I tuned into the r4 today prog first thing and was met with "Miliband blames Cameron for the hundreds drowning in the med because of the lack of post conflict planning...."
It is amazing at the level of brass cheek of Labour on this to conveniently forget the hundreds of thousands killed in Iraq because of the lack of post conflict planning.... By a LAYBOUR Government.
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.
"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?
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)
Galloway will have a go
Nicola 4 PM!
(only kidding! )
She might struggle, not being an MP. Salmond, on the other hand............
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.
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.
I guess my question is, can the tories win the most seats if they don't hold these constituencies? Of course, I know they can, but if the tories end up on 265 seats, will any of these^ not be in them?
Are there any other constituencies around the 1/2 mark which are worth substituting?
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)
Galloway will have a go
Nicola 4 PM!
(only kidding! )
She might struggle, not being an MP. Salmond, on the other hand............
Ah, yes I forgot! Um, OK she just needs a by-election, then
Do the two Alexanders, Danny and Douglas, not understand that they are heading towards HoC exit in their own constituency? Is spending time in the UK media going to help them connect with their voters?
Do the two Alexanders, Danny and Douglas, not understand that they are heading towards HoC exit in their own constituency? Is spending time in the UK media going to help them connect with their voters?
Danny at least presumably knew he had no chance for a long time, so maybe he's trying to help the party on his way out rather than futilely save himself.
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.
Not comparable. In Iraq we DID put boots on the ground, and many British and of course US lives were lost. So of course it's consistent for those who supported the principle to point out that the post-invasion campaign was badly screwed up.
In contrast, Ed Miliband opposed any post-bombing intervention. He now seems to be trying to rewrite history, as he did with Syria. His lack of integrity can no longer be in doubt.
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.
If it was land-based migration then it wouldn't be in the news. It's only in the news because the migration is happening via boats that are sinking. You and I both know the politicians wouldn't care otherwise.
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.
The underlying cause of the migration is that a life in Europe is nicer than a life in Africa or the Middle East. Whether specific migrants are refugees or economic migrants is frequently a very blurry distinction.
The ultimate logic of the situation is that we either send proper boats to pick up would be migrants, or we do everything we can to stop the boats.
Focusing on the "evil people smugglers" is a lazy answer which cloaks the speaker in a veneer of morality in an attempt to avoid answering the underlying question.
I guess my question is, can the tories win the most seats if they don't hold ^ ? Are there any other constituencies around the 1/2 mark which are worth substituting?
Ahahaha
I am on all those Conservative seats and long Ed PM, long Con seats.
Yep - Go ahead.
Aberconwy @ 4-9 is another. Given the Plaid surge and small welsh swing I doubt Labour will get this.
On Sunday, hope to publish an ELBOW graph showing weekly Labour % leads since August not just in the "traditional" topline ELBOW aggregator, but also for Lab leads using just YouGov polls and a third plot for non-YouGov only polls!
It's "interesting" - if only I can decide on a nice colour scheme for each of the three lines - keep changing it!
Miliband has reached a new low today..he should be ashamed of himself...as should the Party he leads because they no doubt approve of what he is saying
If Ed has been SO concerned about the situation in Libya, why has he not been banging on about in Parliament, how many times has he brought it up at PMQ, where is it in the manifesto, why has it only just been brought up in the campaign.
Could it be that the gimp-faced twerk has spotted an opportunity on the back of a tradegy.
Ed, you are either a very unsavoury person, or you are guilty of taking up very poor advice from aides. Either way, it doesn't make you attractive to the electorate.
Tories, play this one the right way and it could be a bigger vote winner than Scotland.
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"?
Returns in a local government election may only be questioned by way of election petition (Representation of the People Act 1983, s. 127). The petition must be brought by four or more persons entitled to vote in the election (s. 128(1)). The parties to an election petition are obliged to pay the costs of the petition in such manner and proportion as the election court may determine (s. 154(1)).
That is certainly so, as far as it goes.
On a wider view, I daresay there was a very understandable reluctance to do or to condone anything which might turn into a recruiting sergeant for terrorist outfits - and let's be in no doubt that that's what the disqualification of Lutfur Rahman has achieved.
Is there something in the water today?
Seriously?
So certain elements of society are nigh on untouchable "in case it acts as a recruiting sergeant"
Well, its a view - a bonkers , perverted view but a view all the same.
