Brave call from Damian Lyons Lowe in the Express. Good on him for backing his methodology, but it strikes me as an unnecessary risk to the business to go out on quite such a limb.
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.
I would tend to agree with most of that. The scaring of the English voters with the SNP is a surefire vote winner, if the Tories play well and mix it up getting the message over that most voters will be better off with them. Yesterday's Express and today's Mail were both themes they can use and gain from. I agree just focusing on Scotland would be too much.
Over the border into enemy Notts territory at the weekend to accept Ms Soubry's kind invitation to help with the cause. All the noises are very positive, I will report back on Amber Valley and Broxtowe Monday.
I feel much more positive for the Conservatives than I did this time last week, they seem to have got their act together after an awful previous week. Major obstacles still to overcome, I still don't have trust they will pitch the campaign to optimum effect and Mr Farage and UKIP are a huge threat, Far looks pretty confident and bullish to me and the current horrible main use won't harm him politically, far from it.
Don't forget to shake my near namesake warmly by the throat hand should you encounter him on your Broxtowe travels. COYR!
Try to avoid any contact with the 'ghastly Labour droner'.
A tad harsh but I suspect for Nick getting some stick from Letts in the Daily Mail he would see as a badge of honour.
Brave call from Damian Lyons Lowe in the Express. Good on him for backing his methodology, but it strikes me as an unnecessary risk to the business to go out on quite such a limb.
I guess every vote for Ukip helps their methodology look better as they find the highest kipper scores, so getting the vote out via the express is shrewd
But that's being cynical and I'd rather believe he is just being honest about what he thinks the best methodology is. Fair play
As @Brom says, their Rochester and Clacton polls were consistent (Ukip *0.8 of headline lead) was the result) so their is something in if maybe
Alastair Campbell@campbellclaret·2 mins2 minutes ago @David_Cameron synthetic fury re @Ed_Miliband speech evidence of 1 lack of strategy 2 blindness to his and EU failings re Med and Libya
1) Chilcott report - if only we had that released so that we could learn from previous interventions
2) David Kelly - nuff said.
It is not David Cameron who has blood on his hands.
I'd long been of the opinion that Miliband is an opportunistic, conniving, untrustworthy, two-faced shit, but I've still been taken aback by the unbelieeeevable front in trying to pin migrant drownings on Cameron. Quite, quite astonishing.
@FraserNelson: If today is 1st time Miliband has ever raised post-conflict Libya, it'll backfire on him badly. It'd be cynicism of the worst kind...
Maybe pointless to ask this with an election campaign on and everybody in partisan bullshit mode but non-sarcastically, does anyone have any idea what things like "provide better support" and "post-conflict planning" would have meant in practice?
I'd like to say foreign policy never plays big in general elections but Falklands 1983 and Iraq 2005 call the lie to that.
Did Iraq make a huge impact upon 2005? the lib dems only put on 10 seats from 2001.
Think it spelled the demise of TB who was out within 2 yrs. Labour lost 5% and 47 seats.
Bit blimmin harsh on the LDs though buddy. They won 62 seats which is their most since the war.
Well, who knew it? Somehow all those migrants from Somalia, Eritrea, Gambia, Nigeria, Syria, Senegal, Palestine, Mali and even Afghanistan [number 2 in the list of numbers by country for Q4 2014] are trying desperately to get to Europe because of chaos in Libya, which of course is David Cameron's fault, natch.
If anyone still had any lingering hope that Ed Miliband might just about be fit for office (although I find it hard to believe there is any such person), this intervention should kill it off.
@smarmeron That would the famous right winger Gordon Brown with balls and Miliband who devised the tripartite banking regulation / supervision. The problem of th right is that they care too much about their own wealth to see things from a normal persons perspective.
I am a centrist. If chasing all bankers and successful people out of the country means we all (those remaining) have to pay more tax and have less public services then I don't agree.
I also think that the treasury should do more predictive modelling on taxes and also release report on prediction and post action review. For example if raising top rate of tax to 50p in the pound actually means we get a negligible amount more tax income then what is the point. I am never going to earn that kind of money but I don't see the point in penalizing those that do.
I expect burglars claim to "earn" their money, too. Try thinking before you post.
The Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, says the SNP's plan to back Labour regardless of how many seats it wins at Westminster means it will "ignore the will of the people".
Mr Clegg told BBC Radio 5 Live's Your Call: "She's said overnight regardless of who becomes the largest party, she would make sure she would only back the one she wants to back.
"She's going to ignore the will of the people.
"She's going to ignore how people vote and she's just going to insist on her personal preference."
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."
Good to see more of the self styled Westminster elite journalist actually taking the time to travel to Scotland, speak to real people and write articles based on facts. The pathetic "there be monsters" articles coming from the Daily Mail and DT in particular would be laughable if they weren't meant to be serious.
I think SLABs problem is that they lost most of us in Holyrood 2011 and didn't even notice until after the referendum. What SLAB should have done in the referendum was allow both a YES and NO campaign, instead of allowing themselves to be played by Cameron. To give Cameron his due he has played an absolute blinder in his destruction of SLAB.
"So what will happen in East Renfrewshire on May 7th? It’s truly fascinating. With a strong consistent Conservative vote, committed to the Union and set against any deal with the SNP, those who voted ‘No’ last September now know there is only one candidate who can stop the SNP – Dr David Montgomery. "
Personally I think the general opinion of the GBP is that the middle east is such a sh*thole/basket case that no matter what you do it's not going to make things either better or worse....
I think that's a fair assessment of the mood. Libya seemed to be potentially moving in a positive direction, but now is more chaotic than ever with no end in sight, so while it remains theoretically possible to intervene in some limited military fashion to help in some very specific circumstances that would make it a good option, in practice it's just a nightmare, and criticism comes from acting and not acting, and chaos and death comes from the same. The migrant issue gets tied up with that of course, and hence we end up with everyone regretting a lot, but not wanting to do anything that might encourage more, or just not able to see how to stop it, which is the only way to fully end the tragedies.
