The English manifesto launch by Tories today is a good tactic to keep SNP Labour tie up in the headlines. Rather predictably Sturgeon has popped up saying that it is not acceptable, for England to have its say on its own issue and referencing the Smith commission. When this goes out on the news tonight that will not pay well in England.
As someone who has never completed an online survey or attempted to get on a pollster's panel, I have no idea of the processes and security involved.
However, it strikes me as perfectly possible for 1 activist /internet troll to set up multiple, if not hundreds of accounts in order to be selected for the surveys. This could account for the now clear divergence between online and telephone polls.
How come poor old Vern from Labour is having to front this Foreign policy matter and not Yvette? is Yvette avoiding being associated with the GE campaign?
We were all led to believe that the Tories were rolling in cash to throw at this GE. Have we seen any real evidence of this, and it is too late now as their caps on spending.
As I noted yesterday, over the past week I have visited two ultra marginals and there is virtually no signs a GE is only 2 weeks away.
We don't know.
This is 2015, not 2010, 2005, etc. The money is spent on methods that the party think will be most effective, and that is no longer billboards and posters. Political campaigning has moved into the digital age far more than the average voters realises, I suspect.
Phone banks were a big thing at the 2010 GE - haven't heard so much about them this time. I expect people who can be identified through Facebook as living in the right place and being of the target demographic will have had lots of party advertising in their news feed.
Guido linked to an article that mentions this sort of thing:
"Conservative strategists also point to the sophisticated micro-targeting as a secret weapon. The Westminster bubble and the London commentariat are blissfully unaware of the work that’s been underway for months.
Highly-personalised direct mailing and social media communication to swing voters in the most important seats is more likely, they say, to count than the traditional door-knocking.
There is no shortage of funding. Candidates up and down the land find they’ve had strong support when they’ve needed it. Many still have the funds for more mailshots, more “moments”, to ram home their message.
Precision-targeting makes national share of vote much less significant, and that’s why a number of people at the heart of Team Cameron are confident they will do better in the marginal battleground than the polls imply."
Although I'd like to I'm not sure I believe this. Facebook, leaflets and emails are going to swing it?
It's partly a substitute for the fact they don't have many people available to do the door knocking.
If this had a significant effect you've expect the Ashcroft marginals polls to start picking it up. There are tentative signs in one or two areas but nothing to justify the optimism of CCHQ above.
No I don't think it will work either, but that's the strategy they've been following.
I think if it does work, it would be a bad thing. Politics should be retail. Public meetings, talking to undecided voters. Motivating volunteers.
Well, here we go. Ed was given a direct opportunity to clarify that the interpretation of the briefing note by the BBC, Sky, New Statesman and others was completely wrong, and didn't do so:
Ed Miliband, at his Q&A, is now taking questions from the press. The previous questions came from Chatham House members.
Q: To what extend do you blame David Cameron personally for what happened in Libya?
Miliband says the international community as a whole bears some responsibility for what happened in Libya. After Iraq, we should have learnt about the need for post-conflict planning. But that did not happen.
But of course the people traffickers are to blame for the migrant deaths.
He did, however, come up with an answer of quite spectacular emptiness to the follow-up question: Q: What else would you have done in Libya?
Miliband says the key thing is focus. The British government disengaged. It should not have done that.
I think you'll find most tory voters exist independently of public money, they depend on their own money which they earn in the private sector.
Its the Scottish nationalist vote that depends on public money.
The Tory vote is made up of huge sections of society who directly benefit from the Tories targeted give-aways and an aspirational class who are basically lied to. The Tories have no interest in promoting the social mobility that the aspirational class aspires to.
They're quite good at it and have successfully portrayed a thriving economy based on the inflation of house prices and the filching of Scottish resources. The reality, however, is completely different to the claims of the party and their brainwashed supporters.
O/T Just received from a Scottish pal and voter. He is not of the SNP persuasion:
Nicola Sturgeon is touring Perthshire in the First Minister’s chauffeur driven car. Suddenly a cow jumps out into the road. They hit it full on and the car comes to a stop. Nicola in her usual jaunty manner, says to the chauffeur : " You get out and check - you were driving."
The chauffeur gets out, checks and reports that the animal is dead. " You were driving, go and tell the farmer," says Nicola, ”I can’t afford to be blamed for anything.”
