A pretty big story coming out from Edinburgh. The ugly face of nationalism
"NICOLA Sturgeon has refused to sack the SNP’s Edinburgh South candidate Neil Hay after he was unmasked as a cybernat who likened pro-UK supporters to Nazi collaborators and said elderly voters could “barely remember their own names”.
That is nationalism - Scottish, English, Welsh, Irish, British, whatever. It feeds off creating enemies, alleging betrayals and fomenting division. The idea you can somehow be a "progressive" or "civic" or "social democratic" nationalist is absurd. It's all about separating people from one another and drawing frontiers.
Nonsense. Nationalism is an attempt to unify people. To create a shared bond.
'British' was the deliberate creation of an artificial identity to unify scots/english/welsh/irish into a common identity, and it was very successful.
The deliberate destruction of that identity by HMG pursuing 'multiculturalism', and within Scotland the political attempt by Scottish Labour and the SNP to sow division by painting the scottish Conservative party as english and 'other', will have its own effects.
Breaking that common british bond, and replacing it with another, be that one of nation, or race, or religion etc.
You are confusing patriotism with political nationalism.
No i'm not. You chose a negative interpretation of unifying bonds, and I've chosen a positive one.
This was interesting - either Farage has been very active on the ground here or online panel got at by Ukippers, although has survation got over 1000 respondents in one constituency?
99 out of every 100 simulations run by Populus for @FT produces hung parliament, & it says no two-party coalition likely to command majority
Second election likely?
Not likely, IMHO, but certainly possible. It's harder under the bonkers fixed term parliament act, a piece of nonsense that needs to be dropped asap. I see a period of minority or maybe Lab-Lib plus confidence from SNP in order to forestall an EU referendum and perhaps undertaken some constitutional stuff like PR for local elections.
Some pollsters (conceivably all of them) are going to need to do some very hard thinking in the wake of the election. But we don't yet know which ones.
I think that we'll see a convergence in the final few days. They maybe wrong but they'll all be wrong.
I think the pollsters won't want to be too exposed and will seek safety in the pack, perhaps making a few quiet last minute methodology adjustments.
This was interesting - either Farage has been very active on the ground here or online panel got at by Ukippers, although has survation got over 1000 respondents in one constituency?
In the Telegraph piece Mr Goodwin says that the UKIP campaign began with 'ward level' public meetings. That's about as active as a political party can get.
This was interesting - either Farage has been very active on the ground here or online panel got at by Ukippers, although has survation got over 1000 respondents in one constituency?
The Thanet South poll was by telephone.
The UKIP campaign has just been far more active in that seat than people like Dan Hodges want to believe.
It is worth reading the judgment that is linked to in the BBC report. It is an excellent piece of work and contains some of the clearest summaries of election law that I have read.
The extent of the findings are truly shocking. Eric Pickles was criticised when he sent Commissioners into Tower Hamlets for being heavy handed. He has been completely vindicated.
I did not think my opinion of Ken Livingstone could get any lower but wow, he has managed it again. He said: "Let's wait and see if he is convicted of anything. The decision of the voters to put Lutfur Rahman there shouldn't be overturned by an unelected bureaucrat unless he is arrested."
He is of course ignoring the fact that the level of proof was in general the criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. Once again our police seem to be irrelevant bystanders. No doubt all available resources are already committed to the investigation of how several million people who were on our electoral register have now disappeared leaving questions in many cases as to whether they ever existed.
Several million ?
Yes, about 6.5m have "disappeared".. By far the majority of these are of course people who have just moved house, left University, left the country, died etc etc. But anyone reading that Tower Hamlets judgment and still believes our democracy is immune to the sort of practices that have bedevilled democracy everywhere else since time immemorial is simply deluding themselves.
Why did the polls get it so wrong in 1992? Surely a major factor was that between 1987 and 1992 a large number of people disappeared from the roll as they tried to avoid the poll tax.
We may just have seen the same effect again from the new registration process. The polls may well have been right in 1992 if everyone was on the register.
Possibly but in 1992 it was London which showed the big drop in electorates and that was the area Labour did best in. Often the constituencies with the biggest falls in electorate were the places Labour did especially well:
The FT has a report today from Glasgow on the Labour/SNP battle, with some good vox pop. The central observation:
"Political commentators often talk about “big events”: the resignation of a cabinet minister, a big Parliamentary defeat, or Mark Reckless winning the by-election in Rochester & Strood.
But it seem likely that Ukip’s two by-election victories last autumn will be only a footnote to 2014.
In Scotland – by contrast – it feels as if history is being made.
Polls are just polls, of course. But after four days talking to scores of people around different areas of Glasgow it seems pretty clear. The pollsters are right."
But my favourite quote?
"Labour candidates are astonished by the speed of the reversal, which has occurred in barely half a year. “Last summer you could get odds of 100:1 on me losing my seat,” said one former Glasgow MP, incredulously."
Some pollsters (conceivably all of them) are going to need to do some very hard thinking in the wake of the election. But we don't yet know which ones.
I think that we'll see a convergence in the final few days. They maybe wrong but they'll all be wrong.
There'd have to be methodology changes for that to happen.
Now there have been a few, but there is a massive divergence on the UKIP score which is utterly irreconcilable.
Have Ukippers successfully infiltrated the online panels. Even a small number willing to put in a concerted effort could affect them. If I were a supporter of Ukip wishing to push policy rightward then by trying to influence the polls including a daily poll that skews the poll of poll numbers would be a good method. I am not trying to suggest that this would be planned from the top but the developers seem to be young and quite anarchistic.
It's a little surprising there hasn't been a significant shift in the polling during the course of the campaign.
Morning, Morris Dancer! I would say it's more than a little surprising: it's absolutely extraordinary.
This is all very weird.
1) There's no real movement in the polls.
2) Practically all pundits are assuming the difference between the actual result will differ only in a tiny way from what's suggested by the polls. The betting money is saying the same thing, giving an implied probability of a hung parliament of around 90%.
Let's be serious - you can't reliably conclude from polls being flat that they're going to be right.
3) There's practically no commentary on how likely people are to vote how they say they will. The front pages were full of such stats in the run-up to theindyref.
But not many minds need to change and we will end up with a CON-LD coalition again. How extraordinary that hardly anybody's saying that.
4) Why isn't LAB sending all their heavyweights north of the border to try to hold their Scottish seats? Why the foregone conclusion that an SNP army of 40 or 50 MPs is going to march into Westminster?
Hundreds of thousands of people who aren't in the habit of voting turned out to stop the SNP and vote against independence. That was only 7 months ago. How about LAB tries to get them to come out again? Put up a fight, for goodness sake.
This is amazing and unprecedented stuff and needs an explanation.
"The people responsible for the migrant deaths are the barbarians of the middle east and north africa and no one else."
A bit simplistic. If a foreign power invades even just by air and contributes to wiping out a countrie's infrastructure to say it bears no responsibility for the ensuing civil strife and chaos is ridiculous. Look at Iraq Vietnam cambodia Laos etc etc.
The Turks blame western intervention in the Ottoman Empire for the Armenian Genocide. Have we learnt nothing?
The Libyans and Syrians started massacreing each other before Western intervention, not after it.
No they didn't. In one case we said there was going to be a massacre (handy that), in the other we abetted a wahhabi uprising. In both cases were it not for NATO interference serving the interests of the US, tens of thousands would be alive and not displaced. It is an horrific truth, but the least we can do is acknowledge it not parade our ignorance around.
"The Libyans and Syrians started massacreing each other before Western intervention, not after it."
So Western intervention in Libya made no difference? That's clearly nonsense and the sort of imperialist tripe the UK and US have been peddling for years. If they didn't want to affect the outcome what was their purpose in dropping bombs? And if they did want to affect the outcome shouldn't they see their vision through to the end?
Ok, I dismissed Ashcroft on Monday but with Survation following in short order, I'll admit I was too hasty and in throes of partisan disbelief!
I made a comment on twitter last night that Labour should worry that it is possible to post such weak shares, because even with pollsters where the Tories are behind Labour the Tory vote share is stronger than Lab's with Ashcroft and Survation.
Which from my point of view seems to point to an underlying pro Tory shift from voters.
I shall still stick by my forecast of Con 35 / Lab 32 from last week.
This was interesting - either Farage has been very active on the ground here or online panel got at by Ukippers, although has survation got over 1000 respondents in one constituency?
The Thanet South poll was by telephone.
The UKIP campaign has just been far more active in that seat than people like Dan Hodges want to believe.
I note the Thanet South poll falling into line with my ARSE of a comfortable win for Nigel - Shares in Thanet South pubs to soar ?
Some pollsters (conceivably all of them) are going to need to do some very hard thinking in the wake of the election. But we don't yet know which ones.
I have absolute confidence in the ones showing massive SNP leads.
A pretty big story coming out from Edinburgh. The ugly face of nationalism
"NICOLA Sturgeon has refused to sack the SNP’s Edinburgh South candidate Neil Hay after he was unmasked as a cybernat who likened pro-UK supporters to Nazi collaborators and said elderly voters could “barely remember their own names”.
I pointed out to you yesterday that that collaborator tweet was a reference to a satirical website - though neither were in particularly good taste. And linked you to an analysis which raised serious issues about Kezia Dugdale and SLAB's good faith in such matters.