@DanHannanMEP: In their determination to criticise Cameron, many Leftists are veering close to the "At least Gaddafi kept immigrants out of Europe" shtick.
Looks like a major mistake for EdM to blame Cameron for the deaths of Refugees in the Med..a bit of a blunder in the dark..and it makes him totally unfit to be the PM.
Well, who knew it? Somehow all those migrants from Somalia, Eritrea, Gambia, Nigeria, Syria, Senegal, Palestine, Mali and even Afghanistan [number 2 in the list of numbers by country for Q4 2014] are trying desperately to get to Europe because of chaos in Libya, which of course is David Cameron's fault, natch.
If anyone still had any lingering hope that Ed Miliband's might just about be fit for office (although I find it hard to think there is any such person), this intervention should kill it off.
How many PMQs sessions did Ed use on the topic of election debates vs Med migrants ?
Brave call from Damian Lyons Lowe in the Express. Good on him for backing his methodology, but it strikes me as an unnecessary risk to the business to go out on quite such a limb.
I guess every vote for Ukip helps their methodology look better as they find the highest kipper scores, so getting the vote out via the express is shrewd
But that's being cynical and I'd rather believe he is just being honest about what he thinks the best methodology is. Fair play
As @Brom says, their Rochester and Clacton polls were consistent (Ukip *0.8 of headline lead) was the result) so their is something in if maybe
Am I naïve in thinking that Survation should have refined their polling in the light of experience, so should now be a bit more accurate than in previous elections?
Presumably Ed Miliband's comments on Libya are intended to move the conversation on from the SNP. I agree with the thrust of these comments, but wouldn't it have been better for the remarks to be made by Douglas Alexander (in more intemperate terms) if this was the aim? When playing chess, the king should be deployed with care; better to put a piece in peril that you can afford to lose, especially one that is already en prise.
I wouldn't have thought anyone would have reported a speech by Douglas Alexander, would they?
Hence my point about more intemperate terms. No one had ever heard of Michael Fallon, but he managed to move the conversation on from non-doms.
Even if Cameron agreed he didn't wield the knife himself. Very poor form for it to be attributed to Miliband when he has a whole front bench of anonymity to call on
Brave call from Damian Lyons Lowe in the Express. Good on him for backing his methodology, but it strikes me as an unnecessary risk to the business to go out on quite such a limb.
The Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, says the SNP's plan to back Labour regardless of how many seats it wins at Westminster means it will "ignore the will of the people".
Mr Clegg told BBC Radio 5 Live's Your Call: "She's said overnight regardless of who becomes the largest party, she would make sure she would only back the one she wants to back.
"She's going to ignore the will of the people.
"She's going to ignore how people vote and she's just going to insist on her personal preference."
In any case, the will of the people isn't a Con-SNP coalition in fact it is the opposite if the will of the people who vote for those parties, so you could say she is doing right by the voters by making it clear beforehand what she would do in the event
Well, who knew it? Somehow all those migrants from Somalia, Eritrea, Gambia, Nigeria, Syria, Senegal, Palestine, Mali and even Afghanistan [number 2 in the list of numbers by country for Q4 2014] are trying desperately to get to Europe because of chaos in Libya, which of course is David Cameron's fault, natch.
If anyone still had any lingering hope that Ed Miliband's might just about be fit for office (although I find it hard to think there is any such person), this intervention should kill it off.
It really is desperate stuff. He also reconfirmed in the Metro this morning that he thinks the next James Bond should be a woman - he suggested Rosamund Pike.
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."
I think SLABs problem is that they lost most of us in Holyrood 2011 and didn't even notice until after the referendum.
Not that there were many Scotland only polls as far as I am aware, but with the polls not showing a massive SNP surge until last year, I don't fully blame them for not noticing. Of course, they shouldn't have been taking their electorate to granted so much in any case. Obviously as a unionist it does not thrill me that the Scottish people want an SNP landslide to represent them, but it can only be a good thing that so many safe seats, even if SLAB manage to cling on to a few more than predicted, are now up for grabs and must be properly fought for. I'd hope the same would be true for safe seats on all sides up and down the country, but it has taken a very particular set of circumstances to enable this reversal, so i don't see it happening in the immediate future however.
@DanHannanMEP: In their determination to criticise Cameron, many Leftists are veering close to the "At least Gaddafi kept immigrants out of Europe" shtick.
A lot of people out there on the left and right probably believe the same thing, I suspect.
Brave call from Damian Lyons Lowe in the Express. Good on him for backing his methodology, but it strikes me as an unnecessary risk to the business to go out on quite such a limb.
He may not realise that he's going out on a limb. Or he may not care.
My guess is survation is undercutting the competition in the budget-polling-cum-market-research business - he's doing everything possible to increase survation's brand awareness for when demand for political polls dries up on may 8th.
Maybe pointless to ask this with an election campaign on and everybody in partisan bullshit mode but non-sarcastically, does anyone have any idea what things like "provide better support" and "post-conflict planning" would have meant in practice?
Ground forces or in other words political suicide
Not just ground forces. Hundreds of thousands of ground forces.
Political suicide not just for the UK parties (as if they are important) but for any nation that thinks it might be a good idea = none of them incl the US.
@DanHannanMEP: In their determination to criticise Cameron, many Leftists are veering close to the "At least Gaddafi kept immigrants out of Europe" shtick.
Brave call from Damian Lyons Lowe in the Express. Good on him for backing his methodology, but it strikes me as an unnecessary risk to the business to go out on quite such a limb.
I guess every vote for Ukip helps their methodology look better as they find the highest kipper scores, so getting the vote out via the express is shrewd
But that's being cynical and I'd rather believe he is just being honest about what he thinks the best methodology is. Fair play
As @Brom says, their Rochester and Clacton polls were consistent (Ukip *0.8 of headline lead) was the result) so their is something in if maybe
Am I naïve in thinking that Survation should have refined their polling in the light of experience, so should now be a bit more accurate than in previous elections?
Probably not... It seems they're certain to vote filter was right so maybe they should publish that instead?