The chauffeur walks up the drive to the farmhouse and returns five hours later totally plastered, his hair ruffled and with a big grin on his face.
" My God, what happened to you ?" asks Nicola.
The chauffeur replies : " When I got there, the farmer opened his best bottle of malt whisky, the wife gave me a slap up meal and the daughter made love to me."
" What on earth did you say?" asks Nicola.
" I knocked on the door and when it was answered, I said to them, I'm Nicola Sturgeon’s chauffeur and I've justrun the cow over and killed her
And that is even more transparent. I do you the courtesy of accepting your brains and profession, please do the same. I don't troll - I find it tedious.
It is going to be amusing watching the likes of SO and TUD making excuses for Miligeeks feck ups over the next five years..
I don't think Miliband will be PM, but if I am wrong and he does make it I doubt he will be very impressive. I am not much of a fan.
You seriously don't understand my posts, do you? I always thought it was just that you were trolling. But it is a genuine lack of understanding. Blimey.
Transparent of what? If you think that I am a fan of Ed Miliband or that I think he will be PM in a few weeks then all I can assume is that you have not understood my frequent posts in which I say that I do not think he is any good and that I believe Labour will not win enough seats to form a government. Can you provide another explanation?
The English manifesto launch by Tories today is a good tactic to keep SNP Labour tie up in the headlines. Rather predictably Sturgeon has popped up saying that it is not acceptable, for England to have its say on its own issue and referencing the Smith commission. When this goes out on the news tonight that will not pay well in England.
No, she is pointing out that Health and Education (the examples Cameron gave) are not fully devolved because the budgets are set at Westminster.
We were all led to believe that the Tories were rolling in cash to throw at this GE. Have we seen any real evidence of this, and it is too late now as their caps on spending.
As I noted yesterday, over the past week I have visited two ultra marginals and there is virtually no signs a GE is only 2 weeks away.
We don't know.
This is 2015, not 2010, 2005, etc. The money is spent on methods that the party think will be most effective, and that is no longer billboards and posters. Political campaigning has moved into the digital age far more than the average voters realises, I suspect.
Phone banks were a big thing at the 2010 GE - haven't heard so much about them this time. I expect people who can be identified through Facebook as living in the right place and being of the target demographic will have had lots of party advertising in their news feed.
Guido linked to an article that mentions this sort of thing:
"Conservative strategists also point to the sophisticated micro-targeting as a secret weapon. The Westminster bubble and the London commentariat are blissfully unaware of the work that’s been underway for months.
Highly-personalised direct mailing and social media communication to swing voters in the most important seats is more likely, they say, to count than the traditional door-knocking.
There is no shortage of funding. Candidates up and down the land find they’ve had strong support when they’ve needed it. Many still have the funds for more mailshots, more “moments”, to ram home their message.
Precision-targeting makes national share of vote much less significant, and that’s why a number of people at the heart of Team Cameron are confident they will do better in the marginal battleground than the polls imply."
Although I'd like to I'm not sure I believe this. Facebook, leaflets and emails are going to swing it?
It's partly a substitute for the fact they don't have many people available to do the door knocking.
If this had a significant effect you've expect the Ashcroft marginals polls to start picking it up. There are tentative signs in one or two areas but nothing to justify the optimism of CCHQ above.
I here Michael Green is bringing out a new book shortly "How to Spam your way to Prime Minister "
Neil "if EdM is so keen to learn lessons from post conflict planning, why did EdM vote 4 times against having the Chilcott enquiry"? onest Vern = waffle waffle waffle distraction.
Well, here we go. Ed was given a direct opportunity to clarify that the interpretation of the briefing note by the BBC, Sky, New Statesman and others was completely wrong, and didn't do so:
Ed Miliband, at his Q&A, is now taking questions from the press. The previous questions came from Chatham House members.
Q: To what extend do you blame David Cameron personally for what happened in Libya?
Miliband says the international community as a whole bears some responsibility for what happened in Libya. After Iraq, we should have learnt about the need for post-conflict planning. But that did not happen.
But of course the people traffickers are to blame for the migrant deaths.
He did, however, come up with an answer of quite spectacular emptiness to the follow-up question: Q: What else would you have done in Libya?