The current government does partly share the blame for what has been happening in the Mediterranean. It has stood by till now.
It is not alone, but it could certainly have done more.
As does the previous government. Labour's open door immigration policy encouraged many in the third world to believe if they just managed to get here they could settle permanently enriching themselves at our expense. If that incentive wasn't there then these people wouldn't pay thousands to criminals to risk their own and others lives to make the crossing. No settlement, no immigration.
'If thing weren't tasty enough in South Thanet, where Mr Farage is seeking election, it has emerged that his Conservative opponent, Craig Mackinlay, has been running a website with his Hungarian-born wife, in which the couple encourage her countrymen and women to travel to the UK for work.
It's all a bit murky. Mr Mackinlay was actually a member of Ukip before defecting to the Tories in 2005. The couple set up the Angolmelo.com website, which is said to translates roughly as "work in England" in 2008. The web address was renewed in October 2014.
Bit embarrassing for the Tories, given star Boris Johnson was canvassing with Mr Mackinlay only this week.'
Some pollsters (conceivably all of them) are going to need to do some very hard thinking in the wake of the election. But we don't yet know which ones.
I have absolute confidence in the ones showing massive SNP leads.
The Scottish polls have been remarkably (supernaturally) consistent since October. It's England that's messing everything up.
"The people responsible for the migrant deaths are the barbarians of the middle east and north africa and no one else."
A bit simplistic. If a foreign power invades even just by air and contributes to wiping out a countrie's infrastructure to say it bears no responsibility for the ensuing civil strife and chaos is ridiculous. Look at Iraq Vietnam cambodia Laos etc etc.
The Turks blame western intervention in the Ottoman Empire for the Armenian Genocide. Have we learnt nothing?
The Libyans and Syrians started massacreing each other before Western intervention, not after it.
No they didn't. In one case we said there was going to be a massacre (handy that), in the other we abetted a wahhabi uprising. In both cases were it not for NATO interference serving the interests of the US, tens of thousands would be alive and not displaced. It is an horrific truth, but the least we can do is acknowledge it not parade our ignorance around.
There was an uprising against Gaddaffi. Had we done nothing, lots of people would have been killed, and would have fled Libya, regardless of whether it succeeded or failed.
Let's face it, we're always to blame. We're to blame when we intervene (Kossovo, Iraq, Libya) and we're to blame when we don't intervene (Syria, Rwanda, Bosnia).
@Antifrank - In Scotland – by contrast – it feels as if history is being made.
Indeed – if the polls are proved correct, the swift and total collapse of Labour domination in Scotland after 100 years will certainly be more than a footnote in the history books.
"The Libyans and Syrians started massacreing each other before Western intervention, not after it."
So Western intervention in Libya made no difference? That's clearly nonsense and the sort of imperialist tripe the UK and US have been peddling for years. If they didn't want to affect the outcome what was their purpose in dropping bombs? And if they did want to affect the outcome shouldn't they see their vision through to the end?
Western intervention in Libya helped the rebels survive then topple Gaddhafi, and for a brief period there seemed some prospect of improvement in Libya. Then the Islamists started killing each other again.
I left the Labour party in 2004, sickened by Labours Middle East wars. I am no fan of intervening again.
From a longtime lurker and very occasional poster, perhaps I can leave you with my theory for the Yougov discrepancy.
With the phone polls, you are more inclined to take part in the survey when contacted, whereas with Yougov they simply send you an invitation, the incentive being 50p for 10 minutes of your time (below the minimum wage!).
So, when a busy businessman such as myself gets an invite I may or may not respond depending upon whether I've got 10 minutes and a cup of tea in my hand or if I'm dealing with some important work. If I'm busy then the invite drops off the bottom of my inbox page and forgotten about.
Therefore, since busy people are more likely to vote Conservative and are less likely to fill in online surveys on a consistent basis perhaps this can explain the variance with Yougov.
Of course I may be wrong (but that would be unusual!)
Some pollsters (conceivably all of them) are going to need to do some very hard thinking in the wake of the election. But we don't yet know which ones.
I have absolute confidence in the ones showing massive SNP leads.
The Scottish polls have been remarkably (supernaturally) consistent since October. It's England that's messing everything up.
Labour's dire performance in the Scottish subsamples has made taking the polls at face value slightly misleading too.
It's a little surprising there hasn't been a significant shift in the polling during the course of the campaign.
Morning, Morris Dancer! I would say it's more than a little surprising: it's absolutely extraordinary.
This is all very weird.
1) There's no real movement in the polls.
2) Practically all pundits are assuming the difference between the actual result will differ only in a tiny way from what's suggested by the polls. The betting money is saying the same thing, giving an implied probability of a hung parliament of around 90%.
Let's be serious - you can't reliably conclude from polls being flat that they're going to be right.
3) There's practically no commentary on how likely people are to vote how they say they will. The front pages were full of such stats in the run-up to theindyref.
But not many minds need to change and we will end up with a CON-LD coalition again. How extraordinary that hardly anybody's saying that.
4) Why isn't LAB sending all their heavyweights north of the border to try to hold their Scottish seats? Why the foregone conclusion that an SNP army of 40 or 50 MPs is going to march into Westminster?
Hundreds of thousands of people who aren't in the habit of voting turned out to stop the SNP and vote against independence. That was only 7 months ago. How about LAB tries to get them to come out again? Put up a fight, for goodness sake.
This is amazing and unprecedented stuff and needs an explanation.
The have very few activists. Those that they do have no idea how to fight a competitive campaign, still less, one where they are behind. Their canvass returns in many of these seats will be slight to negligible. Simply put, they have never had to try in most of these seats before.
And their spirit is already broken. It's like the Tories in 1997. When you just KNOW you are going to get a shellacking, its pretty damned hard to get the motivation up.
Mr. Roger, people getting distraught over hundreds and thousands of deaths yet criticising Cameron for preventing a much larger death toll through Gaddafi's genocide have some significant cognitive dissonance going on.
Furthermore, most of the refugees/asylum seekers appear to be from countries far to the south of Libya.
The FT has a report today from Glasgow on the Labour/SNP battle, with some good vox pop. The central observation:
"Political commentators often talk about “big events”: the resignation of a cabinet minister, a big Parliamentary defeat, or Mark Reckless winning the by-election in Rochester & Strood.
But it seem likely that Ukip’s two by-election victories last autumn will be only a footnote to 2014.
In Scotland – by contrast – it feels as if history is being made.
Polls are just polls, of course. But after four days talking to scores of people around different areas of Glasgow it seems pretty clear. The pollsters are right."
But my favourite quote?
"Labour candidates are astonished by the speed of the reversal, which has occurred in barely half a year. “Last summer you could get odds of 100:1 on me losing my seat,” said one former Glasgow MP, incredulously."
"The people responsible for the migrant deaths are the barbarians of the middle east and north africa and no one else."
A bit simplistic. If a foreign power invades even just by air and contributes to wiping out a countrie's infrastructure to say it bears no responsibility for the ensuing civil strife and chaos is ridiculous. Look at Iraq Vietnam cambodia Laos etc etc.
The Turks blame western intervention in the Ottoman Empire for the Armenian Genocide. Have we learnt nothing?
The Libyans and Syrians started massacreing each other before Western intervention, not after it.
No they didn't. In one case we said there was going to be a massacre (handy that), in the other we abetted a wahhabi uprising. In both cases were it not for NATO interference serving the interests of the US, tens of thousands would be alive and not displaced. It is an horrific truth, but the least we can do is acknowledge it not parade our ignorance around.
There was an uprising against Gaddaffi. Had we done nothing, lots of people would have been killed, and would have fled Libya, regardless of whether it succeeded or failed.
Let's face it, we're always to blame. We're to blame when we intervene (Kossovo, Iraq, Libya) and we're to blame when we don't intervene (Syria, Rwanda, Bosnia).
I don't often agree with you, Sean, but on this one I do. We're to blame ("we" being white people) because we have - still - power and privilege. The only reason I don't wish that all white people were dead is because I am white myself.
The FT has a report today from Glasgow on the Labour/SNP battle, with some good vox pop. The central observation:
"Political commentators often talk about “big events”: the resignation of a cabinet minister, a big Parliamentary defeat, or Mark Reckless winning the by-election in Rochester & Strood.
But it seem likely that Ukip’s two by-election victories last autumn will be only a footnote to 2014.
In Scotland – by contrast – it feels as if history is being made.
Polls are just polls, of course. But after four days talking to scores of people around different areas of Glasgow it seems pretty clear. The pollsters are right."
But my favourite quote?
"Labour candidates are astonished by the speed of the reversal, which has occurred in barely half a year. “Last summer you could get odds of 100:1 on me losing my seat,” said one former Glasgow MP, incredulously."
THanks for that - a good concluding quote that! - and the Graun story. Well worth a read.
Mr. Roger, people getting distraught over hundreds and thousands of deaths yet criticising Cameron for preventing a much larger death toll through Gaddafi's genocide have some significant cognitive dissonance going on.
Furthermore, most of the refugees/asylum seekers appear to be from countries far to the south of Libya.
Unless we open our borders, and provide ferries to Italy, (perhaps 10% of Europeans would agree) people are going to die trying to get here, as they do trying to cross the US border with Mexico.