@tnewtondunn: Opinium poll for RIAS: Tories have a 12 point lead among over 50s; Con 41%, Lab 29%, UKIP 14%, LD 7%, Grn 4%. Most likely age group to vote.
If Ed has been SO concerned about the situation in Libya, why has he not been banging on about in Parliament, how many times has he brought it up at PMQ, where is it in the manifesto, why has it only just been brought up in the campaign.
Could it be that the gimp-faced twerk has spotted an opportunity on the back of a tradegy.
Ed, you are either a very unsavoury person, or you are guilty of taking up very poor advice from aides. Either way, it doesn't make you attractive to the electorate.
Tories, play this one the right way and it could be a bigger vote winner than Scotland.
@IsabelHardman: So according to Labour’s own briefing, the party talked a lot about Libya in 2011 (unsurprisingly), then silent about it till February 2015
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)
Galloway will have a go
In which case I'd have to salute his courage, strength and indefatigability; not to mention chutzpah.
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.
It's not a coherent position because one (of many) things we learned in Afghan/Iraq is that "troops in" is no longer a peace-keeping, berets on, COIN ops type of strategy.
With no existing infrastructure or civil authority to support, as is the case in Libya, troops must nation-build. Which of course they can't. But they must be plentiful enough so that nation-building can occur. Hundreds of thousands would be about right.
And that is simply a commitment that no one today is prepared to make. They never were, in fact.
So Ed castigating Dave for losing the peace, when it is not within his gift or ability to do so, is the equivalent of blaming him for not eradicating global poverty.
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.
Looks to me like only one party is using dead refugees to score political points this morning and it is not Labour.
That is a strong contender for the maddest post you've ever made!
You do know who this Ed Miliband guy who raised the issue and blamed Cameron is, right? Perhaps you should look him up on Wikipedia and find out which party he belongs to.
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.
The underlying cause of the migration is that a life in Europe is nicer than a life in Africa or the Middle East. Whether specific migrants are refugees or economic migrants is frequently a very blurry distinction.
The ultimate logic of the situation is that we either send proper boats to pick up would be migrants, or we do everything we can to stop the boats.
Focusing on the "evil people smugglers" is a lazy answer which cloaks the speaker in a veneer of morality in an attempt to avoid answering the underlying question.
I don't completely disagree with your main point but not having somebody trying to cut your head off because of your religion is a kind-of turbo-charged meaning of the word "nicer".
I am sure Mike's instincts are sound and the polls are beginning to shift in the direction of the Tories. But I noticed a curious thing about the data in this table. The average of the Tory and the Labour share of the vote is identical. And by that, I mean to an infinite number of decimal places. It is as dead as a dead heat gets. The standard deviations of the two sets of data are pretty similar too, though not exactly the same. Whatever the numbers really mean, there isn't much sign of a difference showing yet from a statistical point of view.
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.
The underlying cause of the migration is that a life in Europe is nicer than a life in Africa or the Middle East. Whether specific migrants are refugees or economic migrants is frequently a very blurry distinction.
The ultimate logic of the situation is that we either send proper boats to pick up would be migrants, or we do everything we can to stop the boats.
Focusing on the "evil people smugglers" is a lazy answer which cloaks the speaker in a veneer of morality in an attempt to avoid answering the underlying question.
Send boats to pick them up and take them back to where they got on the boat or a place set up to detain would be migrants to determine whether they are refugees or chancers
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.
I am sure Mike's instincts are sound and the polls are beginning to shift in the direction of the Tories. But I noticed a curious thing about the data in this table. The average of the Tory and the Labour share of the vote is identical. And by that, I mean to an infinite number of decimal places. It is as dead as a dead heat gets. The standard deviations of the two sets of data are pretty similar too, though not exactly the same. Whatever the numbers really mean, there isn't much sign of a difference showing yet from a statistical point of view.
In fact the polls aren't beginning to shift to the Tories that is an illusion.
They are down in comparable polls every day this week
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.
Our two main parties have done all they can for decade after decade to block PR. Labour currently benefits most from FPTP. They deserve this result!
But isn't Cam allowed to carry on until he loses a vote in the H of C? If he was sensible, moderate and selective in his proposed legislation, he'd receive support from LD, NI, most Others. Result = 323 against 317. (Unless Bone, Chope et al rebel).
Sir Humphrey may even have written more of Britain's, er, unwritten constitution to cater for just such an outcome.