Miliband says the key thing is focus. The British government disengaged. It should not have done that.
Great, so now it is absolutely clear that Ed does not blame Dave for the migrant deaths. He does believe, though, that along with other members of the international community the UK got it wrong over Libya.
Here are Mr Miliband's full quotes on Libya. They're far less inflamatory than the overnight press briefing suggested they would be - see entry at 08.31. But who's fault is that?
We were all led to believe that the Tories were rolling in cash to throw at this GE. Have we seen any real evidence of this, and it is too late now as their caps on spending.
As I noted yesterday, over the past week I have visited two ultra marginals and there is virtually no signs a GE is only 2 weeks away.
We don't know.
This is 2015, not 2010, 2005, etc. The money is spent on methods that the party think will be most effective, and that is no longer billboards and posters. Political campaigning has moved into the digital age far more than the average voters realises, I suspect.
Phone banks were a big thing at the 2010 GE - haven't heard so much about them this time. I expect people who can be identified through Facebook as living in the right place and being of the target demographic will have had lots of party advertising in their news feed.
Guido linked to an article that mentions this sort of thing:
"Conservative strategists also point to the sophisticated micro-targeting as a secret weapon. The Westminster bubble and the London commentariat are blissfully unaware of the work that’s been underway for months.
Highly-personalised direct mailing and social media communication to swing voters in the most important seats is more likely, they say, to count than the traditional door-knocking.
There is no shortage of funding. Candidates up and down the land find they’ve had strong support when they’ve needed it. Many still have the funds for more mailshots, more “moments”, to ram home their message.
Precision-targeting makes national share of vote much less significant, and that’s why a number of people at the heart of Team Cameron are confident they will do better in the marginal battleground than the polls imply."
Although I'd like to I'm not sure I believe this. Facebook, leaflets and emails are going to swing it?
It's partly a substitute for the fact they don't have many people available to do the door knocking.
If this had a significant effect you've expect the Ashcroft marginals polls to start picking it up. There are tentative signs in one or two areas but nothing to justify the optimism of CCHQ above.
No I don't think it will work either, but that's the strategy they've been following.
I think if it does work, it would be a bad thing. Politics should be retail. Public meetings, talking to undecided voters. Motivating volunteers.
I agree. Sadly, the modernisers within the Conservative Party don't believe in any of those things.
@BBCNormanS: William Hague says Ed Mibands Libya remarks represent "a new low is shallow opportunism "
Indeed - A new low even for Ed, in politicising this human tragedy before the bodies have even been recovered from the sea, Miliband has demeaned himself and demeaned his office.
The Tory vote is made up of huge sections of society who directly benefit from the Tories targeted give-aways
LOL. Poor old pensioners. You pay into a scheme forced onto you by your government for your whole life, and when its time to get something out of this rotten ponzi scheme you are 'benefiting from targeted giveaways'
If the Tories think Facebook and Twitter will win them the election, they
a) don't get how especially Facebook works, and been sold some BS for a lot of money.
b) they completely deluded
c) talking BS to friendly media trying to convince themselves.
On point a) what is it about how Facebook 'works' that makes you say that?
Twitter you obviously only follow people you are interested in and get "outside" news via retweets. So it is one massive echo chamber, but it is one that you actively create for yourself. People who use twitter know that.
Facebook on the other hand invisibly and automatically filters what appears in your timeline. I have forgotten the technical term they use (I am sure somebody can inform us), but basically it just enforces the echo chamber effect without an indivudal even knowing that is the case. Therefore, how do you get to somebody who doesn't even know in the first place that their page is being filtered for them to only things they engage with. Kinda of hard to get to floating and disinterested voters that way.
The English manifesto launch by Tories today is a good tactic to keep SNP Labour tie up in the headlines. Rather predictably Sturgeon has popped up saying that it is not acceptable, for England to have its say on its own issue and referencing the Smith commission. When this goes out on the news tonight that will not pay well in England.
Well, here we go. Ed was given a direct opportunity to clarify that the interpretation of the briefing note by the BBC, Sky, New Statesman and others was completely wrong, and didn't do so:
Ed Miliband, at his Q&A, is now taking questions from the press. The previous questions came from Chatham House members.
Q: To what extend do you blame David Cameron personally for what happened in Libya?