"With every day that passes I am more thankful for the LD presence in government for the last five years."
If the Libs would unequivocally state that they wouldn't prop up a Tory government under any circumstances or by any means I think they could hold quite a few seats they are sure to lose
The polls I don't understand are the ones in yellow-blue marginals where Tories switch sides to the Lib Dems when asked "In your seat" I mean that's a level of cognitive dissonance even I don't stoop to when filling in the Yougov for a few pennies.
It is noticeable that so many 'charities' have been shouting loudly about saving people from drowning, but so few have offered a practical solution as to why they are migrating or to where they should go.
It is noticeable the silence from the AU which is controlled by Mugabe and Zuma - both from the 'Christian' south of the continent and neither with a clean political record.
One thing is clear - that western Europe does not have to capacity or facilities to absorb unrestricted immigration from Africa or via Africa.
"The people responsible for the migrant deaths are the barbarians of the middle east and north africa and no one else."
A bit simplistic. If a foreign power invades even just by air and contributes to wiping out a countrie's infrastructure to say it bears no responsibility for the ensuing civil strife and chaos is ridiculous. Look at Iraq Vietnam cambodia Laos etc etc.
The Turks blame western intervention in the Ottoman Empire for the Armenian Genocide. Have we learnt nothing?
The Libyans and Syrians started massacreing each other before Western intervention, not after it.
No they didn't. In one case we said there was going to be a massacre (handy that), in the other we abetted a wahhabi uprising. In both cases were it not for NATO interference serving the interests of the US, tens of thousands would be alive and not displaced. It is an horrific truth, but the least we can do is acknowledge it not parade our ignorance around.
There was an uprising against Gaddaffi. Had we done nothing, lots of people would have been killed, and would have fled Libya, regardless of whether it succeeded or failed.
Let's face it, we're always to blame. We're to blame when we intervene (Kossovo, Iraq, Libya) and we're to blame when we don't intervene (Syria, Rwanda, Bosnia).
From a longtime lurker and very occasional poster, perhaps I can leave you with my theory for the Yougov discrepancy.
With the phone polls, you are more inclined to take part in the survey when contacted, whereas with Yougov they simply send you an invitation, the incentive being 50p for 10 minutes of your time (below the minimum wage!).
So, when a busy businessman such as myself gets an invite I may or may not respond depending upon whether I've got 10 minutes and a cup of tea in my hand or if I'm dealing with some important work. If I'm busy then the invite drops off the bottom of my inbox page and forgotten about.
Therefore, since busy people are more likely to vote Conservative and are less likely to fill in online surveys on a consistent basis perhaps this can explain the variance with Yougov.
Of course I may be wrong (but that would be unusual!)
"Therefore, since busy people are more likely to vote Conservative"
"The people responsible for the migrant deaths are the barbarians of the middle east and north africa and no one else."
A bit simplistic. If a foreign power invades even just by air and contributes to wiping out a countrie's infrastructure to say it bears no responsibility for the ensuing civil strife and chaos is ridiculous. Look at Iraq Vietnam cambodia Laos etc etc.
The Turks blame western intervention in the Ottoman Empire for the Armenian Genocide. Have we learnt nothing?
The Libyans and Syrians started massacreing each other before Western intervention, not after it.
No they didn't. In one case we said there was going to be a massacre (handy that), in the other we abetted a wahhabi uprising. In both cases were it not for NATO interference serving the interests of the US, tens of thousands would be alive and not displaced. It is an horrific truth, but the least we can do is acknowledge it not parade our ignorance around.
There was an uprising against Gaddaffi. Had we done nothing, lots of people would have been killed, and would have fled Libya, regardless of whether it succeeded or failed.
Let's face it, we're always to blame. We're to blame when we intervene (Kossovo, Iraq, Libya) and we're to blame when we don't intervene (Syria, Rwanda, Bosnia).
I don't often agree with you, Sean, but on this one I do. We're to blame ("we" being white people) because we have - still - power and privilege. The only reason I don't wish that all white people were dead is because I am white myself.
If the events of the last 15 years prove anything, it is that we have very little power in these parts of the world.
It's a little surprising there hasn't been a significant shift in the polling during the course of the campaign.
Morning, Morris Dancer! I would say it's more than a little surprising: it's absolutely extraordinary.
This is all very weird.
1) There's no real movement in the polls.
2) Practically all pundits are assuming the difference between the actual result will differ only in a tiny way from what's suggested by the polls. The betting money is saying the same thing, giving an implied probability of a hung parliament of around 90%.
Let's be serious - you can't reliably conclude from polls being flat that they're going to be right.
3) There's practically no commentary on how likely people are to vote how they say they will. The front pages were full of such stats in the run-up to theindyref.
But not many minds need to change and we will end up with a CON-LD coalition again. How extraordinary that hardly anybody's saying that.
4) Why isn't LAB sending all their heavyweights north of the border to try to hold their Scottish seats? Why the foregone conclusion that an SNP army of 40 or 50 MPs is going to march into Westminster?
Hundreds of thousands of people who aren't in the habit of voting turned out to stop the SNP and vote against independence. That was only 7 months ago. How about LAB tries to get them to come out again? Put up a fight, for goodness sake.
This is amazing and unprecedented stuff and needs an explanation.
The have very few activists. Those that they do have no idea how to fight a competitive campaign, still less, one where they are behind. Their canvass returns in many of these seats will be slight to negligible. Simply put, they have never had to try in most of these seats before.
And their spirit is already broken. It's like the Tories in 1997. When you just KNOW you are going to get a shellacking, its pretty damned hard to get the motivation up.
And they have no idea where to draw the line and fight. No point pushing all your troops into seats that you are going to lose by 5,000. Do they have any ideas which seats they have a chance of holding?
A pretty big story coming out from Edinburgh. The ugly face of nationalism
"NICOLA Sturgeon has refused to sack the SNP’s Edinburgh South candidate Neil Hay after he was unmasked as a cybernat who likened pro-UK supporters to Nazi collaborators and said elderly voters could “barely remember their own names”.
I pointed out to you yesterday that that collaborator tweet was a reference to a satirical website - though neither were in particularly good taste. And linked you to an analysis which raised serious issues about Kezia Dugdale and SLAB's good faith in such matters.
I find it incredible that various Nats on here use that site as some sort of basis for any sane argument. Given the blogger's views on topics such as Hillsborough and 9/11 etc. I very much doubt anyone outside the cult is going to anywhere near it..
My overall assessment of the polls is that CON are in the region of 2% ahead. I place more value in phone polls more than online ones.
I think most the remaining upside potential between now and next Thursday is with the tories.
There is still mileage in scaring the English horses with the SNP, although they need to be careful not to overdo this as there will be a point where it turns the electorate off. The great thing about this policy for the tories is that is potentially grabs votes from all parties south of the border thereby reducing their share at the same time.
The voter registration issue is sure to play a part. I see this affecting younger people and people not previously engaged in politics. This hurts LAB, GREEN and maybe UKIP
There may also still be a little traction in the "go to bed with Nigel, wake up with Ed", meme, to extract a few more tory leaning UKIP voters.
On topic, there are STILL huge numbers of undecideds out there is my take. Polling doesn't know what it is doing with them - because they don't know what they are doing. Certainty to vote - and for which party - is all over the place.
But the Labour-SNP Thing has gone into the mix for many of them. And I can't see how this ends well for Labour. It will incline more of Labour's lukewarm voters (of which there are many under Ed Miliband) to stay at home - "there's no point, they're all as bad as each other...." It will steady the resolve of those who don't like Ed and/or Labour to hold their nose and vote Blue. "I'm not impressed with Cameron. But it's the lesser of two weevils..."
The current government does partly share the blame for what has been happening in the Mediterranean. It has stood by till now.
It is not alone, but it could certainly have done more.
Well Cameron was the main instigator in breaking Libya, so he broke it he owns it.
In that case Labour owns Iraq and Afghanistan, and via the Attlee government Israel and partition of the Indian Subcontinent.
Surely, giving independence to India was a good thing or are you still hankering after the colonies. Not only that they have the temerity to wallop us in cricket !
Iraq: yes. But that was Blair cosying up to Bush. Afganistan was different. There was a direct attack on the US.
Libya was instigated by Cameron and Holande. The UN resolution was only for no fly zone which the west interpreted conveniently to bomb the hell out of Libya with no preparation as what to follow. In fact, putting Islamists in charge in some places. Are they better than Gaddafi ?
Thanks to Miliband, the world walked away from bombing Syria. IS would be in control of Damascus by now.
"With every day that passes I am more thankful for the LD presence in government for the last five years."
If the Libs would unequivocally state that they wouldn't prop up a Tory government under any circumstances or by any means I think they could hold quite a few seats they are sure to lose
After the tuition fees fiasco, no one is going to believe any kind of pledge by the Lib Dems.
From a longtime lurker and very occasional poster, perhaps I can leave you with my theory for the Yougov discrepancy.
With the phone polls, you are more inclined to take part in the survey when contacted, whereas with Yougov they simply send you an invitation, the incentive being 50p for 10 minutes of your time (below the minimum wage!).
So, when a busy businessman such as myself gets an invite I may or may not respond depending upon whether I've got 10 minutes and a cup of tea in my hand or if I'm dealing with some important work. If I'm busy then the invite drops off the bottom of my inbox page and forgotten about.