Tentatively it seems the 0.8 multiplier has worked but it's all v small samples
Re Libya and the air campaign. I am not sure there were many options available to ensure a peaceful outcome afterwards. The UK/France etc were never going to put boots on the ground as such, with only limited resource provided by the Foreign Office to help on a diplomatic/assistance level. It would be up to the powers in the region and the UN to help try to bring the different factions together. Even then it would be very difficult.
While Miliband has a general point about Cameron/Sarkosy probably celebrating the air campaign outcome too much and then possibly not doing more on the peace side afterwards, it is a bit harsh. Had Cameron been more active in bringing the factions together in some form of peace/reconciliation process, it probably would have made no difference. The Middle East and North Africa have had problems for years, with there being no idea how to resolve them.
Looking for more positives for the Reds, is it significant that they have more 34-35 scores, whereas the the Tories have a more in the 33-34 range? The overall ranges are 29-35 and 31-36 respectively, but I'm surprised Lab are hitting what I would regard as their ceiling more often.
The Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, says the SNP's plan to back Labour regardless of how many seats it wins at Westminster means it will "ignore the will of the people".
Mr Clegg told BBC Radio 5 Live's Your Call: "She's said overnight regardless of who becomes the largest party, she would make sure she would only back the one she wants to back.
"She's going to ignore the will of the people.
"She's going to ignore how people vote and she's just going to insist on her personal preference."
In any case, the will of the people isn't a Con-SNP coalition in fact it is the opposite if the will of the people who vote for those parties, so you could say she is doing right by the voters by making it clear beforehand what she would do in the event
The mathematics of Government may mean that the Lib Dems have to switch sides. No other minor party (Not even the DUP) has tied themselves to one side in the way the Lib Dems have. They either need Labour to do extraordinarily well or the Conservatives to hose up with around 300 seats. If Labour are on 270 and Tories 280, the Lib Dems are going to have to do some major reversing and U-turns on what they've indicated pre-election.
I find all the polling really confusing. Perhaps people who vote Tory have returned to being shy again and we will only know once the votes have been counted.
expect the Tories to play the 'Chilcott report' card and suggest Labour are blocking the release...
Oh gods, Chilcott. What the hell is the hold up with that thing, it's expected in 2016 now isn't it? Aren't their guidelines on how long is reasonable to give someone named in it a chance to respond before you just move on?
@smarmeron That would the famous right winger Gordon Brown with balls and Miliband who devised the tripartite banking regulation / supervision. The problem of th right is that they care too much about their own wealth to see things from a normal persons perspective.
I am a centrist. If chasing all bankers and successful people out of the country means we all (those remaining) have to pay more tax and have less public services then I don't agree.
I also think that the treasury should do more predictive modelling on taxes and also release report on prediction and post action review. For example if raising top rate of tax to 50p in the pound actually means we get a negligible amount more tax income then what is the point. I am never going to earn that kind of money but I don't see the point in penalizing those that do.
I expect burglars claim to "earn" their money, too. Try thinking before you post.
Not really sure of your point
Well, when is money earnt? If you regard winning bets as earnings, fair enough - most people don't. I don't regard anyone whose income is determined by peer group review as "earnt" and part of me still thinks that only manual labour counts as hard work.
If "earnings " involve wealth creation, then soldiers don't "earn", although they may often plunder (i.e. burgle). Many people simply use the word as a way of cheering people they like and hissing those they don't.
The Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, says the SNP's plan to back Labour regardless of how many seats it wins at Westminster means it will "ignore the will of the people".
Mr Clegg told BBC Radio 5 Live's Your Call: "She's said overnight regardless of who becomes the largest party, she would make sure she would only back the one she wants to back.
"She's going to ignore the will of the people.
"She's going to ignore how people vote and she's just going to insist on her personal preference."
In any case, the will of the people isn't a Con-SNP coalition in fact it is the opposite if the will of the people who vote for those parties, so you could say she is doing right by the voters by making it clear beforehand what she would do in the event
If there was a decent gap (say 40-50 seats) between CON and LAB, she could do the decent thing and instruct her party to abstain on the Queens Speech and budget.
Brave call from Damian Lyons Lowe in the Express. Good on him for backing his methodology, but it strikes me as an unnecessary risk to the business to go out on quite such a limb.
He may not realise that he's going out on a limb. Or he may not care.
My guess is survation is undercutting the competition in the budget-polling-cum-market-research business - he's doing everything possible to increase survation's brand awareness for when demand for political polls dries up on may 8th.
Good luck to him.
He has defended / explained the thinking behind their methodology before... More interested in the truth than spin methinks
'Providing an overview of the current political climate, and mainly focusing on the surging support for the UK Independence Party – Professor John Curtice – Professor of Politics at the University of Strathclyde noted that there was a pollster in the room. Professor Curtice said that (after the pending local elections) that “we would soon see whether Survation’s (General Election) 16% or ICM’s 9% support figure for UKIP was the more correct figure!”
That hurt a bit, as ICM, who have been polling for nearly 25 years now, were the most accurate pollster in the 2010 General Election – so I got the idea – ouch!'
Now that Ed has raised his game way beyond what any of us thought possible this election has started to become interesting.
He's still a little timid for my taste (why on earth back away from his justifiable criticism of Cameron's Libyan adventure) but he now at least looks like a leader.
My hope is that all those on the centre left will be enthused enough to vote tactically to rid ourselves of this seriously unpleasant Tory administration. I didn't think this before but they've really shown their true face now they are uncoupled from the Lib Dems.
Without the Libs I think they're terrifying
This is a spoof post right?
No one can really seriously post this crap can they?
Brave call from Damian Lyons Lowe in the Express. Good on him for backing his methodology, but it strikes me as an unnecessary risk to the business to go out on quite such a limb.
Mr. kle4, indeed, 2016 is the new ETA due to lawyers working for certain persons apparently trying to, er, achieve agreement on the precise wording of included elements.
