""My view on the SNP "threat" is that it resonates well in Surrey Heath but is barely an issue anywhere else. Indeed, the reception Sturgeon is getting is probably undermining every single Sturgeon with Ed in pocket billboard poster appearing in every northern working class Tory held marginal. I mentioned the one on the main st in Colne (Pendle) last week - I think many in Colne are looking at that as a prospectus and thinking "I quite like the sound of that, how do I vote for her?"
That's why the Tory focus on the SNP is going so catastrophically, calamitously wrong.
Why can only a handful of us see this??""
There is a strange love affair between some of the English and the SNP which is hard to fathom. The SNP are highly political and only look after themselves. If you are a Scot who does not agree with them then you are ostracised at every junction. If something goes wrong then it is always the fault of the b...dy English.
What amazes me is that it is only the Tories who have the guts to take them head on whilst Labour seem to think they can be their friends. I had a Scottish Labour leaflet today which attacked the Tories / Coalition in 4 sections while ignored the SNP. The only way that Labour will hold their seat is convincing the 20% who support Lib Dems / Tories to help them. Guess what the result of our seat will be.
The Tory campaign is weak but I see their attack on the SNP as the only area where they actually are showing strength. Much better than trying to bribe the electorate with their own money.
I would have thought people fascinated by polling would have been writing articles on why Ukip are still getting 15% a fortnight out when the Shrewdies thought they were odds on to get single figures
Who ? Yesterdays men old thing - the Sturgasm is the only show in town.
As per the article this morning Ukippers are hard to measure, and the all pollsters are unproven with UKIP at such a high level.
FPT @ HurstLlama. Not true that Conservatives always cut defence. Defence spending rose under Thatcher up until 1986. It also rose (belatedly) in the late 1930s under Baldwin/Chamberlain and pre-WWI for the dreadnought programme.
The UK has been in strategic retreat since WWII, so the trend has been to cut repeatedly, but that's only justifiable up until the point where any further cuts jeopardise an effective national defence, rather than just limiting a global power projection role.
Anyway, Thatcher bucks the trend. But what you can probably say is that most Conservative governments prevaricate but eventually fund defence when they realise they have to, and there's no alternative.
The weaknesses of that approach then immediately show up with the next subsequent conflict.
Thatcher had two sets of defence cuts. The first in the run up to the Falklands war when John Nott was Secretary of State for Defence (if Argentina had waited a bit Thatcher's government would have scrapped/sold the RN assets needed to mount the re-take). The second "Options for Change" was started under Thatcher and completed under Major.
As for Cameron's so called Strategic Defence Review - that really was a set of cuts that did "jeopardise an effective national defence", but he will cut again if he is returned. Note that he went to the NATO conference last year and complained that other members were not meeting the agreed 2% target but has consistently refused to commit to it himself.
There was a real terms increase in defence spending under the first 7 years of Thatcher.
I got this today from a think-tank with close links to what the Conservatives are thinking. Take as you want running through the numbers, it suggests the Conservatives think they can get at least the same number of seats as last time. For those commenting on Ed Balls' chances, the comments on Yorkshire are interesting.
JackW - does this tie in with your feedback?
[snipped]
Those are the principal battle-grounds, and there is no suggestion of a Labour surge. The final days of hard pounding will be crucial.
That's frightening if any of that is true.
They hope to "avoid net losses" in Lancashire? How exactly? What on earth could they win to offset the clear losses that are obvious (as confirmed by Ashcroft)?
Gains in Wales? Come off it....
The Lancashire one is interesting because it is the locals who are saying, not CCHQ. No further detail was given but SNP might be an issue (Will Straw parachuted into R&D will not help either).
Wales - gains might seem optimistic but holding steady might not - i.e. they lose their Cardiff Seat but gain Brecon.
Their view on the LDs btw:
"they are likely to do better than the polls suggest. But they will be slaughtered in their Lib/Lab marginals."
My view on the SNP "threat" is that it resonates well in Surrey Heath but is barely an issue anywhere else. Indeed, the reception Sturgeon is getting is probably undermining every single Sturgeon with Ed in pocket billboard poster appearing in every northern working class Tory held marginal. I mentioned the one on the main st in Colne (Pendle) last week - I think many in Colne are looking at that as a prospectus and thinking "I quite like the sound of that, how do I vote for her?"
That's why the Tory focus on the SNP is going so catastrophically, calamitously wrong.
Why can only a handful of us see this??
Judging from what I heard at the weekend canvassing in the Midlands, it also works well there. I know Robert Peston was suggesting many people were tweeting him as to how to vote for the SNP but, with all due respect, I do not think you will find that many prolific Northern WWC Tweeters....
Giving the south west marginals a reason to vote Tory.
I would have thought people fascinated by polling would have been writing articles on why Ukip are still getting 15% a fortnight out when the Shrewdies thought they were odds on to get single figures
Who ? Yesterdays men old thing - the Sturgasm is the only show in town.
As per the article this morning Ukippers are hard to measure, and the all pollsters are unproven with UKIP at such a high level.
Whilst I was pulling isam's leg a bit, the fact remains that the story is not about the purples - but about the Nats.
Same for the economy and the NHS - tv and papers are not interested in such trivialities - it's all about the post election deals. As Nige will have at most 5 MPs, the arithmetic has relegated him to an also ran.
Libya was embroiled in civil war with Gaddafi bragging about a genocide. The situation there now is terrible. There's no guarantee it wouldn't be as bad if the West hadn't gotten involved [ISIS may have taken over the opposition anyway].
I agree with the basic plan of a processing centre in North Africa. Tunisia/Morocco could work.
Well, Mr. D, is not the point of having armed forces that they be used to defend the nation's vital interests? If so then Cameron's Libyan adventure failed on just about every level.
Another boat sinks on it's way to Europe from Africa
This people smuggling is becoming more and more horrific... 21st century slave ships, and the same fate awaits those who make it except their owners are the state not individuals
A bit of naval "cutting out" by raiding the ports of origin, and scuttling the empty boats before they load looks to be in order. Also for survivors of abandoned vessels to be landed on the Libyan shore in a refugee camp rather than Italy/Malta.
We have a huge aid budget. Why can't some of it be used to set up secure refugee 'safe zone' camps within Africa, guarded by a UN military?
I agree some sort of secure and safe accommodation and processing facility, perhaps on a Mediterranean Island, would be the best solution. But the most likely outcome of this is that the EU feels morally obliged to protect and accommodate every single boat crossing the Mediterranean. And mass migration continues.
Mr. Llama, without the counter-factual it's impossible to say [in the same way our lack of action in Syria may have prevented the country becoming free and democratic *or* prevented it falling entirely into the hands of ISIS].
Call me crazy, but I'm tempted of betting on Lab Most Votes/Most Seats. I suspect they will fall slightly short on both counts, but with the polls as they are it surely isn't that far from a toss-up on most votes. You can get 4/1 on Lab Most Votes and Seats, which seems a bit generous.
DYOR
Why not just stick to the outrageous value on Most Seats?
Firstly, already stuffed to the gills on it. Secondly, given that Labour's 'electoral bias edge' is significantly reduced if they win most seats they may well edge most votes too.
You can get 5/1 on this on Betfair, compared to just under 2/1 on Most seats. In the circumstances that Labour win most seats is there really a 60%+ chance they do so on fewer votes?
I would have thought people fascinated by polling would have been writing articles on why Ukip are still getting 15% a fortnight out when the Shrewdies thought they were odds on to get single figures
Who ? Yesterdays men old thing - the Sturgasm is the only show in town.
