, followed by just 6 per cent for the Liberal Democrats and 1 per cent for the UK Independence party.
This represents a significant drop in Lib Dem popularity compared with the same survey in 2010, which found that 23 per cent of students were intending to vote for Nick Clegg’s party. Students have moved away from the Lib Dems after the party broke their 2010 election pledge not to increase tuition fees.
The poll also divided universities by their majority political leanings, showing that support for the Tories was strongest at Imperial College London, the London School of Economics, Durham, Bath, Exeter, and Loughborough — a key marginal seat held by the Tory education secretary Nicky Morgan.
Meanwhile, Oxford, Cambridge, Warwick, Liverpool, Lancaster, Manchester and Sheffield universities were all dominated by Labour voters.
It's pretty obvious Sturgeon doesn't want Labour to win. She wants the Tories in power and is issuing demands which are more likely to put Cameron back in charge.
The SNP's stock in Scotland will remain higher when the bête noire Tories are in charge at Westminster. And it's in her interests that whichever party is in power in the Westminster government is unpopular and that the SNP have nothing to do with it.
Added to that, and although the circumstances are different, she will have seen what has happened to the Lib Dems as a junior partner in power and won't fancy the 'unknowns' of what could happen to the SNP if they were seen as a junior partner to Labour.
If she can win most of the Westminster seats in Scotland and face the Tories in charge that will suit her and her party just fine.
I should have added - the SNP are nationalist and porkist. To hear Salmond say he could advise after the election on how to run a minority government as hilarious. Scotland has far fewer people than London and about the same number as the metropolitan areas of Manchester and Liverpool added together. He's a man whose main political aim was rejected y the Scottish population. I' not saying the SNP leadership are stupid. But independence is only pork in different colours. Now the battle is just openly for pork.
One might ask, why on earth should a party with hardly any all-UK policies have so much power at Westminster and possibly even get seats in the cabinet? This question illustrates how, as I've said, how the English question (or the revision of the Union, if you like) will raise its head in the near future. UKIP have obviously also got a big part to play in this.
snip
And - to repeat ad nauseam - Alex Salmond is not the leader of the SNP; while he is also in the almost unique position of having successfully run a minority administration in the UK to full term without coalition or beign voted out of office (admittedly with SLAB as the main opposition).
Salmond ran a glorified local authority which had all its money given to it. It did not have to worry about taxation, the state of its banks or currency. It only ran the devolved matters and one of the most important ones - the NHS - was not particularly well run.
It's pretty obvious Sturgeon doesn't want Labour to win. She wants the Tories in power and is issuing demands which are more likely to put Cameron back in charge.
The SNP's stock in Scotland will remain higher when the bête noire Tories are in charge at Westminster. And it's in her interests that whichever party is in power in the Westminster government is unpopular and that the SNP have nothing to do with it.
Added to that, and although the circumstances are different, she will have seen what has happened to the Lib Dems as a junior partner in power and won't fancy the 'unknowns' of what could happen to the SNP if they were seen as a junior partner to Labour.
If she can win most of the Westminster seats in Scotland and face the Tories in charge that will suit her and her party just fine.
The SNP and at a later date to be decided Yes have already won if the predicted outcome for the SNP comes to pass, I can envisage no scenario where that many SNP MPs, under whatever government, would not be able to gain some measure of advantage. As such, while the Tories being in charge might hasten things a little for the SNP, the situation does not require much hastening, so I imagine Sturgeon is fairly flexible about the outcome to the south.
I have the impression (but no more than that) that every time every time the Lib Dems attack the Conservatives, their polling rating goes up. And each time Clegg and his circle talk about entering another coalition, the rating goes down. Just an impression that I have.
I disagree but hope that the LDs take your advice. The LDs have an image with the voters as being untrustworthy and duplicituous. By attacking their partner right from the first few months of 2010 post GE they kept piling up evidence of how they are untrustworthy and duplicituous. Long may they continue doing it.
As it was a fine weekend, decided to walking in the hills and valleys of two adjacent constituencies - one rural and a very marginal LD and the other very strong Labour, ex-mining with high unemployment and high disability claimants and many children classed at school as 'deprived'.
The people in the LD seat were mostly concerned about falling milk prices and the prospect of dairy farms going out of business and the UK importing more milk and no party offering a solution. Otherwise keep the ship of state steady.
The ex-mining community people were very willing to chat whilst we admired the view and had our picnics. They see no solution to generations of unemployment as "the immigrants get all the jobs going." However, they were not bothered too much as they could manage on jsa (for 2), child credits, housing benefit etc, and there was always £50-£100 a week cash in hand odd jobs they could do which mainly paid for their holidays in Spain etc. Some of those also had disability allowance due to stress, bad leg/back etc.
However, whilst not really interested in any political party but may back Labour as usual, they were well informed on the waves of African immigrants trying to enter Europe and would back any party that kept them out of Britain as they did not want that culture change (their language used was far stronger).
The teenagers were equally relaxed about a life on benefits - one said that as he is classed as dyslexic, he could get disability as well. All did some cash in hand jobs for pocket money (up to £50 per week). Very few of them showed an aspiration for life improvement as they are happy as they are.
It's amazing that you managed to find so many people that share and confirm your prejudices.
Not prejudices, but facts. I always let the other people start the conversation and and just let them talk. You learn a lot more that way than espousing your own views - as many people and especially politicians do not want to hear their views and so cut them off as 'racist' or 'dnv' etc.
As it was a fine weekend, decided to walking in the hills and valleys of two adjacent constituencies - one rural and a very marginal LD and the other very strong Labour, ex-mining with high unemployment and high disability claimants and many children classed at school as 'deprived'.
The people in the LD seat were mostly concerned about falling milk prices and the prospect of dairy farms going out of business and the UK importing more milk and no party offering a solution. Otherwise keep the ship of state steady.
The ex-mining community people were very willing to chat whilst we admired the view and had our picnics. They see no solution to generations of unemployment as "the immigrants get all the jobs going." However, they were not bothered too much as they could manage on jsa (for 2), child credits, housing benefit etc, and there was always £50-£100 a week cash in hand odd jobs they could do which mainly paid for their holidays in Spain etc. Some of those also had disability allowance due to stress, bad leg/back etc.
However, whilst not really interested in any political party but may back Labour as usual, they were well informed on the waves of African immigrants trying to enter Europe and would back any party that kept them out of Britain as they did not want that culture change (their language used was far stronger).
The teenagers were equally relaxed about a life on benefits - one said that as he is classed as dyslexic, he could get disability as well. All did some cash in hand jobs for pocket money (up to £50 per week). Very few of them showed an aspiration for life improvement as they are happy as they are.