Therefore, since busy people are more likely to vote Conservative and are less likely to fill in online surveys on a consistent basis perhaps this can explain the variance with Yougov.
Of course I may be wrong (but that would be unusual!)
YouGov, and the other pollsters, can judge their efforts against election results, and adjust them when they are proven wrong. At the last national election, the 2014 EU Parliament, YouGov did pretty well.
"Therefore, since busy people are more likely to vote Conservative and are less likely to fill in online surveys on a consistent basis perhaps this can explain the variance with Yougov."
No doubting your credentials as a Tory candidate. We need more like you.
Sky News Newsdesk @SkyNewsBreak Sky Sources: #HSBC to launch an immediate review into whether it should move its headquarters from the UK
Helpful of them.
HSBC have threatened this twice before and this time I feel sure they'll make the move, presumably to HK. Why wouldn't they? - An ever increasing part of their business is based in Asis and they (along with other major UK banks) are under constant attack from British Governments and likely to remain so, incl. Tory Governments. Classic Goose & Golden Egg scenario.
A pretty big story coming out from Edinburgh. The ugly face of nationalism
"NICOLA Sturgeon has refused to sack the SNP’s Edinburgh South candidate Neil Hay after he was unmasked as a cybernat who likened pro-UK supporters to Nazi collaborators and said elderly voters could “barely remember their own names”.
I pointed out to you yesterday that that collaborator tweet was a reference to a satirical website - though neither were in particularly good taste. And linked you to an analysis which raised serious issues about Kezia Dugdale and SLAB's good faith in such matters.
Whinge frae Bath yet again, any reputable refutation sources? What about a quote from Alec Salmond?: “Obviously it is the right thing that somebody who insulted all of Scotland’s old age pensioners can’t stand as a candidate.”
It is worth reading the judgment that is linked to in the BBC report. It is an excellent piece of work and contains some of the clearest summaries of election law that I have read.
The extent of the findings are truly shocking. Eric Pickles was criticised when he sent Commissioners into Tower Hamlets for being heavy handed. He has been completely vindicated.
I did not think my opinion of Ken Livingstone could get any lower but wow, he has managed it again. He said: "Let's wait and see if he is convicted of anything. The decision of the voters to put Lutfur Rahman there shouldn't be overturned by an unelected bureaucrat unless he is arrested."
He is of course ignoring the fact that the level of proof was in general the criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. Once again our police seem to be irrelevant bystanders. No doubt all available resources are already committed to the investigation of how several million people who were on our electoral register have now disappeared leaving questions in many cases as to whether they ever existed.
Several million ?
Yes, about 6.5m have "disappeared".. By far the majority of these are of course people who have just moved house, left University, left the country, died etc etc. But anyone reading that Tower Hamlets judgment and still believes our democracy is immune to the sort of practices that have bedevilled democracy everywhere else since time immemorial is simply deluding themselves.
Why did the polls get it so wrong in 1992? Surely a major factor was that between 1987 and 1992 a large number of people disappeared from the roll as they tried to avoid the poll tax.
We may just have seen the same effect again from the new registration process. The polls may well have been right in 1992 if everyone was on the register.
That is a fascinating point. I don't think that is affecting the polls as people who either agree to be polled or do online are very likely to be registered. I was in Southampton (Itchen) the other day home of the immigration street tv programme. I was wondering if or who some of the immigrant group s would vote for. There are lots of eastern European s but will they be bothered to vote?
Poll tax bit of a red herring. From what I have seen a major reason for the 1992 polls being wrong was the weighting system was so out of date it didn't account for the huge increase in the middle class during the 1980s
I met the next tory MP for S Cambs last night. Heidi Allen is an attractive, bright sparky girl.
I asked her afterwards if she would be joining BOO. She said she would wait to see how DC's 're-negotiations' panned out. I never knew that anybody really believe in them. I thought everybody knew they were spurious? Maybe she was she just being a cautious new girl?
I told her that her opinion would matter, seeing as she had a proper job, and was running a proper business. Her reply surprised me. "Other people have said something similar. It really isn't a very big business" (modest subtext: I'm not that clever). I told her that she underestimated how few of her new colleagues had ever had a proper job.
Sky News Newsdesk @SkyNewsBreak Sky Sources: #HSBC to launch an immediate review into whether it should move its headquarters from the UK
Helpful of them.
HSBC have threatened this twice before and this time I feel sure they'll make the move, presumably to HK. Why wouldn't they? - An ever increasing part of their business is based in Asis and they (along with other major UK banks) are under constant attack from British Governments and likely to remain so, incl. Tory Governments. Classic Goose & Golden Egg scenario.
What was the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation doing headquartered in the UK in the first place?
Firstly the depth of corruption in our political, police and prosecution systems. Corruption not by bribery but of looking the other way when it is politically convenient to so do.
Secondly, in allowing the immigration - often unchecked for political purposes (votes) - of people from countries where political, legal and police corruption is the normal way of life rather than the exception.
Thirdly the failure to enforce the same law (and not to allow any other laws) for all people regardless of rank, nation or creed.
It all these had been enforced by our politicians and police - without fear or favour - then the chances of Rotherham, Rochdale and Oxford etc occurring would have been minimised. Unfortunately, by their silence on these subjects during this pre-election period, I do not see any of our leaders looking at these important matters and correcting such inaction.
Mr. Surbiton, jein. Intervening in Syria could've made the situation far better. Or far worse. Or made no real difference.
We intervened in Libya, and prevented a genocide. And now Libya's chaotic. We did not intervene in Syria, and Syria is chaotic. The common factor is ISIS and Islamic extremism. Western intervention seems to have only been influential in that we prevented genocide in Libya, but did not stop Libya descending into a very perilous state of affairs.
Miliband banking on people being against intervention generally and seeking credit may work. Or, if he seeks to blame the PM for migrant deaths, it could backfire [Conservatives could raise Defence as an issue which, rightly or wrongly, is a strong suit for the blues].
'We believe that naming candidates has a clear effect on polling results.
Voters are electing an individual as MP, a person representing a party.
So in our telephone polls we put to voters both the candidate’s name AND their party.
Love him or hate him, understanding the “Farage Effect” is vital in our view as we look ahead to the choices voters face at the ballot box in South Thanet on May 7.
My advice is this: don’t put too much faith in predictions from some Westminster-based commentators that Ukip will only win one or two seats at the general election.
Ukip may well beat the half dozen seats that the SNP achieved in 2010 as well as setting itself up nicely for 2020 by chalking up 100 or more second places.'
'We believe that naming candidates has a clear effect on polling results.
Voters are electing an individual as MP, a person representing a party.
So in our telephone polls we put to voters both the candidate’s name AND their party.
Love him or hate him, understanding the “Farage Effect” is vital in our view as we look ahead to the choices voters face at the ballot box in South Thanet on May 7.
My advice is this: don’t put too much faith in predictions from some Westminster-based commentators that Ukip will only win one or two seats at the general election.
Ukip may well beat the half dozen seats that the SNP achieved in 2010 as well as setting itself up nicely for 2020 by chalking up 100 or more second places.'
Sky News Newsdesk @SkyNewsBreak Sky Sources: #HSBC to launch an immediate review into whether it should move its headquarters from the UK
Helpful of them.
HSBC have threatened this twice before and this time I feel sure they'll make the move, presumably to HK. Why wouldn't they? - An ever increasing part of their business is based in Asis and they (along with other major UK banks) are under constant attack from British Governments and likely to remain so, incl. Tory Governments. Classic Goose & Golden Egg scenario.
Can I have my local midland bank back then, please?
It's a little surprising there hasn't been a significant shift in the polling during the course of the campaign.
Morning, Morris Dancer! I would say it's more than a little surprising: it's absolutely extraordinary.
This is all very weird.
1) There's no real movement in the polls.
2) Practically all pundits are assuming the difference between the actual result will differ only in a tiny way from what's suggested by the polls. The betting money is saying the same thing, giving an implied probability of a hung parliament of around 90%.
Let's be serious - you can't reliably conclude from polls being flat that they're going to be right.
3) There's practically no commentary on how likely people are to vote how they say they will. The front pages were full of such stats in the run-up to theindyref.
But not many minds need to change and we will end up with a CON-LD coalition again. How extraordinary that hardly anybody's saying that.
4) Why isn't LAB sending all their heavyweights north of the border to try to hold their Scottish seats? Why the foregone conclusion that an SNP army of 40 or 50 MPs is going to march into Westminster?
Hundreds of thousands of people who aren't in the habit of voting turned out to stop the SNP and vote against independence. That was only 7 months ago. How about LAB tries to get them to come out again? Put up a fight, for goodness sake.
This is amazing and unprecedented stuff and needs an explanation.
The have very few activists. Those that they do have no idea how to fight a competitive campaign, still less, one where they are behind. Their canvass returns in many of these seats will be slight to negligible. Simply put, they have never had to try in most of these seats before.
And their spirit is already broken. It's like the Tories in 1997. When you just KNOW you are going to get a shellacking, its pretty damned hard to get the motivation up.
And they have no idea where to draw the line and fight. No point pushing all your troops into seats that you are going to lose by 5,000. Do they have any ideas which seats they have a chance of holding?