Libya was embroiled in civil war with Gaddafi bragging about a genocide. The situation there now is terrible. There's no guarantee it wouldn't be as bad if the West hadn't gotten involved [ISIS may have taken over the opposition anyway].
I agree with the basic plan of a processing centre in North Africa. Tunisia/Morocco could work.
Well, Mr. D, is not the point of having armed forces that they be used to defend the nation's vital interests? If so then Cameron's Libyan adventure failed on just about every level.
Ghaddafi no longer funding the IRA - tick Megrahi no longer in Uk jail - tick Disincentives for migrants to try and cross the med - tick
I would have thought people fascinated by polling would have been writing articles on why Ukip are still getting 15% a fortnight out when the Shrewdies thought they were odds on to get single figures
focus might be on those aiming for 300 seats, not 3.
You can have 2 and under, I will have 4 or more, 3 is void
Call me crazy, but I'm tempted of betting on Lab Most Votes/Most Seats. I suspect they will fall slightly short on both counts, but with the polls as they are it surely isn't that far from a toss-up on most votes. You can get 4/1 on Lab Most Votes and Seats, which seems a bit generous.
DYOR
Why not just stick to the outrageous value on Most Seats?
Firstly, already stuffed to the gills on it. Secondly, given that Labour's 'electoral bias edge' is significantly reduced if they win most seats they may well edge most votes too.
You can get 5/1 on this on Betfair, compared to just under 2/1 on Most seats. In the circumstances that Labour win most seats is there really a 60%+ chance they do so on fewer votes?
You can't get 5/1 on Betfair any more. Cheers
*cough*
Maybe Mike's articles for Betfair are influencing the market? FWIW I don't think there's any bias to the Lab/Con result at all as things stand. Obviously random chance means both Lab/Con and Con/Lab are still possible.
I would have thought people fascinated by polling would have been writing articles on why Ukip are still getting 15% a fortnight out when the Shrewdies thought they were odds on to get single figures
Must admit I am genuinely surprised that so many turkeys are apparently going to vote for Christmas...
Libya was embroiled in civil war with Gaddafi bragging about a genocide. The situation there now is terrible. There's no guarantee it wouldn't be as bad if the West hadn't gotten involved [ISIS may have taken over the opposition anyway].
I agree with the basic plan of a processing centre in North Africa. Tunisia/Morocco could work.
There's a whole swathe of North Africa and the Middle East now, from Libya to Nigeria, to Somalia to South Sudan, to Yemen, to Palestine, to Syria and Iraq, that is practically ungovernable.
Libya was embroiled in civil war with Gaddafi bragging about a genocide. The situation there now is terrible. There's no guarantee it wouldn't be as bad if the West hadn't gotten involved [ISIS may have taken over the opposition anyway].
I agree with the basic plan of a processing centre in North Africa. Tunisia/Morocco could work.
Well, Mr. D, is not the point of having armed forces that they be used to defend the nation's vital interests? If so then Cameron's Libyan adventure failed on just about every level.
Ghaddafi no longer funding the IRA - tick Megrahi no longer in Uk jail - tick Disincentives for migrants to try and cross the med - tick
Ed Miliband is boosted today by an exclusive poll showing Labour ahead of the Conservatives on four of the top six election issues.
In a blow to David Cameron, both Labour and Ukip are ahead of the Conservatives on immigration and asylum — an issue that senior Tories hoped would play to their favour — according to new research by Ipsos MORI.
A league table of public priorities puts the NHS first, followed by the economy, education, immigration, taxation and benefits.
I know they weight, but 42% of workers in the raw sample are public sector workers?
More nit picking because the Tories aren't doing a good enough job at convincing people to vote for them?
You are the one nit picking. How is this sample meant to be representative. I don't know how the election will turn out but the polls seem to be making it up as they go along.
I would have thought people fascinated by polling would have been writing articles on why Ukip are still getting 15% a fortnight out when the Shrewdies thought they were odds on to get single figures
Who ? Yesterdays men old thing - the Sturgasm is the only show in town.
It's more of a refusal to accept being wrong
See my follow up - Sturg and her potential 50 MPs will trump Nige's 5 every time on the tv and newsprint. See Cleggasm in 2010.
Call me crazy, but I'm tempted of betting on Lab Most Votes/Most Seats. I suspect they will fall slightly short on both counts, but with the polls as they are it surely isn't that far from a toss-up on most votes. You can get 4/1 on Lab Most Votes and Seats, which seems a bit generous.
DYOR
Why not just stick to the outrageous value on Most Seats?
Firstly, already stuffed to the gills on it. Secondly, given that Labour's 'electoral bias edge' is significantly reduced if they win most seats they may well edge most votes too.
You can get 5/1 on this on Betfair, compared to just under 2/1 on Most seats. In the circumstances that Labour win most seats is there really a 60%+ chance they do so on fewer votes?
You can't get 5/1 on Betfair any more. Cheers
*cough*
Maybe Mike's articles for Betfair are influencing the market? FWIW I don't think there's any bias to the Lab/Con result at all as things stand. Obviously random chance means both Lab/Con and Con/Lab are still possible.
I think there is a bias, but 4 or 5 to 1 against Lab votes, Lab seats is overcooking the turkey to a huge degree.
Libya was embroiled in civil war with Gaddafi bragging about a genocide. The situation there now is terrible. There's no guarantee it wouldn't be as bad if the West hadn't gotten involved [ISIS may have taken over the opposition anyway].
I agree with the basic plan of a processing centre in North Africa. Tunisia/Morocco could work.
Well, Mr. D, is not the point of having armed forces that they be used to defend the nation's vital interests? If so then Cameron's Libyan adventure failed on just about every level.
Ghaddafi no longer funding the IRA - tick Megrahi no longer in Uk jail - tick Disincentives for migrants to try and cross the med - tick
Depends how you define failure.
Yes thank God the IRA seemed to have stopped bombing us since Gaddafi died, I have really noticed the difference
Libya was embroiled in civil war with Gaddafi bragging about a genocide. The situation there now is terrible. There's no guarantee it wouldn't be as bad if the West hadn't gotten involved [ISIS may have taken over the opposition anyway].
I agree with the basic plan of a processing centre in North Africa. Tunisia/Morocco could work.
There's a whole swathe of North Africa and the Middle East now, from Libya to Nigeria, to Somalia to South Sudan, to Yemen, to Palestine, to Syria and Iraq, that is practically ungovernable.
Given the differences in ethnicity, history and underlying culture, it's weird that's happened at the same time. Almost like there was some factor they all have in common. All I can think of is lots of sunshine.
FPT @ HurstLlama. Not true that Conservatives always cut defence. Defence spending rose under Thatcher up until 1986. It also rose (belatedly) in the late 1930s under Baldwin/Chamberlain and pre-WWI for the dreadnought programme.
The UK has been in strategic retreat since WWII, so the trend has been to cut repeatedly, but that's only justifiable up until the point where any further cuts jeopardise an effective national defence, rather than just limiting a global power projection role.
Anyway, Thatcher bucks the trend. But what you can probably say is that most Conservative governments prevaricate but eventually fund defence when they realise they have to, and there's no alternative.
The weaknesses of that approach then immediately show up with the next subsequent conflict.
Thatcher had two sets of defence cuts. The first in the run up to the Falklands war when John Nott was Secretary of State for Defence (if Argentina had waited a bit Thatcher's government would have scrapped/sold the RN assets needed to mount the re-take). The second "Options for Change" was started under Thatcher and completed under Major.
As for Cameron's so called Strategic Defence Review - that really was a set of cuts that did "jeopardise an effective national defence", but he will cut again if he is returned. Note that he went to the NATO conference last year and complained that other members were not meeting the agreed 2% target but has consistently refused to commit to it himself.