Miliband says the international community as a whole bears some responsibility for what happened in Libya. After Iraq, we should have learnt about the need for post-conflict planning. But that did not happen.
But of course the people traffickers are to blame for the migrant deaths.
He did, however, come up with an answer of quite spectacular emptiness to the follow-up question: Q: What else would you have done in Libya?
Miliband says the key thing is focus. The British government disengaged. It should not have done that.
Great, so now it is absolutely clear that Ed does not blame Dave for the migrant deaths. He does believe, though, that along with other members of the international community the UK got it wrong over Libya.
Looks like extreme venality and immorality to me.
Looks like pablum to me. Is that better than the Tory approach of trying to ignore that it ever existed? A little I guess.
We were all led to believe that the Tories were rolling in cash to throw at this GE. Have we seen any real evidence of this, and it is too late now as their caps on spending.
As I noted yesterday, over the past week I have visited two ultra marginals and there is virtually no signs a GE is only 2 weeks away.
We don't know.
This is 2015, not 2010, 2005, etc. The money is spent on methods that the party think will be most effective, and that is no longer billboards and posters. Political campaigning has moved haven't heard so much about them this time. I expect people who can be identified through Facebook as living in the right place and being of the target demographic will have had lots of party advertising in their news feed.
Guido linked to an article that mentions this sort of thing:
"Conservative strategists also point to the sophisticated micro-targeting as a secret weapon. The Westminster bubble and the London commentariat are blissfully unaware of the work that’s been underway for months.
Highly-personalised direct mailing and social media communication to swing voters in the most important seats is more likely, they say, to count than the traditional door-knocking.
There is no shortage of funding. Candidates up and down the land find they’ve had strong support when they’ve needed it. Many still have the funds for more mailshots, more “moments”, to ram home their message.
Precision-targeting makes national share of vote much less significant, and that’s why a number of people at the heart of Team Cameron are confident they will do better in the marginal battleground than the polls imply."
Although I'd like to I'm not sure I believe this. Facebook, leaflets and emails are going to swing it?
It's partly a substitute for the fact they don't have many people available to do the door knocking.
If this had a significant effect you've expect the Ashcroft marginals polls to start picking it up. There are tentative signs in one or two areas but nothing to justify the optimism of CCHQ above.
I here Michael Green is bringing out a new book shortly "How to Spam your way to Prime Minister "
I get the emails - I read one or two (purely to see what they say as a betting man) and delete the rest.
My Facebook feed is full of it. But then I have "liked" a lot of political stuff and follow Cameron and the Tories to see what they're up to. I never reshare it.
Not sure I fit the swing voter profile in the key marginals they're after.
Great, so now it is absolutely clear that Ed does not blame Dave for the migrant deaths. He does believe, though, that along with other members of the international community the UK got it wrong over Libya.
Looks like extreme venality and immorality to me.
What it shows that,as usual, Ed Miliband is trying to rewrite history, as he did with Syria, and trying to smear whilst trying to have his cake and eat it, as he did with Lord Fink.
I see you still completely ignore the point that the BBC, Sky and New Statesman all agreed that Labour were blaming Cameron for the deaths.
@JohnRentoul: EdM changed the pre-briefed sentence in his speech and is now struggling to explain whether migrants dying in the Med is Cam's fault or not.
Miliband's speech has also allowed for the LDs to hammer the Iraq war drum again today. If the LDs keep quiet about everything else today that will allow that to be played out on news tonight.
Now Andrew Neil is pulling apart Vernon coaker on daily politics highlighting the gross hypocrisy.
I cannot understand why Labour have shot themselves in the foot. Has the Tory war chest been used to bribe Miliband's speechwriters
So its okay for the Tories to accuse Miliband of wanting to 'stab Britain in the back' but when Miliband makes a comment about the chaos in Libya its 'a new low of shallow opportunism'?
Fake outrage from either side is one of the most annoying points of modern politics.
Well, here we go. Ed was given a direct opportunity to clarify that the interpretation of the briefing note by the BBC, Sky, New Statesman and others was completely wrong, and didn't do so:
Ed Miliband, at his Q&A, is now taking questions from the press. The previous questions came from Chatham House members.
Q: To what extend do you blame David Cameron personally for what happened in Libya?