What a sad indictment. But that attitude is substantially less than it used to be. That's what the sanctions are all about. Some people in London, scraping by on a £100k a year seem to think it absurd that people can be happy bubbling along in life on benefits.
IDS's reforms (and reforms of the last two years or so of previous government) have made this attitude much less prevalent.
If we walk out of the EU then any likely trade deal with the will in all probability have to involve joining Schengen (as well as rejoining the single market).
It's possible that the Civil Service would attempt to ignore the choice of the electorate, but that is certainly not the only or most desirable option.
This is an attempt to get tactical Lab voters isn't it?
Another coalition between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats is not going to happen, Andrew George, the Liberal Democrat MP for the highly marginal seat of St Ives has declared.
His leader, Nick Clegg, has insisted his party is determined to form a coalition with either the Tories or Labour. Clegg is due to campaign in the seat for George on Monday.
But George told a public meeting last week a second coalition with the Tories “is not going to happen. We have had enough of it. The Tories would not want it and I am sure my party would not go for it.”
He'd have my vote as an independent - but isn't prepared to say that he wouldn't serve in a Lib-Tory coalition and unfortunately his voting record on the bedroom tax shows classic Lib Dem manouevres: "rebelling" against a disliked government policy, but not at the cost of the slightest embarrassment to the coalition united front as soon as it's a question of voting with Labour.
Locally it seems hard to call. The signs count ranks roughly thus:
1. LD 2. Conservative (though the candidate is from my village so we may have a greater number of signs in this part of the constituency as a result) 3. Labour, quite a way behind but more noticeable than at previous elections 4. Green, almost equal with Labour 5.UKIP, one or two only
Assuming that the increase in Labour and Green representation has come at the expense of the yellows, you'd have to think Mr George is LD toast.
All the great, astute political commentators in this country, put in a reference to classical history in their articles.
You wouldn’t get Herod to run a baby farm, would you? It would not normally occur to you to interview a convicted jewel thief for the post of custodian of the Tower of London.
You would not dream of asking a fox to look after the henhouse or a temperance campaigner to run a brewery or Attila the Hun to work as a doorkeeper for the Roman senate – and no one in their right mind would enter into a contract with a bunch of voracious weevils to protect the lovely old timbers in the tower of the local church. Would they?
Any such course of action would be totally nuts.
So can someone tell me why in the name of all that is holy there are some apparently rational people who are even contemplating the elevation of the Scottish Nationalist Party to a position of effective dominance in the government of the United Kingdom – an entity that they are sworn to destroy?
Couldn't have put it better. If the third largest force in the next parliament is the SNP, then Labour had better think very carefully. The Tories need to think carefully too. Grand Coalitions and Governments of National Unity only come about in extreme circumstances such as war. Is the potential breakup of the United Kingdom extreme enough?
Mr Johnson is merely one of a long list of self-interested commentators portraying the SNP as destructive vandals. We don't know that yet - as I pointed out earlier. We haven't even seen their manifesto to judge their policies in Westminster.
That's true, but it is also not entirely unreasonable for people not to be waiting, as it is true that the SNP seek to end this country as it currently exists, and so anything they do with be impacted to a greater or lesser degree by that aim. Scottish voters don't seem to care about that, or actively revel in it, but while 'vandal' may indeed be a strong word, it is pretty hard to argue that a party that openly and proudly (and now with massive Westminster electoral success to look forward to) seeks the end of the UK, would not play politics to maximise their chances of getting that end as soon as possible. Playing politics to maximise their chances of that is their main goal after all. That need not mean rUK is automatically going to be trashed as a result of their demands, but the fact they will make demands to the advantage of themselves specifically (the SNP that is, not just Scotland) is not reckless speculation but absolutely inevitable. It's just a question of how destructive that might end up being, which hopefully the manifesto will give us some indication of - I hope it is not much, and they seem canny enough to play it safe, not they are on the path to independence.
As it was a fine weekend, decided to walking in the hills and valleys of two adjacent constituencies - one rural and a very marginal LD and the other very strong Labour, ex-mining with high unemployment and high disability claimants and many children classed at school as 'deprived'.
The people in the LD seat were mostly concerned about falling milk prices and the prospect of dairy farms going out of business and the UK importing more milk and no party offering a solution. Otherwise keep the ship of state steady.
The ex-mining community people were very willing to chat whilst we admired the view and had our picnics. They see no solution to generations of unemployment as "the immigrants get all the jobs going." However, they were not bothered too much as they could manage on jsa (for 2), child credits, housing benefit etc, and there was always £50-£100 a week cash in hand odd jobs they could do which mainly paid for their holidays in Spain etc. Some of those also had disability allowance due to stress, bad leg/back etc.
However, whilst not really interested in any political party but may back Labour as usual, they were well informed on the waves of African immigrants trying to enter Europe and would back any party that kept them out of Britain as they did not want that culture change (their language used was far stronger).
The teenagers were equally relaxed about a life on benefits - one said that as he is classed as dyslexic, he could get disability as well. All did some cash in hand jobs for pocket money (up to £50 per week). Very few of them showed an aspiration for life improvement as they are happy as they are.
I would guess the constituencies you were in were Brecon and either Merthyr or Cynon Valley
I should have added - the SNP are nationalist and porkist. To hear Salmond say he could advise after the election on how to run a minority government as hilarious. Scotland has far fewer people than London and about the same number as the metropolitan areas of Manchester and Liverpool added together. He's a man whose main political aim was rejected y the Scottish population. I' not saying the SNP leadership are stupid. But independence is only pork in different colours. Now the battle is just openly for pork.
One might ask, why on earth should a party with hardly any all-UK policies have so much power at Westminster and possibly even get seats in the cabinet? This question illustrates how, as I've said, how the English question (or the revision of the Union, if you like) will raise its head in the near future. UKIP have obviously also got a big part to play in this.
snip
And - to repeat ad nauseam - Alex Salmond is not the leader of the SNP; while he is also in the almost unique position of having successfully run a minority administration in the UK to full term without coalition or beign voted out of office (admittedly with SLAB as the main opposition).
Salmond ran a glorified local authority which had all its money given to it. It did not have to worry about taxation, the state of its banks or currency. It only ran the devolved matters and one of the most important ones - the NHS - was not particularly well run.
Salmond ran a national government which lacked any borrowing power to throw sweeties to the electorate. Their only path to remain popular (and indeed increase their popularity) was by competent, good governance which people have shown their appreciation for,
And he did all that with control of only 46 out of 129 seats.