There was a real terms increase in defence spending under the first 7 years of Thatcher.
I agree with your comments on Cameron.
The Strategic Defence Review of 2010 was devoid of strategy.
Libya was embroiled in civil war with Gaddafi bragging about a genocide. The situation there now is terrible. There's no guarantee it wouldn't be as bad if the West hadn't gotten involved [ISIS may have taken over the opposition anyway].
I agree with the basic plan of a processing centre in North Africa. Tunisia/Morocco could work.
Well, Mr. D, is not the point of having armed forces that they be used to defend the nation's vital interests? If so then Cameron's Libyan adventure failed on just about every level.
Ghaddafi no longer funding the IRA - tick Megrahi no longer in Uk jail - tick Disincentives for migrants to try and cross the med - tick
I would have thought people fascinated by polling would have been writing articles on why Ukip are still getting 15% a fortnight out when the Shrewdies thought they were odds on to get single figures
Who ? Yesterdays men old thing - the Sturgasm is the only show in town.
It's more of a refusal to accept being wrong
See my follow up - Sturg and her potential 50 MPs will trump Nige's 5 every time on the tv and newsprint. See Cleggasm in 2010.
That may be true, but the SNP surge doesn't dominate this sites threads, the ins and outs of polling accuracy do.. and this time last year people were forecasting UKIP VI to fall off a cliff post Euro elections, but their average is higher now
The Strategic Defence Review of 2010 was devoid of strategy.
Yes, I am afraid that is a fair comment. Liam Fox didn't seem to have done the pre-election preparation that colleagues in other departments did.
I think we will need a second go in the next parliament, assuming of course we have a government capable of doing anything other than give freebies to Nicola.
Ed Miliband is boosted today by an exclusive poll showing Labour ahead of the Conservatives on four of the top six election issues.
In a blow to David Cameron, both Labour and Ukip are ahead of the Conservatives on immigration and asylum — an issue that senior Tories hoped would play to their favour — according to new research by Ipsos MORI.
A league table of public priorities puts the NHS first, followed by the economy, education, immigration, taxation and benefits.
I know they weight, but 42% of workers in the raw sample are public sector workers?
More nit picking because the Tories aren't doing a good enough job at convincing people to vote for them?
You are the one nit picking. How is this sample meant to be representative. I don't know how the election will turn out but the polls seem to be making it up as they go along.
I just think people wading through the sub samples looking for weighting problems to explain why "their" party is where it is looks a bit desperate?
And I used to say the same back around 2008-2010 when Labour supporters would do the same (remember all the criticism we hard from Livingstone about YouGov during the 2008 Mayoral election?)
I would have thought people fascinated by polling would have been writing articles on why Ukip are still getting 15% a fortnight out when the Shrewdies thought they were odds on to get single figures
Who ? Yesterdays men old thing - the Sturgasm is the only show in town.
It's more of a refusal to accept being wrong
See my follow up - Sturg and her potential 50 MPs will trump Nige's 5 every time on the tv and newsprint. See Cleggasm in 2010.
That may be true, but the SNP surge doesn't dominate this sites threads, the ins and outs of polling accuracy do.. and this time last year people were forecasting UKIP VI to fall off a cliff post Euro elections, but their average is higher now
Not sure I remember that but what is your par MPs score for Kippers to have had a good election ?
Libya was embroiled in civil war with Gaddafi bragging about a genocide. The situation there now is terrible. There's no guarantee it wouldn't be as bad if the West hadn't gotten involved [ISIS may have taken over the opposition anyway].
I agree with the basic plan of a processing centre in North Africa. Tunisia/Morocco could work.
Well, Mr. D, is not the point of having armed forces that they be used to defend the nation's vital interests? If so then Cameron's Libyan adventure failed on just about every level.
Ghaddafi no longer funding the IRA - tick Megrahi no longer in Uk jail - tick Disincentives for migrants to try and cross the med - tick
Libya was embroiled in civil war with Gaddafi bragging about a genocide. The situation there now is terrible. There's no guarantee it wouldn't be as bad if the West hadn't gotten involved [ISIS may have taken over the opposition anyway].
I agree with the basic plan of a processing centre in North Africa. Tunisia/Morocco could work.
There's a whole swathe of North Africa and the Middle East now, from Libya to Nigeria, to Somalia to South Sudan, to Yemen, to Palestine, to Syria and Iraq, that is practically ungovernable.
Given the differences in ethnicity, history and underlying culture, it's weird that's happened at the same time. Almost like there was some factor they all have in common. All I can think of is lots of sunshine.
Someone's nicked my idea. Can I note at the same time my other stellar tax idea which would be the opposite of tax avoidance. Anyone who thinks we should pay more tax in a particular area can promote that idea through the HMRC by actually paying the increase. Therefore if you go to th corporation tax page a business can promote for a year by paying the tax. This will be sorted by value on absolute and proportional so that if someone is poor the widow 's mite principle will apply, as in marks gospel.
Then when a numpty like Russell Brand says we need 75% tax rate then we could justly say that he could put his money where his mouth was. If that was in operation then I imagine we would see the number of famous people lecturing on tax go down massively. You could apply the same to tax cuts by getting them to put in the amount they would save as good will, rather than donating direct to conservative central office.
I'm baffled by the negative comments about the Conservative campaign, although to be fair most of such comments come from the usual suspects. The campaign is clearly much better than 2010, 2005, 2001, and 1997. 1992 was a dog's breakfast until John Major took things in hand with his (initially much-derided) soap-box. The campaigns of the Thatcher years were of course much easier, given the Falklands factor and the complete disarray of the opposition.
Overall, therefore, I'd say this is one of the best Tory campaigns of recent elections: the focus on the economy has been consistent, and they've done a good job dampening down potential problem areas such as the NHS and immigration. In addition, canvassing and communication are much better than 2010 - Grant Shapps, for all his faults, has really improved the mechanics.
Oh, and the SNP card is playing extremely well, although that was a free gift from Nicola to help her friend Dave.
If the SNP card is playing sp well, at what point will it actually show up in the polling? Because since the Tories started it, they've seen reverse crossover.
Bit of a simple question about betting here, so apologies if this is obvious:
If somebody were to place a large amount of money on Lib Dems winning most seats, what impact if any would this have on the odds?
I guess I'm trying to understand if the odds are driven by probability of an outcome, or by the risk of loss to the bookmaker.
Any help or clarity on this would be great
The odds are driven by both. Initially the bookies set them based on their assessment of the probability, but if punters pile on to one particular outcome they'll adjust the odds to reflect the market view.
Having said that, I don't think that piling on to LD Most Seats would have any impact other than to bid up Xmas bonuses at the bookies!
Mr. F, indeed. The Coalition has been weak on Defence, which is particularly troubling given the global situation, Argentine bullshittery over the Falklands, and the fact spending on it wasn't high enough when the Government came to office.
Libya was embroiled in civil war with Gaddafi bragging about a genocide. The situation there now is terrible. There's no guarantee it wouldn't be as bad if the West hadn't gotten involved [ISIS may have taken over the opposition anyway].
I agree with the basic plan of a processing centre in North Africa. Tunisia/Morocco could work.
There's a whole swathe of North Africa and the Middle East now, from Libya to Nigeria, to Somalia to South Sudan, to Yemen, to Palestine, to Syria and Iraq, that is practically ungovernable.
Given the differences in ethnicity, history and underlying culture, it's weird that's happened at the same time. Almost like there was some factor they all have in common. All I can think of is lots of sunshine.
If the SNP card is playing sp well, at what point will it actually show up in the polling? Because since the Tories started it, they've seen reverse crossover.