I've been looking at the Survation poll for Thanet and comparing it with those for the Clacton and Rochester by-elections. Survation overestimated the UKIP victory margin in both cases, however in both Rochester & Clacton they were spot on with the Kipper margin of victory when using the 'likely to vote' table. This bodes well for Nigel as he's 7% ahead in that respect. You'd also assume the undecideds might split between Tory/Lab rather than largely head towards the Tories as they did in the 2 horse races of Clacton & Rochester.
Anyway judging by Ashcroft's tweet last night we may be seeing more marginal polling today, another Thanet South poll to clear things up/muddy the waters perhaps!
Getting the likelihood to vote very wrong is possibly largely behind the errors in Survation's by-election and EU election polling. Whether it gets corrected by increased turnout or they still include too many 'never-voted' may be key to how accurate they are.
Individual polls cause a lot of excitement. But given the MOE, do they mean a lot? I find the 20-poll moving averages a lot clearer. Maybe we should concentrate on them.
Then ... either the trend is clearer, or the flat line is even flatter!
expect the Tories to play the 'Chilcott report' card and suggest Labour are blocking the release...
Oh gods, Chilcott. What the hell is the hold up with that thing, it's expected in 2016 now isn't it? Aren't their guidelines on how long is reasonable to give someone named in it a chance to respond before you just move on?
Now that Ed has raised his game way beyond what any of us thought possible this election has started to become interesting.
He's still a little timid for my taste (why on earth back away from his justifiable criticism of Cameron's Libyan adventure) but he now at least looks like a leader.
My hope is that all those on the centre left will be enthused enough to vote tactically to rid ourselves of this seriously unpleasant Tory administration. I didn't think this before but they've really shown their true face now they are uncoupled from the Lib Dems.
Without the Libs I think they're terrifying
This is a spoof post right?
No one can really seriously post this crap can they?
The Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, says the SNP's plan to back Labour regardless of how many seats it wins at Westminster means it will "ignore the will of the people".
Mr Clegg told BBC Radio 5 Live's Your Call: "She's said overnight regardless of who becomes the largest party, she would make sure she would only back the one she wants to back.
"She's going to ignore the will of the people.
"She's going to ignore how people vote and she's just going to insist on her personal preference."
In any case, the will of the people isn't a Con-SNP coalition in fact it is the opposite if the will of the people who vote for those parties, so you could say she is doing right by the voters by making it clear beforehand what she would do in the event
The mathematics of Government may mean that the Lib Dems have to switch sides. No other minor party (Not even the DUP) has tied themselves to one side in the way the Lib Dems have. They either need Labour to do extraordinarily well or the Conservatives to hose up with around 300 seats. If Labour are on 270 and Tories 280, the Lib Dems are going to have to do some major reversing and U-turns on what they've indicated pre-election.
Wouldn't be the first time, mind.
The Lib Dems will enable whoever will form the most stable government to do so. In the case of a fairly free choice, they will go through huge internal contortions.
Off topic, but can someone explain why it "took four local individuals in this case to risk a legal bill of hundreds of thousands of pounds to get this election overturned"?
The Labour party or any other party refused to get involved. Nor did the Electoral Commission nor the police The relevant legislation provides an opportunity for an individual to do it and the Judge (a) commented on their bravery and persistence; and (b) made suggestions for improving the law.
Bluntly, the big boys were frit. It took 4 Davids to fell the Goliath.
Will The Met and The Electoral Commission be still in lessons when the General Election arrives?
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."
I think SLABs problem is that they lost most of us in Holyrood 2011 and didn't even notice until after the referendum.
Not that there were many Scotland only polls as far as I am aware, but with the polls not showing a massive SNP surge until last year, I don't fully blame them for not noticing. Of course, they shouldn't have been taking their electorate to granted so much in any case. Obviously as a unionist it does not thrill me that the Scottish people want an SNP landslide to represent them, but it can only be a good thing that so many safe seats, even if SLAB manage to cling on to a few more than predicted, are now up for grabs and must be properly fought for. I'd hope the same would be true for safe seats on all sides up and down the country, but it has taken a very particular set of circumstances to enable this reversal, so i don't see it happening in the immediate future however.
Although most pollsters didn't pick up on the SNP surge until after the referendum, Survation picked up on it 9 months before the referendum. As they seem to be one of the only pollsters which weight Scotland by region, this should have triggered alarm bells at SLAB HQ in London !!
@DanHannanMEP: In their determination to criticise Cameron, many Leftists are veering close to the "At least Gaddafi kept immigrants out of Europe" shtick.
A lot of people out there on the left and right probably believe the same thing, I suspect.
Following Miliband's own logic, he should share the blame for the demise of any Syrians desperately fleeing the evils of Assad, who he helped to keep in place.
Just like Ed is now claiming we should have seen what was going to happen in Iraq Libya, we should have known this would come at the end of "NHS week"
A Labour campaign, strapped for cash, can re-use the same shroud they waved over the dead of Mid-Staff to wave over the dead in the Mediterranean and save costs. They are the party of fiscal responsibility after all...
Looking for more positives for the Reds, is it significant that they have more 34-35 scores, whereas the the Tories have a more in the 33-34 range? The overall ranges are 29-35 and 31-36 respectively, but I'm surprised Lab are hitting what I would regard as their ceiling more often.
Is that all polls or excluding YouGov? YouGov is swamping the polls with their daily results.
Ed Miliband is a deeply unpleasant person, who hides behind the Labour values mask of equality and fairness, which he thinks gives him licence to say and do whatever nasty things he likes.
The last Labour government was famous for this. It's amazing some have forgotten it so quickly.
Following Miliband's own logic, he should share the blame for the demise of any Syrians desperately fleeing the evils of Assad, who he helped to keep in place.
Oh gods, Chilcott. What the hell is the hold up with that thing, it's expected in 2016 now isn't it? Aren't their guidelines on how long is reasonable to give someone named in it a chance to respond before you just move on?
Blair and Bush.