Hating the Daily Mail is a substitute for doing good Want to be virtuous? Saying the right things violently on Twitter is much easier than real kindness
I should have added - the SNP are nationalist and porkist. To hear Salmond say he could advise after the election on how to run a minority government as hilarious. Scotland has far fewer people than London and about the same number as the metropolitan areas of Manchester and Liverpool added together. He's a man whose main political aim was rejected y the Scottish population. I' not saying the SNP leadership are stupid. But independence is only pork in different colours. Now the battle is just openly for pork.
One might ask, why on earth should a party with hardly any all-UK policies have so much power at Westminster and possibly even get seats in the cabinet? This question illustrates how, as I've said, how the English question (or the revision of the Union, if you like) will raise its head in the near future. UKIP have obviously also got a big part to play in this.
snip
And - to repeat ad nauseam - Alex Salmond is not the leader of the SNP; while he is also in the almost unique position of having successfully run a minority administration in the UK to full term without coalition or beign voted out of office (admittedly with SLAB as the main opposition).
Salmond ran a glorified local authority which had all its money given to it. It did not have to worry about taxation, the state of its banks or currency. It only ran the devolved matters and one of the most important ones - the NHS - was not particularly well run.
Salmond ran a national government which lacked any borrowing power to throw sweeties to the electorate. Their only path to remain popular (and indeed increase their popularity) was by competent, good governance which people have shown their appreciation for,
And he did all that with control of only 46 out of 129 seats.
Or feeding a victimhood cult by blaming their neighbours .
Welcome to PB Keiran. A great piece though I take issue with the shy Tories assertion where I don't think there's the evidence. The shy voters are the LDs to which you do not refer.
I think there may be shy Lab voters as well as shy LDs.
What makes a voter "shy" when responding to a poll? I suggest it is embarrassment in supporting an unpopular party or leader.
It was embarrassing to support the Tories in 1992; they were in such disarray - hence shy Tories then.
Now it is embarrassing to declare support for Lab (or LD). "What! You are are going to vote for Miliband/Clegg!" But it is quite respectable to declare support for the Tories who are "competent and just need to finish the job."
If there is any shyness in the polling I think it is more likely to be Lab or LD supporters (possibly UKIP as well) but not Tories.
A superb article Keiran, and a great discussion thread.
It seems that there are more variables at play in this election that we have ever seen before. A good point by @foxinsoxuk that the "best" pollster might emerge almost by chance, which would help no-one going forward with their methodology.
One question for our Scottish brethren, is the electoral roll the same as for last September's referendum, or have you had to re-register to vote as in England..?
I'm not so sure that 1992 was about Shy Tories. I think there was a genuine momentum change in the last week of campaigning. A lot of LAB-CON switchers. Might be because of Sheffied, might be the Sun front page. These things probably had an effect amongst other factors.
Major being highly regarded at the time was undoubtedly a factor also. Cameron doesn't have quite the same crutch to lean on.
This really shows why the Lords needs abolished immediately.
A despised politician, given his jotters by the electorate, gets to keep his grasping mitts on power thanks to the corrupt system of appointed Lords. A man the voters decided was unfit for office gets to continue to make laws and rule over the people who rejected him.
It is utterly pathetic.
Why are you so worked up about Danny? There are several ex-MP's who lost their seats who were enobled immediately afterwards. That’s not to say I don’t think that the whole system needs a complete change.
He is a lying cheating toady of the worst kind , a talentless ar** crawling useless tw**. He should be collecting JSA not supping at the trough. A corrupt system that rewards mediocrity.
I wish to complain to the management. This is pathetic compared with Malcolm's past abusive rantings. If a Peebie sets himself up as the Gold Standard of Abuse, and then falls as short as this, is there no redress under the Provision of Goods and Services Acts? I don't suppose Our Malc does for a moment, but I'll have you lot know that I pay good money for my internet connection.
Innocent it is early and I was thinking of the schoolkids viewing this before going off to school.
There must be a lot of school children on this site seeing as so many posters seemingly cannot remember anything before 2010.
Mr Johnson is merely one of a long list of self-interested commentators portraying the SNP as destructive vandals. We don't know that yet - as I pointed out earlier. We haven't even seen their manifesto to judge their policies in Westminster.
That's true, but it is also not entirely unreasonable for people not to be waiting, as it is true that the SNP seek to end this country as it currently exists, and so anything they do with be impacted to a greater or lesser degree by that aim. Scottish voters don't seem to care about that, or actively revel in it, but while 'vandal' may indeed be a strong word, it is pretty hard to argue that a party that openly and proudly (and now with massive Westminster electoral success to look forward to) seeks the end of the UK, would not play politics to maximise their chances of getting that end as soon as possible. Playing politics to maximise their chances of that is their main goal after all. That need not mean rUK is automatically going to be trashed as a result of their demands, but the fact they will make demands to the advantage of themselves specifically (the SNP that is, not just Scotland) is not reckless speculation but absolutely inevitable. It's just a question of how destructive that might end up being, which hopefully the manifesto will give us some indication of - I hope it is not much, and they seem canny enough to play it safe, not they are on the path to independence.
Thanks. That issue is going to surprise a lot of people - just which of us does remain to be seen, but it's not as closed as some people pretend.
Welcome to PB Keiran. A great piece though I take issue with the shy Tories assertion where I don't think there's the evidence. The shy voters are the LDs to which you do not refer.
I think there may be shy Lab voters as well as shy LDs.
What makes a voter "shy" when responding to a poll? I suggest it is embarrassment in supporting an unpopular party or leader.
It was embarrassing to support the Tories in 1992; they were in such disarray - hence shy Tories then.
Now it is embarrassing to declare support for Lab (or LD). "What! You are are going to vote for Miliband/Clegg!" But it is quite respectable to declare support for the Tories who are "competent and just need to finish the job."
If there is any shyness in the polling I think it is more likely to be Lab or LD supporters (possibly UKIP as well) but not Tories.
I think you might be confusing the tories of 1992 with the tories of 1997.
They were still fairly united in 92 following the fallout of removing Thatcher.
And Major's popularity was not far off Blair in 97
This probably won't get traction because national trends seem to swamp local matters in Scotland, but the SNP in this area seems to be a nest of vipers.
Did you even read the non-story?
It's another baseless smear. And will have the same effect as the previous attempts. The DayLate Record is already a laughing stock and it's sub 200k readership matters less and less.
Its mostly the knuckle dragging dinosaurs that just look at the pictures , as the words will be hard for them the impact will be zero.
Malc I'm sure you can relax. The SNP is going to win by an unprecedented landslide in Scotland and SLAB is going to get wiped off the map. I'm even left wondering if Tory MPs may outnumber Labour ones! Unthinkable only a short while ago.