Also I don't think the SNP would dare vote down a EdM government for fear of losing seats in a second 2015 election. EdM would be criticised for not taking over from Cam, so he'd take over. He might form a 'minority coalition' with LDs, especially if by some good fortune Clegg, Alexander and Laws have all gone.
Looks to me like only one party is using dead refugees to score political points this morning and it is not Labour.
That is a strong contender for the maddest post you've ever made!
You do know who this Ed Miliband guy who raised the issue and blamed Cameron is, right? Perhaps you should look him up on Wikipedia and find out which party he belongs to.
SO is becoming ever more irrational and partisan as the election approaches. A shame because he's usually an excellent poster whose musings I always look forward to and take the time to read in detail.
Looks to me like only one party is using dead refugees to score political points this morning and it is not Labour.
That is a strong contender for the maddest post you've ever made!
You do know who this Ed Miliband guy who raised the issue and blamed Cameron is, right? Perhaps you should look him up on Wikipedia and find out which party he belongs to.
Richard you have no idea what Miliband said because he has not said it yet. The Tories are saying he is blaming Cameron for the dead in the Mediterranean because they do not wish to have a light shone on their failures over Libya and in engaging generally with the international community. You can get on your high horse of synthetic rage if you like - I know there is nothing you like more than accusing Labour and Ed of immorality and evil - but I am afraid that foreign policy is a legitimate subject for discussion during a general election campaign.
I am sure Mike's instincts are sound and the polls are beginning to shift in the direction of the Tories. But I noticed a curious thing about the data in this table. The average of the Tory and the Labour share of the vote is identical. And by that, I mean to an infinite number of decimal places. It is as dead as a dead heat gets. The standard deviations of the two sets of data are pretty similar too, though not exactly the same. Whatever the numbers really mean, there isn't much sign of a difference showing yet from a statistical point of view.
True enough - I for that reason I still think Lab most seats is the most likely outcome - but I think Mike is right to point out 4 Con leads of +4 is still significant. They've struggled to get more than 1 poll with a lead above 1-2, and now 4 in a week of 4+. We're still looking at a statistical tie, but the confluence of larger Con leads does give them some basis for hoping for such a lead on the day itself, whereas before it was pure speculation.
It might not happen. We could have a bunch of larger Lab leads today and tomorrow (Lab lead by 3 in one of the latest ones in any case), but even if it is a small thing, those 4 Con leads of +4 give them something to pin their hopes on at least.
Miliband has reached a new low today..he should be ashamed of himself...as should the Party he leads because they no doubt approve of what he is saying
Total and utter disgrace, morons like Southam will still vote for him but anyone with a brain cell can see him for what he really is.
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?
Yes, 'entrenchment' , as you put it, is certainly likely. In a genuinely random sample, a lot of people won't have had any real opinion on some issues. Asking once will make them think a bit about it and push some of these to a 'fairly concerned' type of answer. Repeat questions will often harden some of that support for a number of reasons.
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.)
Not me - and I'd say apart from a couple of bammers who got into trouble at a match in Israel then that isn't true - well not since the end of WW2.
The pro-republican element have a similar blogger who has obtained similar messiah status - a failed social worker who fled to Ireland - full of similar "facts" and "sources" but lasted just 2 days when a proper newspaper signed him up and was binned in disgrace.
Surprised the National haven't signed the Reverend up - seems a perfect match ?
Phil three names does not back up his opinions. That's the point of Wings. everything is fact checked and backed up. Phil is just a Rangers hating arse who loves the sound of his own voice.
Looks to me like only one party is using dead refugees to score political points this morning and it is not Labour.
That is a strong contender for the maddest post you've ever made!
You do know who this Ed Miliband guy who raised the issue and blamed Cameron is, right? Perhaps you should look him up on Wikipedia and find out which party he belongs to.
SO is becoming ever more irrational and partisan as the election approaches. A shame because he's usually an excellent poster whose musings I always look forward to and take the time to read in detail.
Can you point me to the bit in Ed's speech where he blames Cameron for the deaths in the Mediterranean?
I am enjoying be called irrational and partisan by a selection of Tory cheerleaders who have spent the last few years berating Ed and the Labour party.
Looks to me like only one party is using dead refugees to score political points this morning and it is not Labour.
That is a strong contender for the maddest post you've ever made!
You do know who this Ed Miliband guy who raised the issue and blamed Cameron is, right? Perhaps you should look him up on Wikipedia and find out which party he belongs to.