Regarding South Thanet:
I live not too far from the area. Farage is popular with the 40+ crowd, but I've noticed several individuals discuss voting Tory to stop them having a UKIP MP. Cannot confirm if tactical voting is occurring on a large scale; the under 30 crowd is considering their options and how best to prevent a Farage victory.
LAB and Tory activists have both told me them same thing - too close to call at the moment.
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.
I thought it was the USA the main instigator in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Whereas Cameron and Sarkozy took all the plaudits in Libya for mission accomplished. I notice you do not see that video often repeated in Conservative propaganda.
Con 280 Lab 260 SNP 52 LD 20 UKIP 5 NI 18 Others 5
Dave, realising that he can't form a government resigns and leaves it to Ed.
Ed, manages to cobble a barely workable agreement, but in a moment of foresight, realises that such a government could lead to the long term destruction of the Labour party, also resigns.
Does Salmond try to form a government (with LAB S&C) and become PM or is that just too ridiculous and we would have to have another election.
Mr. Bear, did Iraq make a difference in 2005, though? Labour still won a comfortable majority.
If it had not been for Iraq the Labour victory would have been more comfortable, and the Blairites may have been confident enough not to have to draft in Gordon Brown to save the faltering campaign previously run by Milburn.
Thus triumphant, Blair would have had the opportunity to move Brown from the Treasury, establishing a Blairite as his favoured successor and changing the course of British politics.
See what he says first. I think international leadership is at an all time low at the moment. Obama promised a lot with his speeches and he has sat back watching what is going on, using air power including drones. Cameron has not been that active on the world stage. Merkel/Hollande have held discussions between Ukraine and Russia, but that has not achieved too much.
Russia/China block actions in the security council, meaning the UN is a waste of time. The UN secretary general moaned about world leadership recently, saying that countries have stopped wanting to tackle the big issues.
I have seen this coming for some time, as if you read international news or listen to BBC World Service, they constantly report problems all around the world, which do not always feature on the main news. People living in these poor countries have seen what others in their own country and elsewhere are enjoying, so want to move for a better life. TV channels/internet can be viewed now across many parts of Africa, which was not the case say 10 years ago.
Con 280 Lab 260 SNP 52 LD 20 UKIP 5 NI 18 Others 5
Dave, realising that he can't form a government resigns and leaves it to Ed.
Ed, manages to cobble a barely workable agreement, but in a moment of foresight, realises that such a government could lead to the long term destruction of the Labour party, also resigns.
Does Salmond try to form a government (with LAB S&C) and become PM or is that just too ridiculous and we would have to have another election.
Labour minority Government, Ed Miliband not necessarily in charge.
Anybody know how the figures at the top of the YouGov tables relate to their new "likelihood to vote" measure? I've continued using the topline figures along with the total sample multiplied by (100-(WNV+DK))% to calculate figures for ELBOW (as I always have done since August).
Mostly this is OK, but every few polls, Lab or Tory are out by around 1% compared with the headline % on page 1 of their tables.
When Damian from Survation wrote his explanation of their different approach to Ukip VI, they had Ukip on 16% and ICM had 9%. The most recent was 18% and 11%, so Ukip up since then but the question of who is the most accurate remains
There is international consent, a just cause and a feasible mission, but we also need—this is very important—to maintain public support here at home, because this House is not just contemplating expressing its support for an international resolution; it is discussing its position on the use of armed forces. We are a generous and compassionate people, but there will no doubt be some people in the country—indeed, we have heard it in parts of this House—wondering whether it really needs to be us, now, at this time. It is a valid and important question, but in the end, as well as there being the geopolitical questions that the Prime Minister raised, we have to make a judgment about our role in the world and our duty to others. Where there is just cause, where feasible action can be taken, and where there is international consent, are we really saying that we should be a country that stands by and does nothing? In my view, that would be a dereliction of our duty, our history, and our values. Let us not forget that those who have risen up against Colonel Gaddafi are part of a wider movement for reform and democracy that we are seeing across north Africa. We cannot and should not abandon them.
Con 280 Lab 260 SNP 52 LD 20 UKIP 5 NI 18 Others 5
Dave, realising that he can't form a government resigns and leaves it to Ed.
Ed, manages to cobble a barely workable agreement, but in a moment of foresight, realises that such a government could lead to the long term destruction of the Labour party, also resigns.
Does Salmond try to form a government (with LAB S&C) and become PM or is that just too ridiculous and we would have to have another election.
Lady Hermon for PM!
(I'd prefer Viscount Thurso but you can't always get what you want)
Ed Miliband is a deeply unpleasant person, who hides behind the Labour values mask of equality and fairness, which he thinks gives him licence to say and do whatever nasty things he likes.
The last Labour government was famous for this. It's amazing some have forgotten it so quickly.
Labour can say what they want because they are the nice party who want to give people more stuff, not the evil Tories who want to cut things.
There is international consent, a just cause and a feasible mission, but we also need—this is very important—to maintain public support here at home, because this House is not just contemplating expressing its support for an international resolution; it is discussing its position on the use of armed forces. We are a generous and compassionate people, but there will no doubt be some people in the country—indeed, we have heard it in parts of this House—wondering whether it really needs to be us, now, at this time. It is a valid and important question, but in the end, as well as there being the geopolitical questions that the Prime Minister raised, we have to make a judgment about our role in the world and our duty to others. Where there is just cause, where feasible action can be taken, and where there is international consent, are we really saying that we should be a country that stands by and does nothing? In my view, that would be a dereliction of our duty, our history, and our values. Let us not forget that those who have risen up against Colonel Gaddafi are part of a wider movement for reform and democracy that we are seeing across north Africa. We cannot and should not abandon them.
@DanHannanMEP: In their determination to criticise Cameron, many Leftists are veering close to the "At least Gaddafi kept immigrants out of Europe" shtick.
I can confidently predict that Chilcott will do Labour no harm at all. Anyone who doesn't see Blair as a Tory is a very rare specimen indeed
Odd that Blair kept the Tories out of power for so long, odder still that a man who won 3 General Elections for Labour is vilified so quickly.