I'm also sure that whoever gets to be PM there is nothing - NOTHING - that will be in the SNP's interest to play nice. They don't come to Westminster to build bridges, they come to bury the UK. Being a good partner in the UK would destroy their USP. I am expecting an unending series of constitutional crises around Trident/Barnett/public spend per capita / whatever. The SNP should come to make itself and Scotland detested in England. That road leads to separation - which is, after all, precisely what they want.
Patrick , they do want to do it in a friendly fashion and part as friends. The bile emanating from the London media at present is absolutely despicable.
A superb article Keiran, and a great discussion thread.
It seems that there are more variables at play in this election that we have ever seen before. A good point by @foxinsoxuk that the "best" pollster might emerge almost by chance, which would help no-one going forward with their methodology.
One question for our Scottish brethren, is the electoral roll the same as for last September's referendum, or have you had to re-register to vote as in England..?
Same reregistration setup, I believe, but delayed a bit till Indyref was out of the way, IIRC.
Some people seemed to fall off the register from press reports, at least in other areas. The local board sent, without prompting, a letter saying my partner and I were registered OK and had no further action to take, which confused me given press reports. I was even more confused when I checked the gov.uk site and found it said I wasn't registered at all - so I registered on it ... a week or two later, my partner got round to it and found it said she was registered. So no idea what on earth was going on, but we have our voting cards OK!
This probably won't get traction because national trends seem to swamp local matters in Scotland, but the SNP in this area seems to be a nest of vipers.
Did you even read the non-story?
It's another baseless smear. And will have the same effect as the previous attempts. The DayLate Record is already a laughing stock and it's sub 200k readership matters less and less.
Its mostly the knuckle dragging dinosaurs that just look at the pictures , as the words will be hard for them the impact will be zero.
Malc I'm sure you can relax. The SNP is going to win by an unprecedented landslide in Scotland and SLAB is going to get wiped off the map. I'm even left wondering if Tory MPs may outnumber Labour ones! Unthinkable only a short while ago.
I'm also sure that whoever gets to be PM there is nothing - NOTHING - that will be in the SNP's interest to play nice. They don't come to Westminster to build bridges, they come to bury the UK. Being a good partner in the UK would destroy their USP. I am expecting an unending series of constitutional crises around Trident/Barnett/public spend per capita / whatever. The SNP should come to make itself and Scotland detested in England. That road leads to separation - which is, after all, precisely what they want.
That indeed is their strategy - a smart one too ! If we can't win a referendum, then make them throw us out. Same result.
The Scottish people are more canny than the SNP. They are getting the best of the two worlds. Guaranteed Barnett money, highest spending per capita and "Aengland" gets all the blame !
Barnett is already on the way out , so as they cut the budgets it will drive more people to the SNP.
This probably won't get traction because national trends seem to swamp local matters in Scotland, but the SNP in this area seems to be a nest of vipers.
Did you even read the non-story?
It's another baseless smear. And will have the same effect as the previous attempts. The DayLate Record is already a laughing stock and it's sub 200k readership matters less and less.
Its mostly the knuckle dragging dinosaurs that just look at the pictures , as the words will be hard for them the impact will be zero.
Malc I'm sure you can relax. The SNP is going to win by an unprecedented landslide in Scotland and SLAB is going to get wiped off the map. I'm even left wondering if Tory MPs may outnumber Labour ones! Unthinkable only a short while ago.
I'm also sure that whoever gets to be PM there is nothing - NOTHING - that will be in the SNP's interest to play nice. They don't come to Westminster to build bridges, they come to bury the UK. Being a good partner in the UK would destroy their USP. I am expecting an unending series of constitutional crises around Trident/Barnett/public spend per capita / whatever. The SNP should come to make itself and Scotland detested in England. That road leads to separation - which is, after all, precisely what they want.
Patrick , they do want to do it in a friendly fashion and part as friends. The bile emanating from the London media at present is absolutely despicable.
When the other side don't want to part at all, how would there not be bile?
Mr. kle4, a more likely cause for friction would be the large scale economic damage done to both sides of the border and anger over currency union being refused.
I just don't see the rationale.
Yorkshire First apparently has a candidate in my constituent. I hope the deposit's lost.
I should have added - the SNP are nationalist and porkist. To hear Salmond say he could advise after the election on how to run a minority government as hilarious. Scotland has far fewer people than London and about the same number as the metropolitan areas of Manchester and Liverpool added together. He's a man whose main political aim was rejected y the Scottish population. I' not saying the SNP leadership are stupid. But independence is only pork in different colours. Now the battle is just openly for pork.
One might ask, why on earth should a party with hardly any all-UK policies have so much power at Westminster and possibly even get seats in the cabinet? This question illustrates how, as I've said, how the English question (or the revision of the Union, if you like) will raise its head in the near future. UKIP have obviously also got a big part to play in this.
So some loony English party with maybe 2 or 3 MP's would have a big part to play but a party with many multiples of that should not have. Warped sense of democracy down south it seems, what happened to all the bullsh** about Better Together and UK family etc. That just go out the window because we don't do as we are told.
Mr. Carnyx, seems odd. Presumably anyone with voting cards is ok?
I have to assume so - and will certainly turn up on the day with mine.
I suspect that part of the problem for us was simply a delay, or technical hiccup of the usual kind, in marrying the area board database up to the gov.uk centralised database down south - if that was all then it seems as if at least the more established voters will be OK.
However there were reports of even settled residents having to reregister elsewhere. Hard to know what the real issues were from anecdotal stuff.
I have the impression (but no more than that) that every time every time the Lib Dems attack the Conservatives, their polling rating goes up. And each time Clegg and his circle talk about entering another coalition, the rating goes down. Just an impression that I have.
I disagree but hope that the LDs take your advice. The LDs have an image with the voters as being untrustworthy and duplicituous. By attacking their partner right from the first few months of 2010 post GE they kept piling up evidence of how they are untrustworthy and duplicituous. Long may they continue doing it.
The untrustworthy and duplicitous are those Conservative MPs who constantly undermined and voted frequently against their own government or even defected to another party . I suspect that your sympathies are more with the Bones and Hollobones and their ilk than the Conservatives and Lib Dems who backed the Coalition Government
This probably won't get traction because national trends seem to swamp local matters in Scotland, but the SNP in this area seems to be a nest of vipers.
Did you even read the non-story?
It's another baseless smear. And will have the same effect as the previous attempts. The DayLate Record is already a laughing stock and it's sub 200k readership matters less and less.
Its mostly the knuckle dragging dinosaurs that just look at the pictures , as the words will be hard for them the impact will be zero.
Malc I'm sure you can relax. The SNP is going to win by an unprecedented landslide in Scotland and SLAB is going to get wiped off the map. I'm even left wondering if Tory MPs may outnumber Labour ones! Unthinkable only a short while ago.