Richard you have no idea what Miliband said because he has not said it yet. The Tories are saying he is blaming Cameron for the dead in the Mediterranean because they do not wish to have a light shone on their failures over Libya and in engaging generally with the international community. You can get on your high horse of synthetic rage if you like - I know there is nothing you like more than accusing Labour and Ed of immorality and evil - but I am afraid that foreign policy is a legitimate subject for discussion during a general election campaign.
Pin head dancing...Tom Baldwin sent out a briefing late last night which clearly states what Miliband position is on this. Are you now saying that Baldwin wrote this without consulting Ed?
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, was Liam Byrne's note a joke?
It was true, but still an attempt to be funny. A lot of good jokes are true. I'm sure David Laws received a proper report from a civil servant setting out that there was no money in more formal language and detail.
On Sunday, hope to publish an ELBOW graph showing weekly Labour % leads since August not just in the "traditional" topline ELBOW aggregator, but also for Lab leads using just YouGov polls and a third plot for non-YouGov only polls!
It's "interesting" - if only I can decide on a nice colour scheme for each of the three lines - keep changing it!
I am sure Mike's instincts are sound and the polls are beginning to shift in the direction of the Tories. But I noticed a curious thing about the data in this table. The average of the Tory and the Labour share of the vote is identical. And by that, I mean to an infinite number of decimal places. It is as dead as a dead heat gets. The standard deviations of the two sets of data are pretty similar too, though not exactly the same. Whatever the numbers really mean, there isn't much sign of a difference showing yet from a statistical point of view.
In fact the polls aren't beginning to shift to the Tories that is an illusion.
They are down in comparable polls every day this week
Con 280 Lab 260 SNP 52 LD 20 UKIP 5 NI 18 Others 5 ...
But isn't Cam allowed to carry on until he loses a vote in the H of C? If he was sensible, moderate and selective in his proposed legislation, he'd receive support from LD, NI, most Others. Result = 323 against 317. (Unless Bone, Chope et al rebel).
We need to further split down NI here.
9 DUP I think is the expected return (Perhaps the least volatile of all the parties) 5 Sinn Fein 3 SDLP 1 Sylvia
And others:
1 Galloway 3 Plaid perhaps 1 Green.
You can obviously ignore Sinn Fein - but SDLP won't support a Conservative Gov't, particularly not one working with the DUP I'd have thought.
Plaid are in the SNP block. THe Greens won't support the Conservatives.
So
Con + LD + DUP = 309. Lab + SNP + Plaid = 315.
That's enough as the SDLP, Greens and Galloway won't vote against a LAB Queen's speech.
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.
On Sunday, hope to publish an ELBOW graph showing weekly Labour % leads since August not just in the "traditional" topline ELBOW aggregator, but also for Lab leads using just YouGov polls and a third plot for non-YouGov only polls!
It's "interesting" - if only I can decide on a nice colour scheme for each of the three lines - keep changing it!
I am sure Mike's instincts are sound and the polls are beginning to shift in the direction of the Tories. But I noticed a curious thing about the data in this table. The average of the Tory and the Labour share of the vote is identical. And by that, I mean to an infinite number of decimal places. It is as dead as a dead heat gets. The standard deviations of the two sets of data are pretty similar too, though not exactly the same. Whatever the numbers really mean, there isn't much sign of a difference showing yet from a statistical point of view.
In fact the polls aren't beginning to shift to the Tories that is an illusion.
They are down in comparable polls every day this week
Looks to me like only one party is using dead refugees to score political points this morning and it is not Labour.
That is a strong contender for the maddest post you've ever made!
You do know who this Ed Miliband guy who raised the issue and blamed Cameron is, right? Perhaps you should look him up on Wikipedia and find out which party he belongs to.
Richard you have no idea what Miliband said because he has not said it yet. The Tories are saying he is blaming Cameron for the dead in the Mediterranean because they do not wish to have a light shone on their failures over Libya and in engaging generally with the international community. You can get on your high horse of synthetic rage if you like - I know there is nothing you like more than accusing Labour and Ed of immorality and evil - but I am afraid that foreign policy is a legitimate subject for discussion during a general election campaign.
We have a pretty good idea:
“Since the action, the failure of post-conflict planning has become obvious. David Cameron was wrong to assume that Libya’s political culture and institutions could be left to evolve and transform on their own. What we have seen in Libya is that when tensions over power and resources began to emerge, they simply reinforced deep-seated ideological and ethnic fault lines in the country, meaning the hopes of the revolutionary uprisings quickly began to unravel.