Mr. Isam, probably helps Farage, as those pro-Farage will, obviously, back him, and those against him will be split several ways (it'd be ironic if Al Murray got more votes than Farage's margin of victory).
Mr. Financier, I agree entirely. I wonder if a university holding a white male event would've been censured.
@Antifrank - In Scotland – by contrast – it feels as if history is being made.
Indeed – if the polls are proved correct, the swift and total collapse of Labour domination in Scotland after 100 years will certainly be more than a footnote in the history books.
Firstly the depth of corruption in our political, police and prosecution systems. Corruption not by bribery but of looking the other way when it is politically convenient to so do.
Secondly, in allowing the immigration - often unchecked for political purposes (votes) - of people from countries where political, legal and police corruption is the normal way of life rather than the exception.
Thirdly the failure to enforce the same law (and not to allow any other laws) for all people regardless of rank, nation or creed.
It all these had been enforced by our politicians and police - without fear or favour - then the chances of Rotherham, Rochdale and Oxford etc occurring would have been minimised. Unfortunately, by their silence on these subjects during this pre-election period, I do not see any of our leaders looking at these important matters and correcting such inaction.
As someone once said
'Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now. Whether there will be the public will to demand and obtain that action, I do not know. All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.'
"The people responsible for the migrant deaths are the barbarians of the middle east and north africa and no one else."
A bit simplistic. If a foreign power invades even just by air and contributes to wiping out a countrie's infrastructure to say it bears no responsibility for the ensuing civil strife and chaos is ridiculous. Look at Iraq Vietnam cambodia Laos etc etc.
The Turks blame western intervention in the Ottoman Empire for the Armenian Genocide. Have we learnt nothing?
The Libyans and Syrians started massacreing each other before Western intervention, not after it.
No they didn't. In one case we said there was going to be a massacre (handy that), in the other we abetted a wahhabi uprising. In both cases were it not for NATO interference serving the interests of the US, tens of thousands would be alive and not displaced. It is an horrific truth, but the least we can do is acknowledge it not parade our ignorance around.
There was an uprising against Gaddaffi. Had we done nothing, lots of people would have been killed, and would have fled Libya, regardless of whether it succeeded or failed.
Let's face it, we're always to blame. We're to blame when we intervene (Kossovo, Iraq, Libya) and we're to blame when we don't intervene (Syria, Rwanda, Bosnia).
I don't often agree with you, Sean, but on this one I do. We're to blame ("we" being white people) because we have - still - power and privilege. The only reason I don't wish that all white people were dead is because I am white myself.
If the events of the last 15 years prove anything, it is that we have very little power in these parts of the world.
In an imperial sense, yes. But power is about perception - and privilege even more so. And the desire to hurt people for being "other" (and that can take many forms) is part of human nature.
I met the next tory MP for S Cambs last night. Heidi Allen is an attractive, bright sparky girl.
I asked her afterwards if she would be joining BOO. She said she would wait to see how DC's 're-negotiations' panned out. I never knew that anybody really believe in them. I thought everybody knew they were spurious? Maybe she was she just being a cautious new girl?
I told her that her opinion would matter, seeing as she had a proper job, and was running a proper business. Her reply surprised me. "Other people have said something similar. It really isn't a very big business" (modest subtext: I'm not that clever). I told her that she underestimated how few of her new colleagues had ever had a proper job.
One of the things I was hoping to see from UKIP was a different class of MPs. Lots of small business owners/self-employed people. Their Castle Point candidate fits that description, their Thurrock candidate doesn't.
"Labour candidates are astonished by the speed of the reversal, which has occurred in barely half a year. “Last summer you could get odds of 100:1 on me losing my seat,” said one former Glasgow MP, incredulously."
Did he decide after last summer not to stand again, then? If he is standing again, he should be described as a "former" MP.
In any case, this quote is moronic. Do SLAB MPs really need to be told that the correct answer to reporters who say "How do you feel about the SNP doing so well in the polls?"
IS THIS:
""I wouldn't pay much attention to polls, David. They don't chime with what people are telling us on the doorsteps. People are telling us that they're fed up with the SNP government in Scotland for reasons X, Y and Z. And the independence referendum is over. The Scottish people rejected the SNP's main policy. A lady in her 70s told me today that she hadn't voted since 1983 but she made a special effort to vote NO in the indyref and she's going to come out again on May 7 to vote LAB so that we can have a LAB majority at Westminster and Scotland can have the power to improve A B and C in our country without any backroom deals having to be done with other parties in a hung parliament. We want government for the best interests of Scotland, and that means Scottish MPs in the majority party - and the only way to get that is to vote LAB. And more and more people are telling me, David, that they understand that very well."
It's NOT
"Yes. It's terrible, isn't it? The SNP are odds-on at the bookies, you know. We're all going to lose our seats."
From a longtime lurker and very occasional poster, perhaps I can leave you with my theory for the Yougov discrepancy.
With the phone polls, you are more inclined to take part in the survey when contacted, whereas with Yougov they simply send you an invitation, the incentive being 50p for 10 minutes of your time (below the minimum wage!).
So, when a busy businessman such as myself gets an invite I may or may not respond depending upon whether I've got 10 minutes and a cup of tea in my hand or if I'm dealing with some important work. If I'm busy then the invite drops off the bottom of my inbox page and forgotten about.
Therefore, since busy people are more likely to vote Conservative and are less likely to fill in online surveys on a consistent basis perhaps this can explain the variance with Yougov.
Of course I may be wrong (but that would be unusual!)
Whilst SLAB have been moribund for a long time, it is interesting to ask why they have collapsed now.
After all, 9 months ago, Alistair Darling was being feted as the Saviour of the Union after he won the first debate against Alex Salmond.
The SNP have consistently provided a much more positive vision for Scotland, and the SNP leadership looks much more authentically Scottish. There is some deep soul-searching ahead for SLAB.
My own feeling is that there is absolutely no hope for SLAB, while the UK leadership of Labour looks and is so London-based. It just feeds into the ideology of a distant leadership imposing its authority on Scotland that echoes 1745 and Lochaber No More and the Highland Clearances and the Poll Tax.
Even when Labour MPs nominally represent Northern or Midlands seats (like Ed Miliband or Tristram Hunt or Caroline Flint), they are really just Londoners, born or bought up in London.
Labour is a very London party now. After the election, it will be even more so. That is a big problem for those who want to reinvent SLAB.
"Er! Are you an SNPer standing for Westminster perchance? Apart from which, the Whinge frae Bath was even stopped working for the Yes campaign because he was too toxic."
Try reading what Wings wrote on the issue. As usual he backs up his comments with evidence, which I guess is why unionists find it so difficult to read-it challenges their irrational and unwarranted prejudices.
Tried reading the Whinge several times, but found it turgid separatist propaganda and gave up on it. No reason to believe that it's changed. I'm sure I can recommend several blogs to you with a different view that you would consider similar.
"Labour candidates are astonished by the speed of the reversal, which has occurred in barely half a year. “Last summer you could get odds of 100:1 on me losing my seat,” said one former Glasgow MP, incredulously."
Did he decide after last summer not to stand again, then? If he is standing again, he should be described as a "former" MP.
In any case, this quote is moronic. Do SLAB MPs really need to be told that the correct answer to reporters who say "How do you feel about the SNP doing so well in the polls?"
IS THIS:
""I wouldn't pay much attention to polls, David. They don't chime with what people are telling us on the doorsteps. People are telling us that they're fed up with the SNP government in Scotland for reasons X, Y and Z. And the independence referendum is over. The Scottish people rejected the SNP's main policy. A lady in her 70s told me today that she hadn't voted since 1983 but she made a special effort to vote NO in the indyref and she's going to come out again on May 7 to vote LAB so that we can have a LAB majority at Westminster and Scotland can have the power to improve A B and C in our country without any backroom deals having to be done with other parties in a hung parliament. We want government for the best interests of Scotland, and that means Scottish MPs in the majority party - and the only way to get that is to vote LAB. And more and more people are telling me, David, that they understand that very well."
It's NOT
"Yes. It's terrible, isn't it? The SNP are odds-on at the bookies, you know. We're all going to lose our seats."
What LAB need is a new Mandelson.
Ihave a feeling that SLAB is just stunned. they don't know how to campaign or work for thier seats as they've never had to before.
"The people responsible for the migrant deaths are the barbarians of the middle east and north africa and no one else."
A bit simplistic. If a foreign power invades even just by air and contributes to wiping out a countrie's infrastructure to say it bears no responsibility for the ensuing civil strife and chaos is ridiculous. Look at Iraq Vietnam cambodia Laos etc etc.
The Turks blame western intervention in the Ottoman Empire for the Armenian Genocide. Have we learnt nothing?
The Libyans and Syrians started massacreing each other before Western intervention, not after it.
No they didn't. In one case we said there was going to be a massacre (handy that), in the other we abetted a wahhabi uprising. In both cases were it not for NATO interference serving the interests of the US, tens of thousands would be alive and not displaced. It is an horrific truth, but the least we can do is acknowledge it not parade our ignorance around.
There was an uprising against Gaddaffi. Had we done nothing, lots of people would have been killed, and would have fled Libya, regardless of whether it succeeded or failed.