I'm also sure that whoever gets to be PM there is nothing - NOTHING - that will be in the SNP's interest to play nice. They don't come to Westminster to build bridges, they come to bury the UK. Being a good partner in the UK would destroy their USP. I am expecting an unending series of constitutional crises around Trident/Barnett/public spend per capita / whatever. The SNP should come to make itself and Scotland detested in England. That road leads to separation - which is, after all, precisely what they want.
Patrick , they do want to do it in a friendly fashion and part as friends. The bile emanating from the London media at present is absolutely despicable.
I'm sure it is in Scotand's interest to remain friendly with a country that would be by far it's biggest trading partner. But I'm not at all sure there'll be alot of love in the air if and when you do give us the finger. The No Shared Currency / No English Lender of Last Resort hardstop is going to cause all sorts of grief. Moving Trident south will cause all sorts of grief. The resulting move of financial services south of the border will cause all sorts of grief. I suspect you'll get your country. You just may not be too happy with what that country looks like after the divorce. Divorces rarely end nicey nicey.
As it was a fine weekend, decided to walking in the hills and valleys of two adjacent constituencies - one rural and a very marginal LD and the other very strong Labour, ex-mining with high unemployment and high disability claimants and many children classed at school as 'deprived'.
The people in the LD seat were mostly concerned about falling milk prices and the prospect of dairy farms going out of business and the UK importing more milk and no party offering a solution. Otherwise keep the ship of state steady.
The ex-mining community people were very willing to chat whilst we admired the view and had our picnics. They see no solution to generations of unemployment as "the immigrants get all the jobs going." However, they were not bothered too much as they could manage on jsa (for 2), child credits, housing benefit etc, and there was always £50-£100 a week cash in hand odd jobs they could do which mainly paid for their holidays in Spain etc. Some of those also had disability allowance due to stress, bad leg/back etc.
However, whilst not really interested in any political party but may back Labour as usual, they were well informed on the waves of African immigrants trying to enter Europe and would back any party that kept them out of Britain as they did not want that culture change (their language used was far stronger).
The teenagers were equally relaxed about a life on benefits - one said that as he is classed as dyslexic, he could get disability as well. All did some cash in hand jobs for pocket money (up to £50 per week). Very few of them showed an aspiration for life improvement as they are happy as they are.
It's amazing that you managed to find so many people that share and confirm your prejudices.
Strange. I worked in social care for 20 years with the socially deprived, 10 at the face, and I never discovered this level of detail about the financial lives and aspirations and habits of the people I was working with.
I was at a party on Saturday night full of South London late 20/30 somethings. All very middle class but all with standard London issues around rents/property.
Pretty much all of them said they were going to vote Tory, and looked aghast at me when i said i was voting Labour.
The most common line was "Can you see Miliband standing up to Putin?".
I have the impression (but no more than that) that every time every time the Lib Dems attack the Conservatives, their polling rating goes up. And each time Clegg and his circle talk about entering another coalition, the rating goes down. Just an impression that I have.
I disagree but hope that the LDs take your advice. The LDs have an image with the voters as being untrustworthy and duplicituous. By attacking their partner right from the first few months of 2010 post GE they kept piling up evidence of how they are untrustworthy and duplicituous. Long may they continue doing it.
And the Tory attacks on their partner Lib-Dems - were these honourable and straightforward? Or could they also have been untrustworthy and duplicitous? It was a coalition of two different parties, accept that and be grown up about it. Of course there were arguments, but I suspect that in a couple of month's time it will be seen to have been a comparative oasis of calm.
Roger Moorhouse @Roger_Moorhouse · 2h 2 hours ago Ooh. Scottish National Socialists choose Hitler's birthday to launch their manifesto. Naughty, naughty.
As it was a fine weekend, decided to walking in the hills and valleys of two adjacent constituencies - one rural and a very marginal LD and the other very strong Labour, ex-mining with high unemployment and high disability claimants and many children classed at school as 'deprived'.
The people in the LD seat were mostly concerned about falling milk prices and the prospect of dairy farms going out of business and the UK importing more milk and no party offering a solution. Otherwise keep the ship of state steady.
The ex-mining community people were very willing to chat whilst we admired the view and had our picnics. They see no solution to generations of unemployment as "the immigrants get all the jobs going." However, they were not bothered too much as they could manage on jsa (for 2), child credits, housing benefit etc, and there was always £50-£100 a week cash in hand odd jobs they could do which mainly paid for their holidays in Spain etc. Some of those also had disability allowance due to stress, bad leg/back etc.
However, whilst not really interested in any political party but may back Labour as usual, they were well informed on the waves of African immigrants trying to enter Europe and would back any party that kept them out of Britain as they did not want that culture change (their language used was far stronger).
The teenagers were equally relaxed about a life on benefits - one said that as he is classed as dyslexic, he could get disability as well. All did some cash in hand jobs for pocket money (up to £50 per week). Very few of them showed an aspiration for life improvement as they are happy as they are.
It's amazing that you managed to find so many people that share and confirm your prejudices.
Not prejudices, but facts. I always let the other people start the conversation and and just let them talk. You learn a lot more that way than espousing your own views - as many people and especially politicians do not want to hear their views and so cut them off as 'racist' or 'dnv' etc.
As I say, it's amazing that so many of the things you heard confirmed your own prejudices. And amazing that you had time for so many detailed conversations as you walked and to make such in-depth judgements about people's aspirations for life improvement.
I was at a party on Saturday night full of South London late 20/30 somethings. All very middle class but all with standard London issues around rents/property.
Pretty much all of them said they were going to vote Tory, and looked aghast at me when i said i was voting Labour.
The most common line was "Can you see Miliband standing up to Putin?".
Quite depressing as a Labour voter on reflection.
As a matter of interest, do you find that many of your London friends take a more global - longer term view of matters than perhaps others?
Or feeding a victimhood cult by blaming their neighbours .
Certainly the main SNP propaganda strategy is to encourage Scots to play with the chips on their shoulders.
And those chips are oriented primarily against "the English", even if In respectable circles terms such as "the London media" and "Westminster". They're just code for "the English".
"Cult" may be putting it too strongly, though. They may be obnoxious, but they're not ISIS. Well OK, some of their supporters do come across like Moonies.
The SNP were able in the indyref to get 45% of people to vote for sunshine - as they get deeper and deeper into debt and nearer the precipice, just like so many other people in Britain. In a contest for who talks about real issues, they'd come far behind UKIP.
The SNP would get hardly any traction or support if the British government and parliament were based in Edinburgh or Glasgow, even if everything else were the same as it is now. They wouldn't be able to complain about being "run from down South". Picture it - all the main British media political desks based in Edinburgh. The British parliament based in Auld Reekie. The SNP would be at a complete loss for what to say.