“The tragedy is that this could have been anticipated. It should have been avoided. And Britain could have played its part in ensuring the international community stood by the people of Libya in practice rather than standing behind the unfounded hopes of potential progress only in principle.”
ie he is conflating Libya, the people of Libya, the migrants (who of course come from many countries) and Dave's foreign policy.
If you think that is not blaming Dave, and witness the reaction this morning in the media, then you must think he is a total idiot. And I'm sure you don't think that.
Looks to me like only one party is using dead refugees to score political points this morning and it is not Labour.
That is a strong contender for the maddest post you've ever made!
You do know who this Ed Miliband guy who raised the issue and blamed Cameron is, right? Perhaps you should look him up on Wikipedia and find out which party he belongs to.
Richard you have no idea what Miliband said because he has not said it yet.
I do not think it fair to criticise people for responding to words not already said yet - there's a reason parties set out in detail what they plan to say, sometimes with full quotes, before they ever say it (or even if they don't get around to saying it anywhere). They do it to set the narrative and have people out there ready to defend and promote what they say, even prepare the ground for their comments (and IIRC there have been some instances where the actual words then change based on reaction to trailed comment about it - something about Tesco being named in a speech by Ed M, but it was criticised, so it was not in his actual words when spoken?).
Parties announce what they are planning to talk about and say, what the general thrust of their comments will be, and they know their supporters will be backing them up before they even say it, and their opponents will be critical of it. It's totally normal.
We can only criticise people reacting to the reported summary of his comments, before he has made them, and interpreting it widely at times, if we have done the same for every time people respond to speeches ahead of time. I feel very confident in saying that not a single person on here has never done that, including me.
Looks to me like only one party is using dead refugees to score political points this morning and it is not Labour.
That is a strong contender for the maddest post you've ever made!
You do know who this Ed Miliband guy who raised the issue and blamed Cameron is, right? Perhaps you should look him up on Wikipedia and find out which party he belongs to.
SO is becoming ever more irrational and partisan as the election approaches. A shame because he's usually an excellent poster whose musings I always look forward to and take the time to read in detail.
Can you point me to the bit in Ed's speech where he blames Cameron for the deaths in the Mediterranean?
I am enjoying be called irrational and partisan by a selection of Tory cheerleaders who have spent the last few years berating Ed and the Labour party.
I have heavily criticised Cameron for years on here switched my vote to UKIP on November and, up until very recently, was planning to vote that way. It's the sheer terror at the thought of Miliband having any power in this country that has brought me back to the Tories.
I have also criticised the Tories strategy, policy and approach and complacency towards Miliband. Often in the strongest possible terms. If you don't believe me, go back and read my archived posts.
But, yes, if it turns out that he says the opposite of what is being reported, I shall retract what I said.
"The BBC's assistant political editor Norman Smith said Labour were making clear that they were not blaming the prime minister for the recent deaths in the Mediterranean."
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.
Campbell's comments on Hillsborough are idiotic, properly stupid. They are based on him trying to equate a crowd at a music gig with the crush that developed at Hillsborough and assuming the dynamics are the same, which they are not. For the individuals in the crowd to take the action he wanted them to take they would have to have been psychic. His view is also fundamentally illogical - that the crush was formed by fans pushing one another and that it would have been stopped if only the fans had pushed one another.
None of which has any bearing on the fact that he has correctly pointed out that Kezia Dugdale is an enormous hypocrite of gargantuan proportions.
Thanks for the comments, good food for thought.
The problem with Stuart Campbell is that, from everything I can decypher, he is a pretty obnoxious and nasty human being.
However, he is also a very, very good journalist. He is a rarity in any media these days in that he fact checks and provides supporting evidence. His pieces are generally reliable.
Which is why the Unionists attack the man. The trouble with Scotland supporters is they try to defend the man who is often indefensible instead of just accepting the man is an arse and pointing out that the journalism still stands.
I am sure Mike's instincts are sound and the polls are beginning to shift in the direction of the Tories. But I noticed a curious thing about the data in this table. The average of the Tory and the Labour share of the vote is identical. And by that, I mean to an infinite number of decimal places. It is as dead as a dead heat gets. The standard deviations of the two sets of data are pretty similar too, though not exactly the same. Whatever the numbers really mean, there isn't much sign of a difference showing yet from a statistical point of view.