Let's face it, we're always to blame. We're to blame when we intervene (Kossovo, Iraq, Libya) and we're to blame when we don't intervene (Syria, Rwanda, Bosnia).
I don't often agree with you, Sean, but on this one I do. We're to blame ("we" being white people) because we have - still - power and privilege. The only reason I don't wish that all white people were dead is because I am white myself.
If the events of the last 15 years prove anything, it is that we have very little power in these parts of the world.
In an imperial sense, yes. But power is about perception - and privilege even more so. And the desire to hurt people for being "other" (and that can take many forms) is part of human nature.
Quite, as reflected in your comments about 'white' people and your support for immigration into 'white' countries.
It is worth reading the judgment that is linked to in the BBC report. It is an excellent piece of work and contains some of the clearest summaries of election law that I have read.
The extent of the findings are truly shocking. Eric Pickles was criticised when he sent Commissioners into Tower Hamlets for being heavy handed. He has been completely vindicated.
I did not think my opinion of Ken Livingstone could get any lower but wow, he has managed it again. He said: "Let's wait and see if he is convicted of anything. The decision of the voters to put Lutfur Rahman there shouldn't be overturned by an unelected bureaucrat unless he is arrested."
He is of course ignoring the fact that the level of proof was in general the criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. Once again our police seem to be irrelevant bystanders. No doubt all available resources are already committed to the investigation of how several million people who were on our electoral register have now disappeared leaving questions in many cases as to whether they ever existed.
Several million ?
Yes, about 6.5m have "disappeared".. By far the majority of these are of course people who have just moved house, left University, left the country, died etc etc. But anyone reading that Tower Hamlets judgment and still believes our democracy is immune to the sort of practices that have bedevilled democracy everywhere else since time immemorial is simply deluding themselves.
Why did the polls get it so wrong in 1992? Surely a major factor was that between 1987 and 1992 a large number of people disappeared from the roll as they tried to avoid the poll tax.
We may just have seen the same effect again from the new registration process. The polls may well have been right in 1992 if everyone was on the register.
Turnout was huge in 1992, and the Conservatives led by 7%, so I doubt it.
Re: 1992 Poll; if I remember rightly the exit poll was a stinker too. There was something fundamentally wrong with the polling technique overstating Labour by all pollsters.
It's all a bit murky. Mr Mackinlay was actually a member of Ukip before defecting to the Tories in 2005. The couple set up the Angolmelo.com website, which is said to translates roughly as "work in England" in 2008. The web address was renewed in October 2014.
Bit embarrassing for the Tories, given star Boris Johnson was canvassing with Mr Mackinlay only this week.'
It's only embarrassing if you are a racist who hates Eastern Europeans en masse.
I am still hoping that in all seats UKIP have a shout, the anti-UKIP vote will find a candidate of any other party to support.
Sky News Newsdesk @SkyNewsBreak Sky Sources: #HSBC to launch an immediate review into whether it should move its headquarters from the UK
Helpful of them.
HSBC have threatened this twice before and this time I feel sure they'll make the move, presumably to HK. Why wouldn't they? - An ever increasing part of their business is based in Asis and they (along with other major UK banks) are under constant attack from British Governments and likely to remain so, incl. Tory Governments. Classic Goose & Golden Egg scenario.
Can I have my local midland bank back then, please?
Yes, because HSBC only came here in the first place to buy Midland, and they'd need to sell it to move out. In unrelated news, HSBC is moving a number of its retail bank headquarters staff to Birmingham, in the Midlands.
It's all a bit murky. Mr Mackinlay was actually a member of Ukip before defecting to the Tories in 2005. The couple set up the Angolmelo.com website, which is said to translates roughly as "work in England" in 2008. The web address was renewed in October 2014.
Bit embarrassing for the Tories, given star Boris Johnson was canvassing with Mr Mackinlay only this week.'
It's only embarrassing if you are a racist who hates Eastern Europeans en masse.
I am still hoping that in all seats UKIP have a shout, the anti-UKIP vote will find a candidate of any other party to support.
What a load of rubbish, your head in the sand attitude is the cause of the disquiet
You'll be left hoping. Seems you are as clueless on that as you are wilfully naive on immigration
I can't see any scottish tory voting tactically for labour to help them beat an snp candidate. when it comes to the post-election horse-trading a labour mp is no better for them than snp. and in fact it helps the tory moral case for being the government to have the biggest lead over labour possible and to point out that they are being propped up by the snp.
In the Express by the chap who has just done a private poll paid for by Ukip ? Ok.
The meme of the fortnight has been right wing leads in leftie rags and vice versa.. Up pops H with an old fashioned conspiracy theory
Carswell the only Ukip mp I suppose is it?
It's interesting that naming has such an effect, but not sure I agree with his logic. Ask most people to name a ukipper and you will get a list of one. Sounds like good news for farage and despite not agreeing with his politics he will certainty be an interesting addition to the HoC.
It is worth reading the judgment that is linked to in the BBC report. It is an excellent piece of work and contains some of the clearest summaries of election law that I have read.
The extent of the findings are truly shocking. Eric Pickles was criticised when he sent Commissioners into Tower Hamlets for being heavy handed. He has been completely vindicated.
I did not think my opinion of Ken Livingstone could get any lower but wow, he has managed it again. He said: "Let's wait and see if he is convicted of anything. The decision of the voters to put Lutfur Rahman there shouldn't be overturned by an unelected bureaucrat unless he is arrested."
He is of course ignoring the fact that the level of proof was in general the criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. Once again our police seem to be irrelevant bystanders. No doubt all available resources are already committed to the investigation of how several million people who were on our electoral register have now disappeared leaving questions in many cases as to whether they ever existed.
Several million ?
Yes, about 6.5m have "disappeared".. By far the majority of these are of course people who have just moved house, left University, left the country, died etc etc. But anyone reading that Tower Hamlets judgment and still believes our democracy is immune to the sort of practices that have bedevilled democracy everywhere else since time immemorial is simply deluding themselves.
Why did the polls get it so wrong in 1992? Surely a major factor was that between 1987 and 1992 a large number of people disappeared from the roll as they tried to avoid the poll tax.
We may just have seen the same effect again from the new registration process. The polls may well have been right in 1992 if everyone was on the register.
Turnout was huge in 1992, and the Conservatives led by 7%, so I doubt it.
Re: 1992 Poll; if I remember rightly the exit poll was a stinker too. There was something fundamentally wrong with the polling technique overstating Labour by all pollsters.
The 92 exit poll had a range that turned out shy for the Con score. So that whiffed a tad whereas the media polls were absolute stinkers
There is no doubt that labour had a good start to the campaign but it looks like the wheels are beginning to fall off, not only with the issue of the SNP, but today's launch by David Cameron of what will be a very popular 'English' manifesto adding to the debate. It is also a misjudgement by Ed Miliband to link David Cameron to the tragic loss of lives in the Med. Norman Smith of the BBC has just said that Ed Miliband's big foreign policy speech later this morning will be eclipsed by the furious row over using the migrant crises for political purposes. Also HSBC's announcement this morning of their review into remaining in the UK highlights the short term nature of bashing the bankers - where is the money coming from for our NHS when the bankers take flight.
From a longtime lurker and very occasional poster, perhaps I can leave you with my theory for the Yougov discrepancy.
With the phone polls, you are more inclined to take part in the survey when contacted, whereas with Yougov they simply send you an invitation, the incentive being 50p for 10 minutes of your time (below the minimum wage!).
So, when a busy businessman such as myself gets an invite I may or may not respond depending upon whether I've got 10 minutes and a cup of tea in my hand or if I'm dealing with some important work. If I'm busy then the invite drops off the bottom of my inbox page and forgotten about.
Therefore, since busy people are more likely to vote Conservative and are less likely to fill in online surveys on a consistent basis perhaps this can explain the variance with Yougov.
Of course I may be wrong (but that would be unusual!)
v elegant.
(Welcome.)
I have wondered about the online polls oversampling people who can be arsed to fill them in for the pennies on offer. I used to be on the YouGov panel but gave up after never getting an interesting poll and realising a cheque was two years away. In contrast I am on a TNS retail panel which is less time consuming, more lucrative, and I occasionally get a political poll, so they are getting their political panels from their much larger commercial panels.
"The people responsible for the migrant deaths are the barbarians of the middle east and north africa and no one else."
A bit simplistic. If a foreign power invades even just by air and contributes to wiping out a countrie's infrastructure to say it bears no responsibility for the ensuing civil strife and chaos is ridiculous. Look at Iraq Vietnam cambodia Laos etc etc.
The Turks blame western intervention in the Ottoman Empire for the Armenian Genocide. Have we learnt nothing?
The Libyans and Syrians started massacreing each other before Western intervention, not after it.
No they didn't. In one case we said there was going to be a massacre (handy that), in the other we abetted a wahhabi uprising. In both cases were it not for NATO interference serving the interests of the US, tens of thousands would be alive and not displaced. It is an horrific truth, but the least we can do is acknowledge it not parade our ignorance around.
There was an uprising against Gaddaffi. Had we done nothing, lots of people would have been killed, and would have fled Libya, regardless of whether it succeeded or failed.
Let's face it, we're always to blame. We're to blame when we intervene (Kossovo, Iraq, Libya) and we're to blame when we don't intervene (Syria, Rwanda, Bosnia).