Libya was embroiled in civil war with Gaddafi bragging about a genocide. The situation there now is terrible. There's no guarantee it wouldn't be as bad if the West hadn't gotten involved [ISIS may have taken over the opposition anyway].
I agree with the basic plan of a processing centre in North Africa. Tunisia/Morocco could work.
There's a whole swathe of North Africa and the Middle East now, from Libya to Nigeria, to Somalia to South Sudan, to Yemen, to Palestine, to Syria and Iraq, that is practically ungovernable.
Given the differences in ethnicity, history and underlying culture, it's weird that's happened at the same time. Almost like there was some factor they all have in common. All I can think of is lots of sunshine.
This normal voter happens to be writing articles for the Daily Mail and even had the opportunity to discuss his devious plan with the great man himself, I mean David Cameron not Jim Murphy.
To quote the Tory candidate in Gordon:
"Colin Clark, the Tory candidate in the seat, accused Ms Jardine of "desperation" and said her tactics were motivated by the collapse of her core vote. "Nationally the Liberals are polling at four per cent," he said. "People who are voting tactically for them are under false pretences, their own core vote has disappeared. That's true in Gordon just like it is everywhere else. Tactical voting is the saviour of a party with no policies".
In Stirling, the Tories are almost certainly in second place to the SNP. Nice of their supporters to abandon them for the already finished Anne Mcguire. Should boost the SNP majority a good chunk.
Bit of a simple question about betting here, so apologies if this is obvious:
If somebody were to place a large amount of money on Lib Dems winning most seats, what impact if any would this have on the odds?
I guess I'm trying to understand if the odds are driven by probability of an outcome, or by the risk of loss to the bookmaker.
Any help or clarity on this would be great
The odds are driven by both. Initially the bookies set them based on their assessment of the probability, but if punters pile on to one particular outcome they'll adjust the odds to reflect the market view.
Having said that, I don't think that piling on to LD Most Seats would have any impact other than to bid up Xmas bonuses at the bookies!
Thanks for that
Obviously that'd be a pretty dumb bet. But it was actually the grand national that got me thinking about it, I think one of the horses went as tight as 7-1, and from a probability perspective it seemed baffling that those odds could reflect the outcome, so it must be the money being placed on the outcome.
Libya was embroiled in civil war with Gaddafi bragging about a genocide. The situation there now is terrible. There's no guarantee it wouldn't be as bad if the West hadn't gotten involved [ISIS may have taken over the opposition anyway].
I agree with the basic plan of a processing centre in North Africa. Tunisia/Morocco could work.
There's a whole swathe of North Africa and the Middle East now, from Libya to Nigeria, to Somalia to South Sudan, to Yemen, to Palestine, to Syria and Iraq, that is practically ungovernable.
Given the differences in ethnicity, history and underlying culture, it's weird that's happened at the same time. Almost like there was some factor they all have in common. All I can think of is lots of sunshine.
Libya was embroiled in civil war with Gaddafi bragging about a genocide. The situation there now is terrible. There's no guarantee it wouldn't be as bad if the West hadn't gotten involved [ISIS may have taken over the opposition anyway].
I agree with the basic plan of a processing centre in North Africa. Tunisia/Morocco could work.
There's a whole swathe of North Africa and the Middle East now, from Libya to Nigeria, to Somalia to South Sudan, to Yemen, to Palestine, to Syria and Iraq, that is practically ungovernable.
Given the differences in ethnicity, history and underlying culture, it's weird that's happened at the same time. Almost like there was some factor they all have in common. All I can think of is lots of sunshine.
I'm baffled by the negative comments about the Conservative campaign, although to be fair most of such comments come from the usual suspects. The campaign is clearly much better than 2010, 2005, 2001, and 1997. 1992 was a dog's breakfast until John Major took things in hand with his (initially much-derided) soap-box. The campaigns of the Thatcher years were of course much easier, given the Falklands factor and the complete disarray of the opposition.
Overall, therefore, I'd say this is one of the best Tory campaigns of recent elections: the focus on the economy has been consistent, and they've done a good job dampening down potential problem areas such as the NHS and immigration. In addition, canvassing and communication are much better than 2010 - Grant Shapps, for all his faults, has really improved the mechanics.
Oh, and the SNP card is playing extremely well, although that was a free gift from Nicola to help her friend Dave.
I would have thought people fascinated by polling would have been writing articles on why Ukip are still getting 15% a fortnight out when the Shrewdies thought they were odds on to get single figures
Must admit I am genuinely surprised that so many turkeys are apparently going to vote for Christmas...
Well of course we are, because we know what we're talking about and how the electoral maths works out.
The polls show an expectation amongst voters that Cameron will win the election / remain PM at least. EdM is seen as not up to the job, albeit that is rapidly eroding.
So I can see why UKIP inclined voters think voting UKIP will toughen the sinews of a re-elected Dave. You and I know it won't re-elect Dave, it will put Ed and Nicola in.
But that message isn't getting across because Tory HQ is stupidly obsessed about the SNP and not demolishing UKIP - the only single thing that could still return them to power should they manage to knock them down to single figures.
Mr. F, indeed. The Coalition has been weak on Defence, which is particularly troubling given the global situation, Argentine bullshittery over the Falklands, and the fact spending on it wasn't high enough when the Government came to office.
The 0.7% foreign aid target is demented.
Maintaining the ability to kill foreigners is clearly much more important than trying to save the lives of foreigners.
If the SNP card is playing sp well, at what point will it actually show up in the polling? Because since the Tories started it, they've seen reverse crossover.
It's a bit of a dumb really.
An English voter switching from Lab to Con or vice versa doesn't impact the SNP bloc in Westminster at all. Which, unless you believe a chunky majority is likely, will carry clout whomever resides in number 10.
Arguably if you really don't like the SNP you should vote LibDem in England where they have a chance to win.
Libya was embroiled in civil war with Gaddafi bragging about a genocide. The situation there now is terrible. There's no guarantee it wouldn't be as bad if the West hadn't gotten involved [ISIS may have taken over the opposition anyway].
I agree with the basic plan of a processing centre in North Africa. Tunisia/Morocco could work.
There's a whole swathe of North Africa and the Middle East now, from Libya to Nigeria, to Somalia to South Sudan, to Yemen, to Palestine, to Syria and Iraq, that is practically ungovernable.
Given the differences in ethnicity, history and underlying culture, it's weird that's happened at the same time. Almost like there was some factor they all have in common. All I can think of is lots of sunshine.
Libya was embroiled in civil war with Gaddafi bragging about a genocide. The situation there now is terrible. There's no guarantee it wouldn't be as bad if the West hadn't gotten involved [ISIS may have taken over the opposition anyway].
I agree with the basic plan of a processing centre in North Africa. Tunisia/Morocco could work.
There's a whole swathe of North Africa and the Middle East now, from Libya to Nigeria, to Somalia to South Sudan, to Yemen, to Palestine, to Syria and Iraq, that is practically ungovernable.
Given the differences in ethnicity, history and underlying culture, it's weird that's happened at the same time. Almost like there was some factor they all have in common. All I can think of is lots of sunshine.
But that message isn't getting across because Tory HQ is stupidly obsessed about the SNP and not demolishing UKIP - the only single thing that could still return them to power should they manage to knock them down to single figures.
In my experience the single argument which is most effective in persuading UKIP/Con waverers to return to the Tories is the SNP one. So I think they are doing exactly the right thing in that respect, although it's effective even without the Tories doing anything.
I would have thought people fascinated by polling would have been writing articles on why Ukip are still getting 15% a fortnight out when the Shrewdies thought they were odds on to get single figures
Who ? Yesterdays men old thing - the Sturgasm is the only show in town.