But why should they be? After all, the issue of independence and the reasons for Scottish national separation and the hope of Scottish national revival would all be the same, right? Wrong. They're just using all that, cynically. They're pork-barrelists first and foremost.
As it was a fine weekend, decided to walking in the hills and valleys of two adjacent constituencies - one rural and a very marginal LD and the other very strong Labour, ex-mining with high unemployment and high disability claimants and many children classed at school as 'deprived'.
The people in the LD seat were mostly concerned about falling milk prices and the prospect of dairy farms going out of business and the UK importing more milk and no party offering a solution. Otherwise keep the ship of state steady.
The ex-mining community people were very willing to chat whilst we admired the view and had our picnics. They see no solution to generations of unemployment as "the immigrants get all the jobs going." However, they were not bothered too much as they could manage on jsa (for 2), child credits, housing benefit etc, and there was always £50-£100 a week cash in hand odd jobs they could do which mainly paid for their holidays in Spain etc. Some of those also had disability allowance due to stress, bad leg/back etc.
However, whilst not really interested in any political party but may back Labour as usual, they were well informed on the waves of African immigrants trying to enter Europe and would back any party that kept them out of Britain as they did not want that culture change (their language used was far stronger).
The teenagers were equally relaxed about a life on benefits - one said that as he is classed as dyslexic, he could get disability as well. All did some cash in hand jobs for pocket money (up to £50 per week). Very few of them showed an aspiration for life improvement as they are happy as they are.
It's amazing that you managed to find so many people that share and confirm your prejudices.
Not prejudices, but facts. I always let the other people start the conversation and and just let them talk. You learn a lot more that way than espousing your own views - as many people and especially politicians do not want to hear their views and so cut them off as 'racist' or 'dnv' etc.
As I say, it's amazing that so many of the things you heard confirmed your own prejudices. And amazing that you had time for so many detailed conversations as you walked and to make such in-depth judgements about people's aspirations for life improvement.
You do not seem able to read - this is what the people I met told me. Just go out there and listen to what people are saying without giving your own views - hard that it may be for you.
I should have added - the SNP are nationalist and porkist. To hear Salmond say he could advise after the election on how to run a minority government as hilarious. Scotland has far fewer people than London and about the same number as the metropolitan areas of Manchester and Liverpool added together. He's a man whose main political aim was rejected y the Scottish population. I' not saying the SNP leadership are stupid. But independence is only pork in different colours. Now the battle is just openly for pork.
One might ask, why on earth should a party with hardly any all-UK policies have so much power at Westminster and possibly even get seats in the cabinet? This question illustrates how, as I've said, how the English question (or the revision of the Union, if you like) will raise its head in the near future. UKIP have obviously also got a big part to play in this.
So some loony English party with maybe 2 or 3 MP's would have a big part to play but a party with many multiples of that should not have. Warped sense of democracy down south it seems, what happened to all the bullsh** about Better Together and UK family etc. That just go out the window because we don't do as we are told.
As I have said in the past, if the SNP have the numbers of MPs predicted after the election, I as a Unionist can't see why they should be barred from the political process.
Generally I think Nationalism is a scourge on the world and feeds off negative emotions such as greed, self importance and jealousy. I disagree with the SNP in most respects, but if the people vote for them to be the duly elected representatives they have a right to a voice in the UK parliament, and if the numbers stack up in the government. The negotiations would be fun, and can be torpedoed for political gain at any time over a 'point of principle' by either side.
This is an attempt to get tactical Lab voters isn't it?
Another coalition between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats is not going to happen, Andrew George, the Liberal Democrat MP for the highly marginal seat of St Ives has declared.
His leader, Nick Clegg, has insisted his party is determined to form a coalition with either the Tories or Labour. Clegg is due to campaign in the seat for George on Monday.
But George told a public meeting last week a second coalition with the Tories “is not going to happen. We have had enough of it. The Tories would not want it and I am sure my party would not go for it.”
He'd have my vote as an independent - but isn't prepared to say that he wouldn't serve in a Lib-Tory coalition and unfortunately his voting record on the bedroom tax shows classic Lib Dem manouevres: "rebelling" against a disliked government policy, but not at the cost of the slightest embarrassment to the coalition united front as soon as it's a question of voting with Labour.
Locally it seems hard to call. The signs count ranks roughly thus:
1. LD 2. Conservative (though the candidate is from my village so we may have a greater number of signs in this part of the constituency as a result) 3. Labour, quite a way behind but more noticeable than at previous elections 4. Green, almost equal with Labour 5.UKIP, one or two only
Assuming that the increase in Labour and Green representation has come at the expense of the yellows, you'd have to think Mr George is LD toast.
Polruan is in SE Cornwall though , no? Are you in St Ives in fact?
Comments
When one SNP councillor writes that he was "extremely embarrassed by the conduct and management of the group" and in response another calls him "spineless" and a third activist "lazy", we can safely conclude that this is not a happy ship.
Just an impression that I have.
Watch the odds on a hung parliament lengthen between now and 7 May.
That 90% of the chatter about scenarios, some of them quite complex, assumes a hung parliament is ridiculous.
Someone had better say it: the SNP brought down the LAB government in 1979. Are they going to help keep CON in office in 2015, by taking LAB seats and either bringing about a CON absolute majority (still more likely than a hung parliament in my view) or a CON-SNP pact?
The SNP aren't on the other side of LAB from CON. Theirs is nationalist politics, not wingist politics. They are dissimilar from the LAB, CON, LD and even UKIP in that regard.
People are speculating about a CON-LAB pact in a Belgian scenario, and there are other examples of grand coalition that might also be mentioned, such as West Germany in the 1960s. But for goodness sake, the CON leadership would far rather do a deal with SNP than with LAB. They would probably also rather do a deal with the SNP than with UKIP, not that UKIP is likely to be a big player in he post-election horse trading.
A few pundits are saying "one thing is for certain". If anything is for certain, I think it's that we're bound to see the rise of the ENGLISH QUESTION after the election.
1. Polling methodology (1). Pollsters tend to down-weight people who didn't vote at the last election. Because UKIP is giving voice to people who weren't well represented before, it is not surprising their support should include a lot of people who didn't vote before.
2. Polling methodology (2). Pollsters try and get representative samples. Because people misremember who they voted for in 2010 (perhaps confusing it with a vote for UKIP at the Euros) you end up (again) downweighting UKIP support.
3. Shy Kippers. To some people, UKIP is a controversial political party. Are some UKIP supporters put off answering "UKIP" when asked on the phone, in a way they are not when they are facing a computer screen?