Firstly, the uprising would have failed if we (by which I mean the US-dominated coalition) had not imposed a no-fly zone and used the cover of it to bomb the hell out of the country in favour of that uprising. Libya would have continued to be ruled by an unpleasant but infinitely preferable to blood-soaked anarchy dictator.
Secondly, to say 'we' have not intervened in Syria displays a total ignorance of modern warfare. There is no civil war in Syria - the wahhabist scum pouring into the country at our behest are from other countries - hence the issues that arise when these western-trained militants decide to return home. Had 'we' truly not intervened, Assad would have had order restored in a matter of months if not weeks, and Syrians would have continued to enjoy far more rights, freedoms and protections than the average Saudi Arabian.
A pretty big story coming out from Edinburgh. The ugly face of nationalism
"NICOLA Sturgeon has refused to sack the SNP’s Edinburgh South candidate Neil Hay after he was unmasked as a cybernat who likened pro-UK supporters to Nazi collaborators and said elderly voters could “barely remember their own names”.
I pointed out to you yesterday that that collaborator tweet was a reference to a satirical website - though neither were in particularly good taste. And linked you to an analysis which raised serious issues about Kezia Dugdale and SLAB's good faith in such matters.
I find it incredible that various Nats on here use that site as some sort of basis for any sane argument. Given the blogger's views on topics such as Hillsborough and 9/11 etc. I very much doubt anyone outside the cult is going to anywhere near it..
A regular poster replied to one of my initial postings on this site - PB - by presenting evidence that Celtic fans were a bunch of mass Nazi-saluting types.
(Come to think of it, was it you who posted that? I can't remember. Apologies if not.)
But that was - I hope - meant fully in irony/satire, as I thought at the time (though deliberately concealed in the hope I'd fall for it).
I've had a look back in the light of your specific remarks, nevertheless. The Wings 9/11 comment was very plainly ironic - and very obviously so. Even his least best Twitterfriend Duncan Hothershall of SLAB had to go on Twitter to agree. And as far as Hillsborough was concerned his remarks seem accurate enough - that members of the crowd itself had caused the deaths by its pushing from the back - but that the police and the coverup had also to be severely criticised. If you run a check for Hillsborough on his site you'll find some interesting stuff, not least that he's had a retraction, apology and damages for similar accusations from newspapers.
However, the much more important point which JPJ2 also made is that you don't actually need to worry about his opinions. He is so careful to present and document the evidence, very often from opposition sources - which is why I sometimes link to his site though I know that some on here can't bear it.
If we only had the phone polls then the polling picture would look different. The average of the last poll from each phone poll gives the Tories a 2% lead, and they've had a lead from the phone polls all year.
Phone polling will surely die a death if the online polls prove to be more accurate this time - I can see why you'd pay less for something not quite as good, but why would you pay more if it didn't get you anything better?
If the phone polls are better than the online polls then the Tories could receive about 1 million more votes than Labour - but where?
Sky News Newsdesk @SkyNewsBreak Sky Sources: #HSBC to launch an immediate review into whether it should move its headquarters from the UK
Helpful of them.
HSBC have threatened this twice before and this time I feel sure they'll make the move, presumably to HK. Why wouldn't they? - An ever increasing part of their business is based in Asis and they (along with other major UK banks) are under constant attack from British Governments and likely to remain so, incl. Tory Governments. Classic Goose & Golden Egg scenario.
Can I have my local midland bank back then, please?
Yes, because HSBC only came here in the first place to buy Midland, and they'd need to sell it to move out. In unrelated news, HSBC is moving a number of its retail bank headquarters staff to Birmingham, in the Midlands.
My recollection is slightly different, HSBC bought the Midland as part of an exit strategy from Hong Kong before the Chinese government took over.
Had an argument some years ago with an American who thought HSBC was American. I had to point out that the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation was based in London.
Comments
This was interesting - either Farage has been very active on the ground here or online panel got at by Ukippers, although has survation got over 1000 respondents in one constituency?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11554583/Nigel-Farages-battle-to-win-South-Thanet-will-go-down-in-election-history.html
The UKIP campaign has just been far more active in that seat than people like Dan Hodges want to believe.
http://www.election.demon.co.uk/1983LB.html
My favourite being Hornsey & Wood Green:
1983 73,870
1987 80,594
1992 73,688
But that didn't stop it from having a big swing and an easy Labour gain.
"Political commentators often talk about “big events”: the resignation of a cabinet minister, a big Parliamentary defeat, or Mark Reckless winning the by-election in Rochester & Strood.
But it seem likely that Ukip’s two by-election victories last autumn will be only a footnote to 2014.
In Scotland – by contrast – it feels as if history is being made.
Polls are just polls, of course. But after four days talking to scores of people around different areas of Glasgow it seems pretty clear. The pollsters are right."
But my favourite quote?
"Labour candidates are astonished by the speed of the reversal, which has occurred in barely half a year. “Last summer you could get odds of 100:1 on me losing my seat,” said one former Glasgow MP, incredulously."
Sky Sources: #HSBC to launch an immediate review into whether it should move its headquarters from the UK
Helpful of them.
It is not alone, but it could certainly have done more.
This is all very weird.
1) There's no real movement in the polls.
2) Practically all pundits are assuming the difference between the actual result will differ only in a tiny way from what's suggested by the polls. The betting money is saying the same thing, giving an implied probability of a hung parliament of around 90%.
Let's be serious - you can't reliably conclude from polls being flat that they're going to be right.
3) There's practically no commentary on how likely people are to vote how they say they will. The front pages were full of such stats in the run-up to theindyref.
But not many minds need to change and we will end up with a CON-LD coalition again. How extraordinary that hardly anybody's saying that.
4) Why isn't LAB sending all their heavyweights north of the border to try to hold their Scottish seats? Why the foregone conclusion that an SNP army of 40 or 50 MPs is going to march into Westminster?
Hundreds of thousands of people who aren't in the habit of voting turned out to stop the SNP and vote against independence. That was only 7 months ago. How about LAB tries to get them to come out again? Put up a fight, for goodness sake.
This is amazing and unprecedented stuff and needs an explanation.
"The Libyans and Syrians started massacreing each other before Western intervention, not after it."
So Western intervention in Libya made no difference? That's clearly nonsense and the sort of imperialist tripe the UK and US have been peddling for years. If they didn't want to affect the outcome what was their purpose in dropping bombs? And if they did want to affect the outcome shouldn't they see their vision through to the end?
I made a comment on twitter last night that Labour should worry that it is possible to post such weak shares, because even with pollsters where the Tories are behind Labour the Tory vote share is stronger than Lab's with Ashcroft and Survation.
Which from my point of view seems to point to an underlying pro Tory shift from voters.
I shall still stick by my forecast of Con 35 / Lab 32 from last week.
http://wingsoverscotland.com/a-serious-case-of-hypocrisy/
'If thing weren't tasty enough in South Thanet, where Mr Farage is seeking election, it has emerged that his Conservative opponent, Craig Mackinlay, has been running a website with his Hungarian-born wife, in which the couple encourage her countrymen and women to travel to the UK for work.
It's all a bit murky. Mr Mackinlay was actually a member of Ukip before defecting to the Tories in 2005. The couple set up the Angolmelo.com website, which is said to translates roughly as "work in England" in 2008. The web address was renewed in October 2014.
Bit embarrassing for the Tories, given star Boris Johnson was canvassing with Mr Mackinlay only this week.'
Let's face it, we're always to blame. We're to blame when we intervene (Kossovo, Iraq, Libya) and we're to blame when we don't intervene (Syria, Rwanda, Bosnia).
Indeed – if the polls are proved correct, the swift and total collapse of Labour domination in Scotland after 100 years will certainly be more than a footnote in the history books.
Con 286 (-2 compared with Tues 21 Apr), Lab 263 (unchanged), LibDem 26 (+2)
I left the Labour party in 2004, sickened by Labours Middle East wars. I am no fan of intervening again.
With the phone polls, you are more inclined to take part in the survey when contacted, whereas with Yougov they simply send you an invitation, the incentive being 50p for 10 minutes of your time (below the minimum wage!).
So, when a busy businessman such as myself gets an invite I may or may not respond depending upon whether I've got 10 minutes and a cup of tea in my hand or if I'm dealing with some important work. If I'm busy then the invite drops off the bottom of my inbox page and forgotten about.
Therefore, since busy people are more likely to vote Conservative and are less likely to fill in online surveys on a consistent basis perhaps this can explain the variance with Yougov.
Of course I may be wrong (but that would be unusual!)
And their spirit is already broken. It's like the Tories in 1997. When you just KNOW you are going to get a shellacking, its pretty damned hard to get the motivation up.
#PONG to launch an immediate review into whether he should move his bank account from HSBC
Furthermore, most of the refugees/asylum seekers appear to be from countries far to the south of Libya.
"With every day that passes I am more thankful for the LD presence in government for the last five years."
If the Libs would unequivocally state that they wouldn't prop up a Tory government under any circumstances or by any means I think they could hold quite a few seats they are sure to lose
It is noticeable that so many 'charities' have been shouting loudly about saving people from drowning, but so few have offered a practical solution as to why they are migrating or to where they should go.
It is noticeable the silence from the AU which is controlled by Mugabe and Zuma - both from the 'Christian' south of the continent and neither with a clean political record.