It's more of a refusal to accept being wrong
See my follow up - Sturg and her potential 50 MPs will trump Nige's 5 every time on the tv and newsprint. See Cleggasm in 2010.
That may be true, but the SNP surge doesn't dominate this sites threads, the ins and outs of polling accuracy do.. and this time last year people were forecasting UKIP VI to fall off a cliff post Euro elections, but their average is higher now
Not sure I remember that but what is your par MPs score for Kippers to have had a good election ?
Re read the threads
Strangely worded question as you use 'par score' and 'good election'
I'm baffled by the negative comments about the Conservative campaign, although to be fair most of such comments come from the usual suspects. The campaign is clearly much better than 2010, 2005, 2001, and 1997. 1992 was a dog's breakfast until John Major took things in hand with his (initially much-derided) soap-box. The campaigns of the Thatcher years were of course much easier, given the Falklands factor and the complete disarray of the opposition.
Overall, therefore, I'd say this is one of the best Tory campaigns of recent elections: the focus on the economy has been consistent, and they've done a good job dampening down potential problem areas such as the NHS and immigration. In addition, canvassing and communication are much better than 2010 - Grant Shapps, for all his faults, has really improved the mechanics.
Oh, and the SNP card is playing extremely well, although that was a free gift from Nicola to help her friend Dave.
I would have thought people fascinated by polling would have been writing articles on why Ukip are still getting 15% a fortnight out when the Shrewdies thought they were odds on to get single figures
Must admit I am genuinely surprised that so many turkeys are apparently going to vote for Christmas...
Well of course we are, because we know what we're talking about and how the electoral maths works out.
The polls show an expectation amongst voters that Cameron will win the election / remain PM at least. EdM is seen as not up to the job, albeit that is rapidly eroding.
So I can see why UKIP inclined voters think voting UKIP will toughen the sinews of a re-elected Dave. You and I know it won't re-elect Dave, it will put Ed and Nicola in.
But that message isn't getting across because Tory HQ is stupidly obsessed about the SNP and not demolishing UKIP - the only single thing that could still return them to power should they manage to knock them down to single figures.
Bob, the focus on the SNP is aimed squarely at Kippers. (As is the focus on Ed).
If the SNP card is playing sp well, at what point will it actually show up in the polling? Because since the Tories started it, they've seen reverse crossover.
It's a bit of a dumb really.
An English voter switching from Lab to Con or vice versa doesn't impact the SNP bloc in Westminster at all. Which, unless you believe a chunky majority is likely, will carry clout whomever resides in number 10.
Arguably if you really don't like the SNP you should vote LibDem in England where they have a chance to win.
thats a bit simplistic, if anything its there to attract current UKIP voters which might return to the fold.
Libya was embroiled in civil war with Gaddafi bragging about a genocide. The situation there now is terrible. There's no guarantee it wouldn't be as bad if the West hadn't gotten involved [ISIS may have taken over the opposition anyway].
I agree with the basic plan of a processing centre in North Africa. Tunisia/Morocco could work.
There's a whole swathe of North Africa and the Middle East now, from Libya to Nigeria, to Somalia to South Sudan, to Yemen, to Palestine, to Syria and Iraq, that is practically ungovernable.
Given the differences in ethnicity, history and underlying culture, it's weird that's happened at the same time. Almost like there was some factor they all have in common. All I can think of is lots of sunshine.
This normal voter happens to be writing articles for the Daily Mail and even had the opportunity to discuss his devious plan with the great man himself, I mean David Cameron not Jim Murphy.
To quote the Tory candidate in Gordon:
"Colin Clark, the Tory candidate in the seat, accused Ms Jardine of "desperation" and said her tactics were motivated by the collapse of her core vote. "Nationally the Liberals are polling at four per cent," he said. "People who are voting tactically for them are under false pretences, their own core vote has disappeared. That's true in Gordon just like it is everywhere else. Tactical voting is the saviour of a party with no policies".
In Stirling, the Tories are almost certainly in second place to the SNP. Nice of their supporters to abandon them for the already finished Anne Mcguire. Should boost the SNP majority a good chunk.
I don't know it you're right, but odds of 20-1 are available on just this proposition...
Mr. Rentool, maintaining the capacity of this country to defend its territories and interests matters far more than throwing money around willy-nilly. Acute aid in response to a specific crisis (disease, famine, etc) is a very good thing. Chronic aid, hooking up nations to a steady drip of money, doesn't bloody work.
If we actually want Africa to get richer we need to reduce trade barriers, encourage business and use growth to lift the poor from their poverty (as has happened in China and India).
Libya was embroiled in civil war with Gaddafi bragging about a genocide. The situation there now is terrible. There's no guarantee it wouldn't be as bad if the West hadn't gotten involved [ISIS may have taken over the opposition anyway].
I agree with the basic plan of a processing centre in North Africa. Tunisia/Morocco could work.
There's a whole swathe of North Africa and the Middle East now, from Libya to Nigeria, to Somalia to South Sudan, to Yemen, to Palestine, to Syria and Iraq, that is practically ungovernable.
Given the differences in ethnicity, history and underlying culture, it's weird that's happened at the same time. Almost like there was some factor they all have in common. All I can think of is lots of sunshine.
Libya was embroiled in civil war with Gaddafi bragging about a genocide. The situation there now is terrible. There's no guarantee it wouldn't be as bad if the West hadn't gotten involved [ISIS may have taken over the opposition anyway].
I agree with the basic plan of a processing centre in North Africa. Tunisia/Morocco could work.
There's a whole swathe of North Africa and the Middle East now, from Libya to Nigeria, to Somalia to South Sudan, to Yemen, to Palestine, to Syria and Iraq, that is practically ungovernable.
Given the differences in ethnicity, history and underlying culture, it's weird that's happened at the same time. Almost like there was some factor they all have in common. All I can think of is lots of sunshine.
I think it could be the opposite: the London metropolitan elite will think it very right-on to espouse support for the SNP, just as they did with Clegg in 2010. Real patriotic Englishmen and women in the shires, however, might not be happy with an out-of-hand Scottish political party - led by, it seems, a ferocious Scottish Wee Jimmy Krankie- bossing the UK majority around.
The Tories have made no headway in this election but I agree with the growing opinion that the whole SNP-Labour thing is the only narrative the Tories can now use that could break through to the public consciousness in any concerted way. Nothing else has worked, so it's probably worth a punt.
Mr. F, indeed. The Coalition has been weak on Defence, which is particularly troubling given the global situation, Argentine bullshittery over the Falklands, and the fact spending on it wasn't high enough when the Government came to office.
The 0.7% foreign aid target is demented.
Maintaining the ability to kill foreigners is clearly much more important than trying to save the lives of foreigners.
This normal voter happens to be writing articles for the Daily Mail and even had the opportunity to discuss his devious plan with the great man himself, I mean David Cameron not Jim Murphy.
To quote the Tory candidate in Gordon:
"Colin Clark, the Tory candidate in the seat, accused Ms Jardine of "desperation" and said her tactics were motivated by the collapse of her core vote. "Nationally the Liberals are polling at four per cent," he said. "People who are voting tactically for them are under false pretences, their own core vote has disappeared. That's true in Gordon just like it is everywhere else. Tactical voting is the saviour of a party with no policies".
In Stirling, the Tories are almost certainly in second place to the SNP. Nice of their supporters to abandon them for the already finished Anne Mcguire. Should boost the SNP majority a good chunk.
I don't know it you're right, but odds of 20-1 are available on just this proposition...
But that message isn't getting across because Tory HQ is stupidly obsessed about the SNP and not demolishing UKIP - the only single thing that could still return them to power should they manage to knock them down to single figures.