Six of the thirteen polls in the table are from YouGov. Statistics are meaningless unless you deal with that sort of bias.
Cam PM after the election 2.3 and next gov LD-Con coalition at 6.6 are value.
6/1 at Ladbrokes. Is this about right for the possible Tory government outcomes, do you think?
290-310 = LD-Con 310-325 = Con Min 326+ = Con Maj
I'd say LD -Con up to 315 maybe 320.
I think Cameron will favour a coalition if he can get away with it. Minority government is very difficult - back bench rebellions can create havoc.
He might do Minority Coalition if CON-LD can get to 320 and get assurance that DUP and UKIP won't bring down the big votes.
Would still be weak though and probably needs 295 seats, so needs all but the very best phone polls for the tories to be badly wrong (or a shift to them, which is possible the way Ed is going today).
But, yes, if it turns out that he says the opposite of what is being reported, I shall retract what I said.
"The BBC's assistant political editor Norman Smith said Labour were making clear that they were not blaming the prime minister for the recent deaths in the Mediterranean."
That is what they are saying now....Tom Baldwin sent a briefing on behalf of Ed, saying something different and hence the media reports.
But, yes, if it turns out that he says the opposite of what is being reported, I shall retract what I said.
"The BBC's assistant political editor Norman Smith said Labour were making clear that they were not blaming the prime minister for the recent deaths in the Mediterranean."
How generous of them.
Clearly, they see they've made a major and extremely distasteful blunder, and are trying to row back from it. It's hard to reconcile that rowing back with what Douglas Alexander said on the Today programme, though.
But, yes, if it turns out that he says the opposite of what is being reported, I shall retract what I said.
"The BBC's assistant political editor Norman Smith said Labour were making clear that they were not blaming the prime minister for the recent deaths in the Mediterranean."
Cam PM after the election 2.3 and next gov LD-Con coalition at 6.6 are value.
6/1 at Ladbrokes. Is this about right for the possible Tory government outcomes, do you think?
290-310 = LD-Con 310-325 = Con Min 326+ = Con Maj
I'd say LD -Con up to 315 maybe 320.
I think Cameron will favour a coalition if he can get away with it. Minority government is very difficult - back bench rebellions can create havoc.
The next Government may well be minority coalition !
Unless Labour do pretty well in England, it does seem as though even a Rainbow Coalition might not make it to the nominal majority stage (323), and as a determined negative interpreter of Tory chances, I cannot see them doing better than that, so its either minority coalition, simple minority (with rainbow confidence and supply), or a grand coalition majority. The latter is not going to happen, so one of the former two.
Cam PM after the election 2.3 and next gov LD-Con coalition at 6.6 are value.
6/1 at Ladbrokes. Is this about right for the possible Tory government outcomes, do you think?
290-310 = LD-Con 310-325 = Con Min 326+ = Con Maj
I'd say LD -Con up to 315 maybe 320.
I think Cameron will favour a coalition if he can get away with it. Minority government is very difficult - back bench rebellions can create havoc.
He might do Minority Coalition if CON-LD can get to 320 and get assurance that DUP and UKIP won't bring down the big votes.
Would still be weak though and probably needs 295 seats, so needs all but the very best phone polls for the tories to be badly wrong (or a shift to them, which is possible the way Ed is going today).
The 'phone polls are trending towards Jack's ARSE. Very important point!!
On 5 live this morning, they were reporting that the original speech had been rewritten as Ed and his aides have had to back down in the face of a backlash.
Miliband has reached a new low today..he should be ashamed of himself...as should the Party he leads because they no doubt approve of what he is saying
Total and utter disgrace, morons like Southam will still vote for him but anyone with a brain cell can see him for what he really is.
35% have no brain cells?
Only right wing PBers have brains and can call posters who argue that foreign policy is a legitimate subject for discussion during a general election campaign Morons!
FairyNuff
This Government has learnt nothing about Libya from Blairs Iraq failings.
Its all about post war as Ed pointed out in Parliament 8 WEEKS AGO
Looks to me like only one party is using dead refugees to score political points this morning and it is not Labour.
That is a strong contender for the maddest post you've ever made!
You do know who this Ed Miliband guy who raised the issue and blamed Cameron is, right? Perhaps you should look him up on Wikipedia and find out which party he belongs to.