I agree, although in fairness to Roger, one of the only times I can remember my father making a political comment it was about how Labour won in 1997 and onwards was by 'becoming the Tories', so there are some people who see Blair and presumably New Labour that way. I think no-one really cared in the Labour camp so long as they won elections - another reason the left-right spectrum is nonsense, as none of the parties are really ideologically consistent, they will jump around the spectrum on issue to issue to win votes, and why wouldn't, while still pretending there is a huge ideological gap separating them.
Mr. Bear, did Iraq make a difference in 2005, though? Labour still won a comfortable majority.
If it had not been for Iraq the Labour victory would have been more comfortable, and the Blairites may have been confident enough not to have to draft in Gordon Brown to save the faltering campaign previously run by Milburn.
Thus triumphant, Blair would have had the opportunity to move Brown from the Treasury, establishing a Blairite as his favoured successor and changing the course of British politics.
Not sure it would have mattered when the economy tanked
Ed Miliband is a deeply unpleasant person, who hides behind the Labour values mask of equality and fairness, which he thinks gives him licence to say and do whatever nasty things he likes.
The last Labour government was famous for this. It's amazing some have forgotten it so quickly.
Is amazing, when Tories go negative, Miliband screams and scream and screams and say he would never do such a thing. Guardian and BBC row in behind him and go on about the Daily Mail....Then, Miliband weaponizes a bandwagon...and that is perfectly fine.
Well, who knew it? Somehow all those migrants from Somalia, Eritrea, Gambia, Nigeria, Syria, Senegal, Palestine, Mali and even Afghanistan [number 2 in the list of numbers by country for Q4 2014] are trying desperately to get to Europe because of chaos in Libya, which of course is David Cameron's fault, natch.
If anyone still had any lingering hope that Ed Miliband might just about be fit for office (although I find it hard to believe there is any such person), this intervention should kill it off.
Not that I'm a fan of Miliband's posturing on this, but there is a reason the boats are departing from Libya rather than Morocco, and it's not because they fancy a longer voyage across the Mediterranean.
The origin of the migrants themselves is not so much the issue.
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.
I would tend to agree with most of that. The scaring of the English voters with the SNP is a surefire vote winner, if the Tories play well and mix it up getting the message over that most voters will be better off with them. Yesterday's Express and today's Mail were both themes they can use and gain from. I agree just focusing on Scotland would be too much.
Over the border into enemy Notts territory at the weekend to accept Ms Soubry's kind invitation to help with the cause. All the noises are very positive, I will report back on Amber Valley and Broxtowe Monday.
I feel much more positive for the Conservatives than I did this time last week, they seem to have got their act together after an awful previous week. Major obstacles still to overcome, I still don't have trust they will pitch the campaign to optimum effect and Mr Farage and UKIP are a huge threat, Far looks pretty confident and bullish to me and the current horrible main use won't harm him politically, far from it.
Don't forget to shake my near namesake warmly by the throat hand should you encounter him on your Broxtowe travels. COYR!
I bet Liam Bryne has taken a lot of stick in Labour circles for his attempt at being funny 5 years ago. I don't know that it has actually cost them anything, but it's always provided an easy counter for the coalition to fall back on.
Oh gods, Chilcott. What the hell is the hold up with that thing, it's expected in 2016 now isn't it? Aren't their guidelines on how long is reasonable to give someone named in it a chance to respond before you just move on?
Blair and Bush.
Regarding South Thanet:
I live not too far from the area. Farage is popular with the 40+ crowd, but I've noticed several individuals discuss voting Tory to stop them having a UKIP MP. Cannot confirm if tactical voting is occurring on a large scale; the under 30 crowd is considering their options and how best to prevent a Farage victory.
LAB and Tory activists have both told me them same thing - too close to call at the moment.
Someone should ship some of those nose-pegs over from France.
Con 280 Lab 260 SNP 52 LD 20 UKIP 5 NI 18 Others 5
Dave, realising that he can't form a government resigns and leaves it to Ed.
Ed, manages to cobble a barely workable agreement, but in a moment of foresight, realises that such a government could lead to the long term destruction of the Labour party, also resigns.
Does Salmond try to form a government (with LAB S&C) and become PM or is that just too ridiculous and we would have to have another election.
Lady Hermon for PM!
(I'd prefer Viscount Thurso but you can't always get what you want)
Not that I'm a fan of Miliband's posturing on this, but there is a reason the boats are departing from Libya rather than Morocco, and it's not because they fancy a longer voyage across the Mediterranean.
The origin of the migrants themselves is not so much the issue.
Sure, but the point is Libya is a transit point. If it wasn't Libya it would be somewhere else. Libya is a red herring, it's not the cause of the migration.
Can I just thank Carnyx for posting the Wings etc site which I had only been slightly aware of before. I have no idea who this person is or what his track record is but it is in fairness very difficult to contest the view that his analysis of Labour's attack is both completely forensic and totally devastating.
I am afraid you will have to look elsewhere for stoppin the SNP's big mo.
Con 280 Lab 260 SNP 52 LD 20 UKIP 5 NI 18 Others 5
Dave, realising that he can't form a government resigns and leaves it to Ed.
Ed, manages to cobble a barely workable agreement, but in a moment of foresight, realises that such a government could lead to the long term destruction of the Labour party, also resigns.
Does Salmond try to form a government (with LAB S&C) and become PM or is that just too ridiculous and we would have to have another election.
Lady Hermon for PM!
(I'd prefer Viscount Thurso but you can't always get what you want)
This is Ed's HIV moment isn't it ? A desperate attempt to get the SNP off the agenda, point scoring off the back of a human tragedy (I agree with Nick Clegg on this one)
I honestly can't remember a General Election so visceral and downright nasty. Gutter stuff all round.