Miliband says the international community as a whole bears some responsibility for what happened in Libya. After Iraq, we should have learnt about the need for post-conflict planning. But that did not happen.
But of course the people traffickers are to blame for the migrant deaths.
He did, however, come up with an answer of quite spectacular emptiness to the follow-up question: Q: What else would you have done in Libya?
Miliband says the key thing is focus. The British government disengaged. It should not have done that.
I think that is default Miliband. His analysis of problems and issues facing the country (or in this case the continent) are not far off the mark.
The problem is that his solution is either a blank sheet of paper or completely counterproductive.
He might make a decent Junior Professor somewhere, but Prime Minister? Hell No!
It would not be so bad if he had a decent team behind him. He doesn't; and they do seem rather invisible. We do not see much of the shadow cabinet, not even Ed Balls.
Just imagine Ed Miliband in power with folk such as Tom Baldwin handling the communications along the lines of today's briefing. The Thick of it becomes reality?
Ed Miliband was today accused of trying to “weaponise drowning migrants” in a row over David Cameron’s handling of the Libya crisis.
Labour issued a briefing that its leader, in a speech on foreign policy, would say the refugee crisis and recent tragic scenes in the Mediterranean were in part a “direct result” of the failure of post-conflict planning for Libya after the overthrow of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi.
It said Mr Miliband was due to add: “David Cameron was wrong to assume that Libya’s political culture and institutions could be left to evolve and transform on their own.”
Neil "if EdM is so keen to learn lessons from post conflict planning, why did EdM vote 4 times against having the Chilcott enquiry"? onest Vern = waffle waffle waffle distraction.
Now that's a question and a half. You watching Evan, you useless @$#%?
Nick Clegg appears to have sided with the Tories over Ed Miliband and his comments about Libya. He told Radio 5 Live:
[It is] pretty distasteful to reduce this total human tragedy, hundreds of people dying in the Mediterranean, to a political point-scoring blame game. Particularly as we are now bringing politics into this, from the party that of course brought us into an illegal invasion of Iraq for which there was no planning at all for the aftermath Labour supported the invasion. It is very easy to be wise with hindsight.
LD is equivalent to under 300k votes across the whole of Greater London.
To be honest slightly disappointed by that poll from a Labour perspective. Con -> Lab swing is around 5% which is broadly similar to the national picture.
My gut feeling of Labour winning 50 seats in the capital unlikely on these numbers...
Well, here we go. Ed w/apr/24/election-2015-live-david-cameron-unveils-conservative-manifesto-for-england
It would not be so bad if he had a decent team behind him. He doesn't; and they do seem rather invisible. We do not see much of the shadow cabinet, not even Ed Balls.
An interesting point. I don't watch a lot of news, but have the front bench teams been even more sidelined than usual this time around, in this increasingly presidential style age? I recall in 2010 a lot of talk about Osborne being hidden because he's, well, Osborne (supposedly more popular now, but I cannot recall him popping up much), but not so much talk about the invisible teams this time, even though it feels like they are.
But then negatives stick in the mind more. Fallon's intervention is the only one I recall.
It's actually one think I liked about the UKIP manifesto in that each section was introduced with a quote and glossy stock photo of other senior members of UKIP (rather than just stock photos), to give them a bit of prominence (and presumably so they couldn't claim later, as Farage has about the 2010 one, that the manifesto is crap).
LD is equivalent to under 300k votes across the whole of Greater London.
To be honest slightly disappointed by that poll from a Labour perspective. Con -> Lab swing is around 5% which is broadly similar to the national picture.
My gut feeling of Labour winning 50 seats in the capital unlikely on these numbers...
Miligeek is slipping and sliding all over the place..trying to cover his butt..He even looks like he realises he has blundered. Another campaign triumph.
Well, here we go. Ed was given a direct opportunity to clarify that the interpretation of the briefing note by the BBC, Sky, New Statesman and others was completely wrong, and didn't do so:
Ed Miliband, at his Q&A, is now taking questions from the press. The previous questions came from Chatham House members.
Q: To what extend do you blame David Cameron personally for what happened in Libya?
Miliband says the international community as a whole bears some responsibility for what happened in Libya. After Iraq, we should have learnt about the need for post-conflict planning. But that did not happen.