In my experience the single argument which is most effective in persuading UKIP/Con waverers to return to the Tories is the SNP one. So I think they are doing exactly the right thing in that respect, although it's effective even without the Tories doing anything.
You don't get it.
An anecdotal experience which has no polling evidence is not real. It is merely confirmation bias affecting your judgement.
""My view on the SNP "threat" is that it resonates well in Surrey Heath but is barely an issue anywhere else. Indeed, the reception Sturgeon is getting is probably undermining every single Sturgeon with Ed in pocket billboard poster appearing in every northern working class Tory held marginal. I mentioned the one on the main st in Colne (Pendle) last week - I think many in Colne are looking at that as a prospectus and thinking "I quite like the sound of that, how do I vote for her?"
That's why the Tory focus on the SNP is going so catastrophically, calamitously wrong.
Why can only a handful of us see this??""
There is a strange love affair between some of the English and the SNP which is hard to fathom. The SNP are highly political and only look after themselves. If you are a Scot who does not agree with them then you are ostracised at every junction. If something goes wrong then it is always the fault of the b...dy English.
What amazes me is that it is only the Tories who have the guts to take them head on whilst Labour seem to think they can be their friends. I had a Scottish Labour leaflet today which attacked the Tories / Coalition in 4 sections while ignored the SNP. The only way that Labour will hold their seat is convincing the 20% who support Lib Dems / Tories to help them. Guess what the result of our seat will be.
The Tory campaign is weak but I see their attack on the SNP as the only area where they actually are showing strength. Much better than trying to bribe the electorate with their own money.
If you want an SNP government then move to Scotland. At least Sinn Fein only take the expenses and don't bother sitting in the house of commons they want no part of.
The last time I looked there was no utopia north of the border. It is pretty much th he same as the rest of the country with more tartan.
The weakest part of the manifesto launch was the easy believe ism. It is hardly credible to say that the answer to our problems is that government is not spending enough money. The Tories are not so stupid that they would purposefully cut spending when the popular option of increasing spending was the answer
Will Straw parachuted into R&D will not help either.
I'm afraid it's not confidential think tank information the likes of which you have access to but us ordinary punters have been impressed with the swing young Will Straw seems to have achieved according to the Lord Ashcroft poll of the constituency.
Mmm, that does not come from my "confidential" sources but JS is none too popular around certain parts of Lancashire and there was some dissatisfaction with his nomination
And yet the polling suggests he's performing well.
That then goes back to the question of whether you believe the pollsters, particularly with regards to UKIP.
This normal voter happens to be writing articles for the Daily Mail and even had the opportunity to discuss his devious plan with the great man himself, I mean David Cameron not Jim Murphy.
To quote the Tory candidate in Gordon:
"Colin Clark, the Tory candidate in the seat, accused Ms Jardine of "desperation" and said her tactics were motivated by the collapse of her core vote. "Nationally the Liberals are polling at four per cent," he said. "People who are voting tactically for them are under false pretences, their own core vote has disappeared. That's true in Gordon just like it is everywhere else. Tactical voting is the saviour of a party with no policies".
In Stirling, the Tories are almost certainly in second place to the SNP. Nice of their supporters to abandon them for the already finished Anne Mcguire. Should boost the SNP majority a good chunk.
I don't know it you're right, but odds of 20-1 are available on just this proposition...
This normal voter happens to be writing articles for the Daily Mail and even had the opportunity to discuss his devious plan with the great man himself, I mean David Cameron not Jim Murphy.
To quote the Tory candidate in Gordon:
"Colin Clark, the Tory candidate in the seat, accused Ms Jardine of "desperation" and said her tactics were motivated by the collapse of her core vote. "Nationally the Liberals are polling at four per cent," he said. "People who are voting tactically for them are under false pretences, their own core vote has disappeared. That's true in Gordon just like it is everywhere else. Tactical voting is the saviour of a party with no policies".
In Stirling, the Tories are almost certainly in second place to the SNP. Nice of their supporters to abandon them for the already finished Anne Mcguire. Should boost the SNP majority a good chunk.
I don't know it you're right, but odds of 20-1 are available on just this proposition...
An anecdotal experience which has no polling evidence is not real. It is merely confirmation bias affecting your judgement.
Believe what you want. The fact that I've made a profit in every single quarter since I first started betting on politics in 2008 suggests that my judgement might not be too bad. If you wait for the polling evidence, it's too late.
This normal voter happens to be writing articles for the Daily Mail and even had the opportunity to discuss his devious plan with the great man himself, I mean David Cameron not Jim Murphy.
To quote the Tory candidate in Gordon:
"Colin Clark, the Tory candidate in the seat, accused Ms Jardine of "desperation" and said her tactics were motivated by the collapse of her core vote. "Nationally the Liberals are polling at four per cent," he said. "People who are voting tactically for them are under false pretences, their own core vote has disappeared. That's true in Gordon just like it is everywhere else. Tactical voting is the saviour of a party with no policies".
In Stirling, the Tories are almost certainly in second place to the SNP. Nice of their supporters to abandon them for the already finished Anne Mcguire. Should boost the SNP majority a good chunk.
I don't know it you're right, but odds of 20-1 are available on just this proposition...
Stirling was a Tory stronghold, it was Michael Forsyth's seat for years. It's very middle class, very aspirational and includes the most expensive properties outside of Aberdeen and Edinburgh. We know the Tory vote has not fallen anywhere, so we know they are on at least their (low point in the constituency) 24%.
That Spread is very, very attractive. That might be the best value bet left in Scotland.
Ed Miliband is boosted today by an exclusive poll showing Labour ahead of the Conservatives on four of the top six election issues.
In a blow to David Cameron, both Labour and Ukip are ahead of the Conservatives on immigration and asylum — an issue that senior Tories hoped would play to their favour — according to new research by Ipsos MORI.
A league table of public priorities puts the NHS first, followed by the economy, education, immigration, taxation and benefits.
I know they weight, but 42% of workers in the raw sample are public sector workers?
More nit picking because the Tories aren't doing a good enough job at convincing people to vote for them?
You are the one nit picking. How is this sample meant to be representative. I don't know how the election will turn out but the polls seem to be making it up as they go along.
I just think people wading through the sub samples looking for weighting problems to explain why "their" party is where it is looks a bit desperate?
And I used to say the same back around 2008-2010 when Labour supporters would do the same (remember all the criticism we hard from Livingstone about YouGov during the 2008 Mayoral election?)
You don't think that ignoring the facts is just the same as you claim?
This normal voter happens to be writing articles for the Daily Mail and even had the opportunity to discuss his devious plan with the great man himself, I mean David Cameron not Jim Murphy.
To quote the Tory candidate in Gordon:
"Colin Clark, the Tory candidate in the seat, accused Ms Jardine of "desperation" and said her tactics were motivated by the collapse of her core vote. "Nationally the Liberals are polling at four per cent," he said. "People who are voting tactically for them are under false pretences, their own core vote has disappeared. That's true in Gordon just like it is everywhere else. Tactical voting is the saviour of a party with no policies".
In Stirling, the Tories are almost certainly in second place to the SNP. Nice of their supporters to abandon them for the already finished Anne Mcguire. Should boost the SNP majority a good chunk.
I don't know it you're right, but odds of 20-1 are available on just this proposition...
This normal voter happens to be writing articles for the Daily Mail and even had the opportunity to discuss his devious plan with the great man himself, I mean David Cameron not Jim Murphy.