There is international consent, a just cause and a feasible mission, but we also need—this is very important—to maintain public support here at home, because this House is not just contemplating expressing its support for an international resolution; it is discussing its position on the use of armed forces. We are a generous and compassionate people, but there will no doubt be some people in the country—indeed, we have heard it in parts of this House—wondering whether it really needs to be us, now, at this time. It is a valid and important question, but in the end, as well as there being the geopolitical questions that the Prime Minister raised, we have to make a judgment about our role in the world and our duty to others. Where there is just cause, where feasible action can be taken, and where there is international consent, are we really saying that we should be a country that stands by and does nothing? In my view, that would be a dereliction of our duty, our history, and our values. Let us not forget that those who have risen up against Colonel Gaddafi are part of a wider movement for reform and democracy that we are seeing across north Africa. We cannot and should not abandon them.
BTW, today's speech as reported mentions that Labour supported the bombing. The complaint is that the government(s) then bollocksed up the peace. I suspect this is a load of old cobblers and the thing was doomed from the start (hence my question upthread) but it's a coherent position. It's the same position that oppositions that voted for the Iraq war took when the aftermath went pear-shaped; I haven't tried to chase it up, but it was probably what the Tories said about Iraq.
I bet Liam Bryne has taken a lot of stick in Labour circles for his attempt at being funny 5 years ago. I don't know that it has actually cost them anything, but it's always provided an easy counter for the coalition to fall back on.
It cost Bryne a lot. And it also set a narrative. The note in itself isn't the big deal, but Labour then spent 4+ years opposing all cuts, bangings on about too far too fast and basically reinforcing that narrative.
"YG you can explain by stale polling panel & evidence for v little churn."
I have been polled by YouGov at least 4 times during this campaign.
I find myself on the 3rd and 4th occasion shifting nuanced answers (where they can be) to YG's questions to the non-nuanced, absolute positions. ie from moderately support to completely support, thinking 'didn't you hear me the first time?'
I wonder if this may be a more widespread reaction to being repeatedly asked the same question? And if so, if it explains why positions on YG become more entrenched and less likely to reveal small movements in wider opinion that the other pollsters may have found?
Not that I'm a fan of Miliband's posturing on this, but there is a reason the boats are departing from Libya rather than Morocco, and it's not because they fancy a longer voyage across the Mediterranean.
The origin of the migrants themselves is not so much the issue.
Sure, but the point is Libya is a transit point. If it wasn't Libya it would be somewhere else. Libya is a red herring, it's not the cause of the migration.
But Libya being a lawless state is the reason it's easy for people traffickers to do what they are doing and hence people dying... Other African ports wouldn't give then such an opportunity
Not that i am defending Miliband, as your earlier quote shows, he would have done the same as Cameron
This is Ed's HIV moment isn't it ? A desperate attempt to get the SNP off the agenda, point scoring off the back of a human tragedy (I agree with Nick Clegg on this one)
I honestly can't remember a General Election so visceral and downright nasty. Gutter stuff all round.
Dennis Healey accused Margaret Thatcher in 1983 of glorying in slaughter. We haven't reached that point yet.
Comments
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-32444721
But that's being cynical and I'd rather believe he is just being honest about what he thinks the best methodology is. Fair play
As @Brom says, their Rochester and Clacton polls were consistent (Ukip *0.8 of headline lead) was the result) so their is something in if maybe
2) David Kelly - nuff said.
It is not David Cameron who has blood on his hands.
Bit blimmin harsh on the LDs though buddy. They won 62 seats which is their most since the war.
If anyone still had any lingering hope that Ed Miliband might just about be fit for office (although I find it hard to believe there is any such person), this intervention should kill it off.
I think SLABs problem is that they lost most of us in Holyrood 2011 and didn't even notice until after the referendum. What SLAB should have done in the referendum was allow both a YES and NO campaign, instead of allowing themselves to be played by Cameron. To give Cameron his due he has played an absolute blinder in his destruction of SLAB.
https://jacksoncarlawmsp.wordpress.com/2015/04/15/labour-lights-out-in-east-renfrewshire/
"So what will happen in East Renfrewshire on May 7th? It’s truly fascinating. With a strong consistent Conservative vote, committed to the Union and set against any deal with the SNP, those who voted ‘No’ last September now know there is only one candidate who can stop the SNP – Dr David Montgomery. "
Why is that a bad thing?
In any case, the will of the people isn't a Con-SNP coalition in fact it is the opposite if the will of the people who vote for those parties, so you could say she is doing right by the voters by making it clear beforehand what she would do in the event
He is totally unfit to be Prime Minister.
My guess is survation is undercutting the competition in the budget-polling-cum-market-research business - he's doing everything possible to increase survation's brand awareness for when demand for political polls dries up on may 8th.
Good luck to him.
Political suicide not just for the UK parties (as if they are important) but for any nation that thinks it might be a good idea = none of them incl the US.
Tentatively it seems the 0.8 multiplier has worked but it's all v small samples
While Miliband has a general point about Cameron/Sarkosy probably celebrating the air campaign outcome too much and then possibly not doing more on the peace side afterwards, it is a bit harsh. Had Cameron been more active in bringing the factions together in some form of peace/reconciliation process, it probably would have made no difference. The Middle East and North Africa have had problems for years, with there being no idea how to resolve them.
In any case, the will of the people isn't a Con-SNP coalition in fact it is the opposite if the will of the people who vote for those parties, so you could say she is doing right by the voters by making it clear beforehand what she would do in the event
The mathematics of Government may mean that the Lib Dems have to switch sides. No other minor party (Not even the DUP) has tied themselves to one side in the way the Lib Dems have. They either need Labour to do extraordinarily well or the Conservatives to hose up with around 300 seats. If Labour are on 270 and Tories 280, the Lib Dems are going to have to do some major reversing and U-turns on what they've indicated pre-election.
Wouldn't be the first time, mind.
If "earnings " involve wealth creation, then soldiers don't "earn", although they may often plunder (i.e. burgle). Many people simply use the word as a way of cheering people they like and hissing those they don't.
In any case, the will of the people isn't a Con-SNP coalition in fact it is the opposite if the will of the people who vote for those parties, so you could say she is doing right by the voters by making it clear beforehand what she would do in the event
If there was a decent gap (say 40-50 seats) between CON and LAB, she could do the decent thing and instruct her party to abstain on the Queens Speech and budget.