Reasons UKIP could be overstated:
1. People who didn't vote last time - statistically - have a lower likelihood of voting this time.
2. In recent French (municipal) and Spanish (Andalucia) elections, insurgent parties underperformed their poll ratings quite substantially.
3. On-line panels - which tend to give UKIP the highest ratings - may be unrepresentative samples. The most motivated political supporters tend to be those most likely to sign up to take part in surveys.
Reasons the LibDems could be understated:
1. A very high proportion of LibDem voters in 2010 say "don't know" about 2015. This could be evidence of "shy LibDems"
2. When asked how "proud" they are of supporting a political party, LibDem supporters have the lowest "pride" rating. This could be evidence of "shy LibDems".
3. LibDem support appears to be very concentrated geographically. This might make getting a representative sample harder.
Reasons the LibDems could be overstated:
1. The LibDems did no better than the lowest of the forecasters at the 2014 Euro elections.
2. Spiral of silence adjustments with some pollsters already boost the party.
I guess we'll know in two and a half weeks time...
The Scottish people are more canny than the SNP. They are getting the best of the two worlds. Guaranteed Barnett money, highest spending per capita and "Aengland" gets all the blame !
Bercow won't be doing the Conservatives any favours after their cack-handed effort to change the confirmation of the Speaker [even though he himself proposed the change prior to getting the job...].
His granting of three urgent questions to Labour, enabling them to get enough MPs back to win the vote and make it more difficult to unseat him, is a good indicator of how he'll behave.
Of course, Bercow's disposition only matters if things are extremely close. If there's only one viable coalition, his proclivities won't come into it.
One might ask, why on earth should a party with hardly any all-UK policies have so much power at Westminster and possibly even get seats in the cabinet? This question illustrates how, as I've said, how the English question (or the revision of the Union, if you like) will raise its head in the near future. UKIP have obviously also got a big part to play in this.
' Scottish Nationalists have threatened to hold Britain’s security to ransom by trying to block the military budget until the renewal of Trident, the country’s nuclear deterrent, is halted. Nicola Sturgeon claimed yesterday that her party would have more power than ever before if the SNP were to prop up a Labour government in the next parliament. '
'Stewart Hosie, the SNP’s deputy leader, said that the party was looking “to vote against or table amendments to estimates” if they included the nuclear deterrent. '
Its not the Scots but the SNP that need throwing out.
Its comments like the above which make me think that Labour voters, as opposed to loony left, will still reject the SNP. In both Scotland and England though by far the safest vote is Conservative. It prevents a minority Labour being manipulated by the SNP and hands a defeat to the far left.
Mr. N, I believe the daft sods of Yorkshire First are now allied to the SNP. Could be indicative of SNP support for balkanising England, if Labour try to fiddle political fiefdoms.
Edited extra bit: checked the Twitter feed. Some support to/from the SNP, but not sure there's a formal alliance.
Con 33%, Lab 33%, LD 10%, UKIP 13%.
twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/587893751072317440
-----
Anyone know what the R&T 2010 prediction was?
As it was a fine weekend, decided to walking in the hills and valleys of two adjacent constituencies - one rural and a very marginal LD and the other very strong Labour, ex-mining with high unemployment and high disability claimants and many children classed at school as 'deprived'.
The people in the LD seat were mostly concerned about falling milk prices and the prospect of dairy farms going out of business and the UK importing more milk and no party offering a solution. Otherwise keep the ship of state steady.
The ex-mining community people were very willing to chat whilst we admired the view and had our picnics. They see no solution to generations of unemployment as "the immigrants get all the jobs going." However, they were not bothered too much as they could manage on jsa (for 2), child credits, housing benefit etc, and there was always £50-£100 a week cash in hand odd jobs they could do which mainly paid for their holidays in Spain etc. Some of those also had disability allowance due to stress, bad leg/back etc.
However, whilst not really interested in any political party but may back Labour as usual, they were well informed on the waves of African immigrants trying to enter Europe and would back any party that kept them out of Britain as they did not want that culture change (their language used was far stronger).
The teenagers were equally relaxed about a life on benefits - one said that as he is classed as dyslexic, he could get disability as well. All did some cash in hand jobs for pocket money (up to £50 per week). Very few of them showed an aspiration for life improvement as they are happy as they are.
And - to repeat ad nauseam - Alex Salmond is not the leader of the SNP; while he is also in the almost unique position of having successfully run a minority administration in the UK to full term without coalition or beign voted out of office (admittedly with SLAB as the main opposition).
IDS's reforms (and reforms of the last two years or so of previous government) have made this attitude much less prevalent.
After the election we'll have a result that MPs will have to live with. SNP won't be helpful and Labour may lose more than they gain by coming to an agreement with them. DUP only want money so can be bought off, but probably only by the Tories, would they ever support Labour? LibDems will be wary and would require some of their policies to be guaranteed to be implemented, however they could back either of the two big parties if that was done. If the numbers still don't add up we'll probably get a series of minority governments but eventually a Grand Coalition or Government of National Unity can't be ruled out.
Their policies are rubbish for a start, their MPs are charlatans, they have just rubbished their main USP, they are trying to pretend the last 5 years never happened, they are in most ways soft left (at least) indistinguishable from labour, their presence makes a Lab/SNP coalition more likely.
The Libdems had their chance, they could have made a play for continuing in govt with the tories by supporting their own government and having real influence (whether you consider that benign or not) but they have blown it.
Boris:
You wouldn’t get Herod to run a baby farm, would you? It would not normally occur to you to interview a convicted jewel thief for the post of custodian of the Tower of London.
You would not dream of asking a fox to look after the henhouse or a temperance campaigner to run a brewery or Attila the Hun to work as a doorkeeper for the Roman senate – and no one in their right mind would enter into a contract with a bunch of voracious weevils to protect the lovely old timbers in the tower of the local church. Would they?
Any such course of action would be totally nuts.
So can someone tell me why in the name of all that is holy there are some apparently rational people who are even contemplating the elevation of the Scottish Nationalist Party to a position of effective dominance in the government of the United Kingdom – an entity that they are sworn to destroy?
http://bit.ly/1bd2zIE
The fact is surely that even if (!) a polling company can predict vote shares accurately, it's vital to know how this is going to break down across the country, and widely different seat totals are possible from the same vote shares.
#thisisit
If the third largest force in the next parliament is the SNP, then Labour had better think very carefully. The Tories need to think carefully too. Grand Coalitions and Governments of National Unity only come about in extreme circumstances such as war. Is the potential breakup of the United Kingdom extreme enough?