To quote the Tory candidate in Gordon:
"Colin Clark, the Tory candidate in the seat, accused Ms Jardine of "desperation" and said her tactics were motivated by the collapse of her core vote. "Nationally the Liberals are polling at four per cent," he said. "People who are voting tactically for them are under false pretences, their own core vote has disappeared. That's true in Gordon just like it is everywhere else. Tactical voting is the saviour of a party with no policies".
In Stirling, the Tories are almost certainly in second place to the SNP. Nice of their supporters to abandon them for the already finished Anne Mcguire. Should boost the SNP majority a good chunk.
I don't know it you're right, but odds of 20-1 are available on just this proposition...
Stirling was a Tory stronghold, it was Michael Forsyth's seat for years. It's very middle class, very aspirational and includes the most expensive properties outside of Aberdeen and Edinburgh. We know the Tory vote has not fallen anywhere, so we know they are on at least their (low point in the constituency) 24%.
That Spread is very, very attractive. That might be the best value bet left in Scotland.
FWIW, I have the following from my model (which doesn't bother to try modelling tactical voting):
The Strategic Defence Review of 2010 was devoid of strategy.
Yes, I am afraid that is a fair comment. Liam Fox didn't seem to have done the pre-election preparation that colleagues in other departments did.
I think we will need a second go in the next parliament, assuming of course we have a government capable of doing anything other than give freebies to Nicola.
If Cameron does get back in the 2015 defence review will be conducted on the same basis as the 2010 review. Why would it not be, the same people will be in charge. The defence secretary's role is only to adjudicate on how the Treasury imposed cuts will be divided up between the three services.
Mr. F, indeed. The Coalition has been weak on Defence, which is particularly troubling given the global situation, Argentine bullshittery over the Falklands, and the fact spending on it wasn't high enough when the Government came to office.
The 0.7% foreign aid target is demented.
Maintaining the ability to kill foreigners is clearly much more important than trying to save the lives of foreigners.
Defence is not about the ability to kill foreigners but to protect the UK and her allies, should they be attacked.
Will Straw parachuted into R&D will not help either.
I'm afraid it's not confidential think tank information the likes of which you have access to but us ordinary punters have been impressed with the swing young Will Straw seems to have achieved according to the Lord Ashcroft poll of the constituency.
Mmm, that does not come from my "confidential" sources but JS is none too popular around certain parts of Lancashire and there was some dissatisfaction with his nomination
And yet the polling suggests he's performing well.
That then goes back to the question of whether you believe the pollsters, particularly with regards to UKIP.
I give it more weight than I do baseless assertions from anonymous posters on the internet.
Mr. Pit, one does wonder if he'll be getting paid in vodka.
Saw an F1 rich list a while ago. Listed Raikkonen as richer than the Renault owner/team boss, and Schumacher had a vast amount of wealth (£700m or thereabouts).
This normal voter happens to be writing articles for the Daily Mail and even had the opportunity to discuss his devious plan with the great man himself, I mean David Cameron not Jim Murphy.
To quote the Tory candidate in Gordon:
"Colin Clark, the Tory candidate in the seat, accused Ms Jardine of "desperation" and said her tactics were motivated by the collapse of her core vote. "Nationally the Liberals are polling at four per cent," he said. "People who are voting tactically for them are under false pretences, their own core vote has disappeared. That's true in Gordon just like it is everywhere else. Tactical voting is the saviour of a party with no policies".
In Stirling, the Tories are almost certainly in second place to the SNP. Nice of their supporters to abandon them for the already finished Anne Mcguire. Should boost the SNP majority a good chunk.
I don't know it you're right, but odds of 20-1 are available on just this proposition...
Libya was embroiled in civil war with Gaddafi bragging about a genocide. The situation there now is terrible. There's no guarantee it wouldn't be as bad if the West hadn't gotten involved [ISIS may have taken over the opposition anyway].
I agree with the basic plan of a processing centre in North Africa. Tunisia/Morocco could work.
Well, Mr. D, is not the point of having armed forces that they be used to defend the nation's vital interests? If so then Cameron's Libyan adventure failed on just about every level.
Ghaddafi no longer funding the IRA - tick Megrahi no longer in Uk jail - tick Disincentives for migrants to try and cross the med - tick
Libya was embroiled in civil war with Gaddafi bragging about a genocide. The situation there now is terrible. There's no guarantee it wouldn't be as bad if the West hadn't gotten involved [ISIS may have taken over the opposition anyway].
I agree with the basic plan of a processing centre in North Africa. Tunisia/Morocco could work.
There's a whole swathe of North Africa and the Middle East now, from Libya to Nigeria, to Somalia to South Sudan, to Yemen, to Palestine, to Syria and Iraq, that is practically ungovernable.
Given the differences in ethnicity, history and underlying culture, it's weird that's happened at the same time. Almost like there was some factor they all have in common. All I can think of is lots of sunshine.
"95% of the small sample of Scottish National party respondents in this latest survey state that their mind is made up, making it increasingly hard to imagine how Scottish Labour can pull back from the thrashing that all the Scottish polls have been projecting."
Any chance Betfair Sportsbook might like to settle early off the back of that?
Libya was embroiled in civil war with Gaddafi bragging about a genocide. The situation there now is terrible. There's no guarantee it wouldn't be as bad if the West hadn't gotten involved [ISIS may have taken over the opposition anyway].
I agree with the basic plan of a processing centre in North Africa. Tunisia/Morocco could work.
There's a whole swathe of North Africa and the Middle East now, from Libya to Nigeria, to Somalia to South Sudan, to Yemen, to Palestine, to Syria and Iraq, that is practically ungovernable.
Given the differences in ethnicity, history and underlying culture, it's weird that's happened at the same time. Almost like there was some factor they all have in common. All I can think of is lots of sunshine.
On topic: thanks for the article on the previous thread. Very interesting.
Re the SNP. Is there a risk of hubris, particularly among Scottish voters? Is Ms Sturgeon taking Scottish voters for granted? And could there be a swing back to SLAB, as a result? I'd be interested in the views of our Scottish posters.
FPT @ HurstLlama. Not true that Conservatives always cut defence. Defence spending rose under Thatcher up until 1986. It also rose (belatedly) in the late 1930s under Baldwin/Chamberlain and pre-WWI for the dreadnought programme.
The UK has been in strategic retreat since WWII, so the trend has been to cut repeatedly, but that's only justifiable up until the point where any further cuts jeopardise an effective national defence, rather than just limiting a global power projection role.
Anyway, Thatcher bucks the trend. But what you can probably say is that most Conservative governments prevaricate but eventually fund defence when they realise they have to, and there's no alternative.
The weaknesses of that approach then immediately show up with the next subsequent conflict.
Thatcher had two sets of defence cuts. The first in the run up to the Falklands war when John Nott was Secretary of State for Defence (if Argentina had waited a bit Thatcher's government would have scrapped/sold the RN assets needed to mount the re-take). The second "Options for Change" was started under Thatcher and completed under Major.
As for Cameron's so called Strategic Defence Review - that really was a set of cuts that did "jeopardise an effective national defence", but he will cut again if he is returned. Note that he went to the NATO conference last year and complained that other members were not meeting the agreed 2% target but has consistently refused to commit to it himself.
There was a real terms increase in defence spending under the first 7 years of Thatcher.
I agree with your comments on Cameron.
The Strategic Defence Review of 2010 was devoid of strategy.
Not this government's finest hour, although they had one hand tied behind their back by the carriers decision (thanks Gordon!) and the huge hole in the MoD budget - and a few peaceniks in yellow sandals didn't help too much either!
Comments
""My view on the SNP "threat" is that it resonates well in Surrey Heath but is barely an issue anywhere else. Indeed, the reception Sturgeon is getting is probably undermining every single Sturgeon with Ed in pocket billboard poster appearing in every northern working class Tory held marginal. I mentioned the one on the main st in Colne (Pendle) last week - I think many in Colne are looking at that as a prospectus and thinking "I quite like the sound of that, how do I vote for her?"