'Providing an overview of the current political climate, and mainly focusing on the surging support for the UK Independence Party – Professor John Curtice – Professor of Politics at the University of Strathclyde noted that there was a pollster in the room. Professor Curtice said that (after the pending local elections) that “we would soon see whether Survation’s (General Election) 16% or ICM’s 9% support figure for UKIP was the more correct figure!”
That hurt a bit, as ICM, who have been polling for nearly 25 years now, were the most accurate pollster in the 2010 General Election – so I got the idea – ouch!'
http://survation.com/icm-research-shows-ukip-support-doubling-in-29-days-another-clear-indication-polling-industry-methodology-needs-to-change/
No one can really seriously post this crap can they?
Allegedly.
Then ... either the trend is clearer, or the flat line is even flatter!
Wouldn't be the first time, mind.
The Lib Dems will enable whoever will form the most stable government to do so. In the case of a fairly free choice, they will go through huge internal contortions.
picked up on it 9 months before the referendum. As they seem to be one of the only pollsters which weight Scotland by region, this should have triggered alarm bells at SLAB HQ in London !!
A Labour campaign, strapped for cash, can re-use the same shroud they waved over the dead of Mid-Staff to wave over the dead in the Mediterranean and save costs. They are the party of fiscal responsibility after all...
The last Labour government was famous for this. It's amazing some have forgotten it so quickly.
Regarding South Thanet:
I live not too far from the area. Farage is popular with the 40+ crowd, but I've noticed several individuals discuss voting Tory to stop them having a UKIP MP. Cannot confirm if tactical voting is occurring on a large scale; the under 30 crowd is considering their options and how best to prevent a Farage victory.
LAB and Tory activists have both told me them same thing - too close to call at the moment.
Whereas Cameron and Sarkozy took all the plaudits in Libya for mission accomplished.
I notice you do not see that video often repeated in Conservative propaganda.
Con 280
Lab 260
SNP 52
LD 20
UKIP 5
NI 18
Others 5
Dave, realising that he can't form a government resigns and leaves it to Ed.
Ed, manages to cobble a barely workable agreement, but in a moment of foresight, realises that such a government could lead to the long term destruction of the Labour party, also resigns.
Does Salmond try to form a government (with LAB S&C) and become PM or is that just too ridiculous and we would have to have another election.
Thus triumphant, Blair would have had the opportunity to move Brown from the Treasury, establishing a Blairite as his favoured successor and changing the course of British politics.
Russia/China block actions in the security council, meaning the UN is a waste of time. The UN secretary general moaned about world leadership recently, saying that countries have stopped wanting to tackle the big issues.
I have seen this coming for some time, as if you read international news or listen to BBC World Service, they constantly report problems all around the world, which do not always feature on the main news. People living in these poor countries have seen what others in their own country and elsewhere are enjoying, so want to move for a better life. TV channels/internet can be viewed now across many parts of Africa, which was not the case say 10 years ago.
Mostly this is OK, but every few polls, Lab or Tory are out by around 1% compared with the headline % on page 1 of their tables.
Ed Miliband 21 March 2011 ·
I support British intervention in Libya for 3 reasons: it is a just cause, with a feasible plan, and has international support.
https://www.facebook.com/edmiliband/posts/202722219746747
Ed Miliband, in parliament, 21 March 2011:
There is international consent, a just cause and a feasible mission, but we also need—this is very important—to maintain public support here at home, because this House is not just contemplating expressing its support for an international resolution; it is discussing its position on the use of armed forces. We are a generous and compassionate people, but there will no doubt be some people in the country—indeed, we have heard it in parts of this House—wondering whether it really needs to be us, now, at this time. It is a valid and important question, but in the end, as well as there being the geopolitical questions that the Prime Minister raised, we have to make a judgment about our role in the world and our duty to others. Where there is just cause, where feasible action can be taken, and where there is international consent, are we really saying that we should be a country that stands by and does nothing? In my view, that would be a dereliction of our duty, our history, and our values. Let us not forget that those who have risen up against Colonel Gaddafi are part of a wider movement for reform and democracy that we are seeing across north Africa. We cannot and should not abandon them.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110321/debtext/110321-0002.htm
(I'd prefer Viscount Thurso but you can't always get what you want)
Fun!
If we boardered the Med would perhaps be a teeny one - but we don't. Let's blame Cameron for drowned Cubans...
Topline part-ELBOW = Lab 0.5 ahead
YouGov-only part-ELBOW = Lab 1.1 ahead (!!)
Non-YouGov part-ELBOW = TORY lead 0.5% (!!!!!)
The origin of the migrants themselves is not so much the issue.
An oversight, surely
Can I just thank Carnyx for posting the Wings etc site which I had only been slightly aware of before. I have no idea who this person is or what his track record is but it is in fairness very difficult to contest the view that his analysis of Labour's attack is both completely forensic and totally devastating.
I am afraid you will have to look elsewhere for stoppin the SNP's big mo.
(only kidding!
I honestly can't remember a General Election so visceral and downright nasty. Gutter stuff all round.
BTW, today's speech as reported mentions that Labour supported the bombing. The complaint is that the government(s) then bollocksed up the peace. I suspect this is a load of old cobblers and the thing was doomed from the start (hence my question upthread) but it's a coherent position. It's the same position that oppositions that voted for the Iraq war took when the aftermath went pear-shaped; I haven't tried to chase it up, but it was probably what the Tories said about Iraq.
I have been polled by YouGov at least 4 times during this campaign.
I find myself on the 3rd and 4th occasion shifting nuanced answers (where they can be) to YG's questions to the non-nuanced, absolute positions. ie from moderately support to completely support, thinking 'didn't you hear me the first time?'
I wonder if this may be a more widespread reaction to being repeatedly asked the same question? And if so, if it explains why positions on YG become more entrenched and less likely to reveal small movements in wider opinion that the other pollsters may have found?
Not that i am defending Miliband, as your earlier quote shows, he would have done the same as Cameron