19/04/2015 00:05
It's all relative pic.twitter.com/ab7Mr6gMfj
PS It's weird seeing this issue being fossilized since the 1980s like this. It's irrelevant to ISIS etc and the actual issue is how to credibly tell Russia not to mess with the Baltics, or whether they might invade them in the expectation that US/UK won't want to fry for Estonia. If you want a credible deterrent, you need a way for them to be able to press the button. Build the subs, give the Baltic states the keys and get the Germans to pay for them.
I think that seats won in by-elections (by any party, please note Mr Reckless) are by definition difficult to retain.
Illegal immigrants (well, legal ones as well) into the rest of the EU cannot come here legally because we are not in Schengen. This is something the BBC did not emphasise last night on the News (admittedly their reporter had got himself a nice little but pointless trip on a small boat in the Med and was perhaps enjoying himself too much).
If we walk out of the EU then any likely trade deal with the will in all probability have to involve joining Schengen (as well as rejoining the single market).
The problems with a Grand Coalition are
(a) the SNP become the official opposition (on current polling, and given the conditions for a GC to occur in the first place)
(b) the Labour Party in Scotland (and elsewhere, esp. in Wales and N. England) would get a second massive defeat because of its continuing alliance with the Tories
Last time I had to use the library my impression would be most aren't eligible to vote in this country now anyway.
The SNP's stock in Scotland will remain higher when the bête noire Tories are in charge at Westminster. And it's in her interests that whichever party is in power in the Westminster government is unpopular and that the SNP have nothing to do with it.
Added to that, and although the circumstances are different, she will have seen what has happened to the Lib Dems as a junior partner in power and won't fancy the 'unknowns' of what could happen to the SNP if they were seen as a junior partner to Labour.
If she can win most of the Westminster seats in Scotland and face the Tories in charge that will suit her and her party just fine.
http://www.iea.org.uk/publications/research/brexit-directions-for-britain-outside-the-eu
Locally it seems hard to call. The signs count ranks roughly thus:
1. LD
2. Conservative (though the candidate is from my village so we may have a greater number of signs in this part of the constituency as a result)
3. Labour, quite a way behind but more noticeable than at previous elections
4. Green, almost equal with Labour
5.UKIP, one or two only
Assuming that the increase in Labour and Green representation has come at the expense of the yellows, you'd have to think Mr George is LD toast.
And he did all that with control of only 46 out of 129 seats.
Want to be virtuous? Saying the right things violently on Twitter is much easier than real kindness
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9501282/hating-the-daily-mail-is-a-substitute-for-doing-good/
What makes a voter "shy" when responding to a poll? I suggest it is embarrassment in supporting an unpopular party or leader.
It was embarrassing to support the Tories in 1992; they were in such disarray - hence shy Tories then.
Now it is embarrassing to declare support for Lab (or LD). "What! You are are going to vote for Miliband/Clegg!" But it is quite respectable to declare support for the Tories who are "competent and just need to finish the job."
If there is any shyness in the polling I think it is more likely to be Lab or LD supporters (possibly UKIP as well) but not Tories.
It seems that there are more variables at play in this election that we have ever seen before. A good point by @foxinsoxuk that the "best" pollster might emerge almost by chance, which would help no-one going forward with their methodology.
One question for our Scottish brethren, is the electoral roll the same as for last September's referendum, or have you had to re-register to vote as in England..?
I'm not so sure that 1992 was about Shy Tories. I think there was a genuine momentum change in the last week of campaigning. A lot of LAB-CON switchers. Might be because of Sheffied, might be the Sun front page. These things probably had an effect amongst other factors.
Major being highly regarded at the time was undoubtedly a factor also. Cameron doesn't have quite the same crutch to lean on.
They were still fairly united in 92 following the fallout of removing Thatcher.
And Major's popularity was not far off Blair in 97
Some people seemed to fall off the register from press reports, at least in other areas. The local board sent, without prompting, a letter saying my partner and I were registered OK and had no further action to take, which confused me given press reports. I was even more confused when I checked the gov.uk site and found it said I wasn't registered at all - so I registered on it ... a week or two later, my partner got round to it and found it said she was registered. So no idea what on earth was going on, but we have our voting cards OK!
I just don't see the rationale.
Yorkshire First apparently has a candidate in my constituent. I hope the deposit's lost.
I suspect that part of the problem for us was simply a delay, or technical hiccup of the usual kind, in marrying the area board database up to the gov.uk centralised database down south - if that was all then it seems as if at least the more established voters will be OK.
However there were reports of even settled residents having to reregister elsewhere. Hard to know what the real issues were from anecdotal stuff.
I suspect that your sympathies are more with the Bones and Hollobones and their ilk than the Conservatives and Lib Dems who backed the Coalition Government
Labour won't have that luxury in England from tommorow.
I was at a party on Saturday night full of South London late 20/30 somethings. All very middle class but all with standard London issues around rents/property.
Pretty much all of them said they were going to vote Tory, and looked aghast at me when i said i was voting Labour.
The most common line was "Can you see Miliband standing up to Putin?".
Quite depressing as a Labour voter on reflection.
It was a coalition of two different parties, accept that and be grown up about it. Of course there were arguments, but I suspect that in a couple of month's time it will be seen to have been a comparative oasis of calm.
Roger Moorhouse @Roger_Moorhouse · 2h 2 hours ago
Ooh. Scottish National Socialists choose Hitler's birthday to launch their manifesto. Naughty, naughty.
And those chips are oriented primarily against "the English", even if In respectable circles terms such as "the London media" and "Westminster". They're just code for "the English".
"Cult" may be putting it too strongly, though. They may be obnoxious, but they're not ISIS. Well OK, some of their supporters do come across like Moonies.
The SNP were able in the indyref to get 45% of people to vote for sunshine - as they get deeper and deeper into debt and nearer the precipice, just like so many other people in Britain. In a contest for who talks about real issues, they'd come far behind UKIP.
The SNP would get hardly any traction or support if the British government and parliament were based in Edinburgh or Glasgow, even if everything else were the same as it is now. They wouldn't be able to complain about being "run from down South". Picture it - all the main British media political desks based in Edinburgh. The British parliament based in Auld Reekie. The SNP would be at a complete loss for what to say.
But why should they be? After all, the issue of independence and the reasons for Scottish national separation and the hope of Scottish national revival would all be the same, right? Wrong. They're just using all that, cynically. They're pork-barrelists first and foremost.
Generally I think Nationalism is a scourge on the world and feeds off negative emotions such as greed, self importance and jealousy. I disagree with the SNP in most respects, but if the people vote for them to be the duly elected representatives they have a right to a voice in the UK parliament, and if the numbers stack up in the government. The negotiations would be fun, and can be torpedoed for political gain at any time over a 'point of principle' by either side.