SO is becoming ever more irrational and partisan as the election approaches. A shame because he's usually an excellent poster whose musings I always look forward to and take the time to read in detail.
Can you point me to the bit in Ed's speech where he blames Cameron for the deaths in the Mediterranean?
I am enjoying be called irrational and partisan by a selection of Tory cheerleaders who have spent the last few years berating Ed and the Labour party.
Miliband has reached a new low today..he should be ashamed of himself...as should the Party he leads because they no doubt approve of what he is saying
Total and utter disgrace, morons like Southam will still vote for him but anyone with a brain cell can see him for what he really is.
35% have no brain cells?
If Labour get 35% I will eat my 10 gallon Stetson.
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, was Liam Byrne's note a joke?
A lot of good jokes are true.
Alex Salmond did one about writing Labour's budget...
But, yes, if it turns out that he says the opposite of what is being reported, I shall retract what I said.
"The BBC's assistant political editor Norman Smith said Labour were making clear that they were not blaming the prime minister for the recent deaths in the Mediterranean."
I for one am holding back judgement until later as I haven't read the whole story yet, but I would also point out that a quote like that can be pretty meaningless. One of the oldest political tricks is to indicate your opponent is to blame for something or has a terrible position on something, while including a comment to the effect that you are not blaming them for that. Will his speech give the impression he is blaming the PM for the deaths (to people who are not Tory partisans in any case), even if he slips in a comment about not blaming him, that is the key for me? Speechwriters should be good enough to toe that line, so we shall see.
Comments
It is amazing at the level of brass cheek of Labour on this to conveniently forget the hundreds of thousands killed in Iraq because of the lack of post conflict planning.... By a LAYBOUR Government.
Labour most seats @ 3.60
Conservatives to win (stake split between them);
Taunton Deane @ 1.57
Warwick & Leamington @ 1.53
Bristol NW @ 1.53
Great Yarmouth @ 1.73
Worcester @ 1.73
Vale of Glamorgan @ 1.40
I guess my question is, can the tories win the most seats if they don't hold these constituencies? Of course, I know they can, but if the tories end up on 265 seats, will any of these^ not be in them?
Are there any other constituencies around the 1/2 mark which are worth substituting?
"All true but Labour needs votes so sod the truth"
Anyone who posts as many supercilious comments on other posters as you should surely be expected to post SOMETHING of interest occasionally?
In contrast, Ed Miliband opposed any post-bombing intervention. He now seems to be trying to rewrite history, as he did with Syria. His lack of integrity can no longer be in doubt.
That's why Libya is important.
The ultimate logic of the situation is that we either send proper boats to pick up would be migrants, or we do everything we can to stop the boats.
Focusing on the "evil people smugglers" is a lazy answer which cloaks the speaker in a veneer of morality in an attempt to avoid answering the underlying question.
I am on all those Conservative seats and long Ed PM, long Con seats.
Yep - Go ahead.
Aberconwy @ 4-9 is another. Given the Plaid surge and small welsh swing I doubt Labour will get this.
It's "interesting" - if only I can decide on a nice colour scheme for each of the three lines - keep changing it!
Could it be that the gimp-faced twerk has spotted an opportunity on the back of a tradegy.
Ed, you are either a very unsavoury person, or you are guilty of taking up very poor advice from aides. Either way, it doesn't make you attractive to the electorate.
Tories, play this one the right way and it could be a bigger vote winner than Scotland.
Seriously?
So certain elements of society are nigh on untouchable "in case it acts as a recruiting sergeant"
Well, its a view - a bonkers , perverted view but a view all the same.
With no existing infrastructure or civil authority to support, as is the case in Libya, troops must nation-build. Which of course they can't. But they must be plentiful enough so that nation-building can occur. Hundreds of thousands would be about right.
And that is simply a commitment that no one today is prepared to make. They never were, in fact.
So Ed castigating Dave for losing the peace, when it is not within his gift or ability to do so, is the equivalent of blaming him for not eradicating global poverty.
Or in other words: "Am I tough enough? Hell Yes!"
You do know who this Ed Miliband guy who raised the issue and blamed Cameron is, right? Perhaps you should look him up on Wikipedia and find out which party he belongs to.
They are down in comparable polls every day this week
But isn't Cam allowed to carry on until he loses a vote in the H of C? If he was sensible, moderate and selective in his proposed legislation, he'd receive support from LD, NI, most Others. Result = 323 against 317. (Unless Bone, Chope et al rebel).