That's why the Tory focus on the SNP is going so catastrophically, calamitously wrong.
Why can only a handful of us see this??""
There is a strange love affair between some of the English and the SNP which is hard to fathom. The SNP are highly political and only look after themselves. If you are a Scot who does not agree with them then you are ostracised at every junction. If something goes wrong then it is always the fault of the b...dy English.
What amazes me is that it is only the Tories who have the guts to take them head on whilst Labour seem to think they can be their friends. I had a Scottish Labour leaflet today which attacked the Tories / Coalition in 4 sections while ignored the SNP. The only way that Labour will hold their seat is convincing the 20% who support Lib Dems / Tories to help them. Guess what the result of our seat will be.
The Tory campaign is weak but I see their attack on the SNP as the only area where they actually are showing strength. Much better than trying to bribe the electorate with their own money.
Weighted total: 1,000.
Con 266 (26.6%), Lab 290 (29%), LD 68 (6.8%), UKIP 95 (9.5%).
p.3
https://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Polls/polmon-april2015-issues-tables.pdf
I agree with your comments on Cameron.
Same for the economy and the NHS - tv and papers are not interested in such trivialities - it's all about the post election deals. As Nige will have at most 5 MPs, the arithmetic has relegated him to an also ran.
I agree some sort of secure and safe accommodation and processing facility, perhaps on a Mediterranean Island, would be the best solution. But the most likely outcome of this is that the EU feels morally obliged to protect and accommodate every single boat crossing the Mediterranean. And mass migration continues.
This is superb value imo (I've had £40.)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/32383584
Megrahi no longer in Uk jail - tick
Disincentives for migrants to try and cross the med - tick
Depends how you define failure.
Even monkey?
If that idea is still floating around with prominence in the final week expect a late surge towards the blues ... unfortunately for popcorn makers.
But the Tory manifesto was an excellent document likely delivering some policies good for the country.
Lab = great campaign, calamitous policies.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11549721/The-900-refugees-dead-in-the-Mediterranean-were-killed-by-British-government-policy.html
I think we will need a second go in the next parliament, assuming of course we have a government capable of doing anything other than give freebies to Nicola.
And I used to say the same back around 2008-2010 when Labour supporters would do the same (remember all the criticism we hard from Livingstone about YouGov during the 2008 Mayoral election?)
If somebody were to place a large amount of money on Lib Dems winning most seats, what impact if any would this have on the odds?
I guess I'm trying to understand if the odds are driven by probability of an outcome, or by the risk of loss to the bookmaker.
Any help or clarity on this would be great
https://consortiumnews.com/2015/04/13/neocon-chaos-promotion-in-the-mideast/
Israel has a long term strategy of fomenting religious and racial hatred in the region in order to weaken their opponents.
http://www.monabaker.com/pMachine/more.php?id=A2298_0_1_0_M
http://mycatbirdseat.com/2014/07/the-unfolding-of-yinons-zionist-plan-for-the-middle-east-the-crisis-in-iraq-and-the-centrality-of-the-national-interest-of-israel/
Fortunately we have our anecdotes to fall back on and they're confidently predicting that the shameless bribing of the electorate is working.
.........In fact it's working so well an overall majority isn't out of the question.
Someone's nicked my idea. Can I note at the same time my other stellar tax idea which would be the opposite of tax avoidance. Anyone who thinks we should pay more tax in a particular area can promote that idea through the HMRC by actually paying the increase. Therefore if you go to th corporation tax page a business can promote for a year by paying the tax. This will be sorted by value on absolute and proportional so that if someone is poor the widow 's mite principle will apply, as in marks gospel.
Then when a numpty like Russell Brand says we need 75% tax rate then we could justly say that he could put his money where his mouth was. If that was in operation then I imagine we would see the number of famous people lecturing on tax go down massively. You could apply the same to tax cuts by getting them to put in the amount they would save as good will, rather than donating direct to conservative central office.
Having said that, I don't think that piling on to LD Most Seats would have any impact other than to bid up Xmas bonuses at the bookies!
The 0.7% foreign aid target is demented.
Obviously that'd be a pretty dumb bet. But it was actually the grand national that got me thinking about it, I think one of the horses went as tight as 7-1, and from a probability perspective it seemed baffling that those odds could reflect the outcome, so it must be the money being placed on the outcome.
The polls show an expectation amongst voters that Cameron will win the election / remain PM at least. EdM is seen as not up to the job, albeit that is rapidly eroding.
So I can see why UKIP inclined voters think voting UKIP will toughen the sinews of a re-elected Dave. You and I know it won't re-elect Dave, it will put Ed and Nicola in.
But that message isn't getting across because Tory HQ is stupidly obsessed about the SNP and not demolishing UKIP - the only single thing that could still return them to power should they manage to knock them down to single figures.
An English voter switching from Lab to Con or vice versa doesn't impact the SNP bloc in Westminster at all. Which, unless you believe a chunky majority is likely, will carry clout whomever resides in number 10.
Arguably if you really don't like the SNP you should vote LibDem in England where they have a chance to win.
Strangely worded question as you use 'par score' and 'good election'
I will try and answer honestly
0 would be disastrous
1-2 would be very disappointing
3-4 par
A good election would be 5-7
Any more than 7 would be a brilliant performance
https://sports.spreadex.com/en-GB/spread-betting/Politics/UK-Politics/Constituencies-Q-S/p276382
Buy CON Stirling @ 0.5
If we actually want Africa to get richer we need to reduce trade barriers, encourage business and use growth to lift the poor from their poverty (as has happened in China and India).
Pamela Gelleresque.
The Tories have made no headway in this election but I agree with the growing opinion that the whole SNP-Labour thing is the only narrative the Tories can now use that could break through to the public consciousness in any concerted way. Nothing else has worked, so it's probably worth a punt.
An anecdotal experience which has no polling evidence is not real. It is merely confirmation bias affecting your judgement.
The last time I looked there was no utopia north of the border. It is pretty much th he same as the rest of the country with more tartan.
The weakest part of the manifesto launch was the easy believe ism. It is hardly credible to say that the answer to our problems is that government is not spending enough money. The Tories are not so stupid that they would purposefully cut spending when the popular option of increasing spending was the answer
2020 vision!
That Spread is very, very attractive. That might be the best value bet left in Scotland.
Back 20 of those and I recon at least one will win. Possibly several.
SNP 41.5%
Lab 27.3%
Con 25.5%
LD 3.0%
So 20/1 on a 2nd looks more than fair.
Saw an F1 rich list a while ago. Listed Raikkonen as richer than the Renault owner/team boss, and Schumacher had a vast amount of wealth (£700m or thereabouts).
"Scott_P • Posts: 8,250 October 2014
@Sun_Politics: Immigration crucial make or break issue of voters' trust, says @tnewtondunn: http://t.co/0W5gvL5KmX
Is the "non-arsehole vote" really on the side of "we are so desperate for immigrants we should scour the Mediterranean Sea for more..."?
http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/10/29/after-a-series-of-polls-all-showing-the-main-parties-level-pegging-todays-yougov-has-lab-creeping-back-into-the-lead/"
Con-LD-UKIP-DUP coalition 2% ahead of Lab-SNP.
Any chance Betfair Sportsbook might like to settle early off the back of that?
Re the SNP. Is there a risk of hubris, particularly among Scottish voters? Is Ms Sturgeon taking Scottish voters for granted? And could there be a swing back to SLAB, as a result? I'd be interested in the views of our Scottish posters.