One thing is clear - that western Europe does not have to capacity or facilities to absorb unrestricted immigration from Africa or via Africa.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/28/hillary-clinton-undercut-on-libya-war-by-pentagon-/?page=all
Syria we very much armed and encouraged the rebels. Again see the leaks to the WT.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line
It was the Americans who insisted that Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union maintain the borders at the time of dissolution thus ensuring armed conflict would arise eventually to reorder the borders to reflect ethnic reality. Presumably the motivation was to artificially limit the size of a rival power by chopping off parts of Russia and putting them elsewhere.
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2015/02/20/how-the-badinter-commission-on-yugoslavia-laid-the-roots-for-crimeas-secession-from-ukraine/
Tin hats at the ready I would suggest!
I think most the remaining upside potential between now and next Thursday is with the tories.
There is still mileage in scaring the English horses with the SNP, although they need to be careful not to overdo this as there will be a point where it turns the electorate off. The great thing about this policy for the tories is that is potentially grabs votes from all parties south of the border thereby reducing their share at the same time.
The voter registration issue is sure to play a part. I see this affecting younger people and people not previously engaged in politics. This hurts LAB, GREEN and maybe UKIP
There may also still be a little traction in the "go to bed with Nigel, wake up with Ed", meme, to extract a few more tory leaning UKIP voters.
Silly man.
Are you standing for election?
But the Labour-SNP Thing has gone into the mix for many of them. And I can't see how this ends well for Labour. It will incline more of Labour's lukewarm voters (of which there are many under Ed Miliband) to stay at home - "there's no point, they're all as bad as each other...." It will steady the resolve of those who don't like Ed and/or Labour to hold their nose and vote Blue. "I'm not impressed with Cameron. But it's the lesser of two weevils..."
Iraq: yes. But that was Blair cosying up to Bush. Afganistan was different. There was a direct attack on the US.
Libya was instigated by Cameron and Holande. The UN resolution was only for no fly zone which the west interpreted conveniently to bomb the hell out of Libya with no preparation as what to follow. In fact, putting Islamists in charge in some places. Are they better than Gaddafi ?
Thanks to Miliband, the world walked away from bombing Syria. IS would be in control of Damascus by now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_2014_(United_Kingdom)#Opinion_polls
There's not much difference between the pollsters anyway. Con/Lab close with all of them.
"Therefore, since busy people are more likely to vote Conservative and are less likely to fill in online surveys on a consistent basis perhaps this can explain the variance with Yougov."
No doubting your credentials as a Tory candidate. We need more like you.
I asked her afterwards if she would be joining BOO. She said she would wait to see how DC's 're-negotiations' panned out. I never knew that anybody really believe in them. I thought everybody knew they were spurious? Maybe she was she just being a cautious new girl?
I told her that her opinion would matter, seeing as she had a proper job, and was running a proper business. Her reply surprised me. "Other people have said something similar. It really isn't a very big business" (modest subtext: I'm not that clever). I told her that she underestimated how few of her new colleagues had ever had a proper job.
ICM 'gap error' was just 1.5%. If repeated that would put the Tories ahead by 3.5%
Edit to answer my own question: Moving was apparently a condition for aquiring the Midland Bank.
Firstly the depth of corruption in our political, police and prosecution systems. Corruption not by bribery but of looking the other way when it is politically convenient to so do.
Secondly, in allowing the immigration - often unchecked for political purposes (votes) - of people from countries where political, legal and police corruption is the normal way of life rather than the exception.
Thirdly the failure to enforce the same law (and not to allow any other laws) for all people regardless of rank, nation or creed.
It all these had been enforced by our politicians and police - without fear or favour - then the chances of Rotherham, Rochdale and Oxford etc occurring would have been minimised. Unfortunately, by their silence on these subjects during this pre-election period, I do not see any of our leaders looking at these important matters and correcting such inaction.
We intervened in Libya, and prevented a genocide. And now Libya's chaotic. We did not intervene in Syria, and Syria is chaotic. The common factor is ISIS and Islamic extremism. Western intervention seems to have only been influential in that we prevented genocide in Libya, but did not stop Libya descending into a very perilous state of affairs.
Miliband banking on people being against intervention generally and seeking credit may work. Or, if he seeks to blame the PM for migrant deaths, it could backfire [Conservatives could raise Defence as an issue which, rightly or wrongly, is a strong suit for the blues].
'We believe that naming candidates has a clear effect on polling results.
Voters are electing an individual as MP, a person representing a party.
So in our telephone polls we put to voters both the candidate’s name AND their party.
Love him or hate him, understanding the “Farage Effect” is vital in our view as we look ahead to the choices voters face at the ballot box in South Thanet on May 7.
My advice is this: don’t put too much faith in predictions from some Westminster-based commentators that Ukip will only win one or two seats at the general election.
Ukip may well beat the half dozen seats that the SNP achieved in 2010 as well as setting itself up nicely for 2020 by chalking up 100 or more second places.'
http://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/572456/Damien-Lyons-Lowe-on-Ukip-general-election-2015-success
Mr. Financier, I agree entirely. I wonder if a university holding a white male event would've been censured.
'Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now. Whether there will be the public will to demand and obtain that action, I do not know. All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.'
Carswell the only Ukip mp I suppose is it?
In any case, this quote is moronic. Do SLAB MPs really need to be told that the correct answer to reporters who say "How do you feel about the SNP doing so well in the polls?"
IS THIS:
""I wouldn't pay much attention to polls, David. They don't chime with what people are telling us on the doorsteps. People are telling us that they're fed up with the SNP government in Scotland for reasons X, Y and Z. And the independence referendum is over. The Scottish people rejected the SNP's main policy. A lady in her 70s told me today that she hadn't voted since 1983 but she made a special effort to vote NO in the indyref and she's going to come out again on May 7 to vote LAB so that we can have a LAB majority at Westminster and Scotland can have the power to improve A B and C in our country without any backroom deals having to be done with other parties in a hung parliament. We want government for the best interests of Scotland, and that means Scottish MPs in the majority party - and the only way to get that is to vote LAB. And more and more people are telling me, David, that they understand that very well."
It's NOT
"Yes. It's terrible, isn't it? The SNP are odds-on at the bookies, you know. We're all going to lose our seats."
What LAB need is a new Mandelson.
(Welcome.)
After all, 9 months ago, Alistair Darling was being feted as the Saviour of the Union after he won the first debate against Alex Salmond.
The SNP have consistently provided a much more positive vision for Scotland, and the SNP leadership looks much more authentically Scottish. There is some deep soul-searching ahead for SLAB.
My own feeling is that there is absolutely no hope for SLAB, while the UK leadership of Labour looks and is so London-based. It just feeds into the ideology of a distant leadership imposing its authority on Scotland that echoes 1745 and Lochaber No More and the Highland Clearances and the Poll Tax.
Even when Labour MPs nominally represent Northern or Midlands seats (like Ed Miliband or Tristram Hunt or Caroline Flint), they are really just Londoners, born or bought up in London.
Labour is a very London party now. After the election, it will be even more so. That is a big problem for those who want to reinvent SLAB.
I am still hoping that in all seats UKIP have a shout, the anti-UKIP vote will find a candidate of any other party to support.
The only factors that should concern us is whether the questions are kosher and is the pollster reputable and preferably with a sound track record.
You'll be left hoping. Seems you are as clueless on that as you are wilfully naive on immigration
"To be brutally honest, i'm not sure that dead migrants in the med is a massive vote winner for Miliband."
It wont win over any Tories but Lib Dems and other more compassionate voters take these issues seriously
Secondly, to say 'we' have not intervened in Syria displays a total ignorance of modern warfare. There is no civil war in Syria - the wahhabist scum pouring into the country at our behest are from other countries - hence the issues that arise when these western-trained militants decide to return home. Had 'we' truly not intervened, Assad would have had order restored in a matter of months if not weeks, and Syrians would have continued to enjoy far more rights, freedoms and protections than the average Saudi Arabian.
(Come to think of it, was it you who posted that? I can't remember. Apologies if not.)
But that was - I hope - meant fully in irony/satire, as I thought at the time (though deliberately concealed in the hope I'd fall for it).
I've had a look back in the light of your specific remarks, nevertheless. The Wings 9/11 comment was very plainly ironic - and very obviously so. Even his least best Twitterfriend Duncan Hothershall of SLAB had to go on Twitter to agree. And as far as Hillsborough was concerned his remarks seem accurate enough - that members of the crowd itself had caused the deaths by its pushing from the back - but that the police and the coverup had also to be severely criticised. If you run a check for Hillsborough on his site you'll find some interesting stuff, not least that he's had a retraction, apology and damages for similar accusations from newspapers.
However, the much more important point which JPJ2 also made is that you don't actually need to worry about his opinions. He is so careful to present and document the evidence, very often from opposition sources - which is why I sometimes link to his site though I know that some on here can't bear it.
Phone polling will surely die a death if the online polls prove to be more accurate this time - I can see why you'd pay less for something not quite as good, but why would you pay more if it didn't get you anything better?
If the phone polls are better than the online polls then the Tories could receive about 1 million more votes than Labour - but where?
Had an argument some years ago with an American who thought HSBC was American. I had to point out that the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation was based in London.