Sir Humphrey may even have written more of Britain's, er, unwritten constitution to cater for just such an outcome.
Also I don't think the SNP would dare vote down a EdM government for fear of losing seats in a second 2015 election. EdM would be criticised for not taking over from Cam, so he'd take over. He might form a 'minority coalition' with LDs, especially if by some good fortune Clegg, Alexander and Laws have all gone.
It might not happen. We could have a bunch of larger Lab leads today and tomorrow (Lab lead by 3 in one of the latest ones in any case), but even if it is a small thing, those 4 Con leads of +4 give them something to pin their hopes on at least.
I am enjoying be called irrational and partisan by a selection of Tory cheerleaders who have spent the last few years berating Ed and the Labour party.
9 DUP I think is the expected return (Perhaps the least volatile of all the parties)
5 Sinn Fein
3 SDLP
1 Sylvia
And others:
1 Galloway
3 Plaid perhaps
1 Green.
You can obviously ignore Sinn Fein - but SDLP won't support a Conservative Gov't, particularly not one working with the DUP I'd have thought.
Plaid are in the SNP block. THe Greens won't support the Conservatives.
So
Con + LD + DUP = 309.
Lab + SNP + Plaid = 315.
That's enough as the SDLP, Greens and Galloway won't vote against a LAB Queen's speech.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32441968
But, yes, if it turns out that he says the opposite of what is being reported, I shall retract what I said.
Dry in the north, period of rain possible in the south.
Normal temps, cooler on east coast and under any rain in the south.
Verification chance @ +312 hours (2% to 4%)
After the next poll I will update
“Since the action, the failure of post-conflict planning has become obvious. David Cameron was wrong to assume that Libya’s political culture and institutions could be left to evolve and transform on their own. What we have seen in Libya is that when tensions over power and resources began to emerge, they simply reinforced deep-seated ideological and ethnic fault lines in the country, meaning the hopes of the revolutionary uprisings quickly began to unravel.
“The tragedy is that this could have been anticipated. It should have been avoided. And Britain could have played its part in ensuring the international community stood by the people of Libya in practice rather than standing behind the unfounded hopes of potential progress only in principle.”
theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/23/ed-miliband-small-minded-isolationism-damaged-british-influence
ie he is conflating Libya, the people of Libya, the migrants (who of course come from many countries) and Dave's foreign policy.
If you think that is not blaming Dave, and witness the reaction this morning in the media, then you must think he is a total idiot. And I'm sure you don't think that.
Parties announce what they are planning to talk about and say, what the general thrust of their comments will be, and they know their supporters will be backing them up before they even say it, and their opponents will be critical of it. It's totally normal.
We can only criticise people reacting to the reported summary of his comments, before he has made them, and interpreting it widely at times, if we have done the same for every time people respond to speeches ahead of time. I feel very confident in saying that not a single person on here has never done that, including me.
I have also criticised the Tories strategy, policy and approach and complacency towards Miliband. Often in the strongest possible terms. If you don't believe me, go back and read my archived posts.
So don't 'Tory cheerleader' me.
However, he is also a very, very good journalist. He is a rarity in any media these days in that he fact checks and provides supporting evidence. His pieces are generally reliable.
Which is why the Unionists attack the man. The trouble with Scotland supporters is they try to defend the man who is often indefensible instead of just accepting the man is an arse and pointing out that the journalism still stands.
Would still be weak though and probably needs 295 seats, so needs all but the very best phone polls for the tories to be badly wrong (or a shift to them, which is possible the way Ed is going today).
Clearly, they see they've made a major and extremely distasteful blunder, and are trying to row back from it. It's hard to reconcile that rowing back with what Douglas Alexander said on the Today programme, though.
doesn't mean the original speech didn't exist.
Only right wing PBers have brains and can call posters who argue that foreign policy is a legitimate subject for discussion during a general election campaign Morons!
FairyNuff
This Government has learnt nothing about Libya from Blairs Iraq failings.
Its all about post war as Ed pointed out in Parliament 8 WEEKS AGO
'Labour Accuses PM Over Migrant Boat Deaths'
http://news.sky.com/story/1471399/labour-accuses-pm-over-migrant-boat-deaths
Somebody's reputation is going to get a hell of a shellacking after this.
Who is it?
You pays yer money and you takes yer choice.