But of course the people traffickers are to blame for the migrant deaths.
He did, however, come up with an answer of quite spectacular emptiness to the follow-up question: Q: What else would you have done in Libya?
Miliband says the key thing is focus. The British government disengaged. It should not have done that.
Great, so now it is absolutely clear that Ed does not blame Dave for the migrant deaths. He does believe, though, that along with other members of the international community the UK got it wrong over Libya.
Looks like extreme venality and immorality to me.
Looks like pablum to me. Is that better than the Tory approach of trying to ignore that it ever existed? A little I guess.
Pablum, noun: Anything overly bland or simplistic, especially speech or writing.
Great, so now it is absolutely clear that Ed does not blame Dave for the migrant deaths. He does believe, though, that along with other members of the international community the UK got it wrong over Libya.
Looks like extreme venality and immorality to me.
What it shows that,as usual, Ed Miliband is trying to rewrite history, as he did with Syria, and trying to smear whilst trying to have his cake and eat it, as he did with Lord Fink.
I see you still completely ignore the point that the BBC, Sky and New Statesman all agreed that Labour were blaming Cameron for the deaths.
Having read the briefing note provided by the Telegraph it is absolutely clear to me that at no stage was Cameron blamed for the deaths. I am afraid that I just do not share your views on the inherent venality and immorality of the Labour party and of Ed Miliband, so I cannot extract the interpretations that you do from briefings, from speeches and from events involving either Labour or Ed. I don't think he is a very good leader and I don't think he would be a very good PM - not because he is evil or any more hypocritical than any other politician, but because he is not suited to it. He should be working behind the scenes or writing books at Harvard.
http://www.visitstokescroft.co.uk The most appealing place in any city is the one that zings with a sense of freedom, the once created by the people who live and work there, unplanned, authentic. In Bristol that place is Stokes Croft. ... So enjoy the independence, diversity and creativity, and tread lightly for it is fragile.
[Having lived in Bishopston for 10 years, I'd agree Stokes Croft is a rancid sh1thole]
If the Tories think Facebook and Twitter will win them the election, they
a) don't get how especially Facebook works, and been sold some BS for a lot of money.
b) they completely deluded
c) talking BS to friendly media trying to convince themselves.
On point a) what is it about how Facebook 'works' that makes you say that?
Twitter you obviously only follow people you are interested in and get "outside" news via retweets. So it is one massive echo chamber, but it is one that you actively create for yourself. People who use twitter know that.
Facebook on the other hand invisibly and automatically filters what appears in your timeline. I have forgotten the technical term they use (I am sure somebody can inform us), but basically it just enforces the echo chamber effect without an indivudal even knowing that is the case. Therefore, how do you get to somebody who doesn't even know in the first place that their page is being filtered for them to only things they engage with. Kinda of hard to get to floating and disinterested voters that way.
I thought with Facebook a company could buy access to the news feeds of certain demographics - the value that Facebook are selling to their advertisers is the detailed knowledge about who you are and how likely you are to be receptive to the advertising.
Therefore I imagined that the political parties would be handing Facebook lots of money to get onto the news feeds of the floating voter demographics in the marginal constituencies.
If the Tories think Facebook and Twitter will win them the election, they
a) don't get how especially Facebook works, and been sold some BS for a lot of money.
b) they completely deluded
c) talking BS to friendly media trying to convince themselves.
On point a) what is it about how Facebook 'works' that makes you say that?
Twitter you obviously only follow people you are interested in and get "outside" news via retweets. So it is one massive echo chamber, but it is one that you actively create for yourself. People who use twitter know that.
Facebook on the other hand invisibly and automatically filters what appears in your timeline. I have forgotten the technical term they use (I am sure somebody can inform us), but basically it just enforces the echo chamber effect without an indivudal even knowing that is the case. Therefore, how do you get to somebody who doesn't even know in the first place that their page is being filtered for them to only things they engage with. Kinda of hard to get to floating and disinterested voters that way.
I'm pretty sure that's not the way they'll be using it. There were some studies done into this after the 2012 US election, and ISTR it was effective, especially in GOTV. Sadly the links aren't in the relevant folder, and I don't have time to search them out (nursing a poorly toddler).
But basically: FB might be more effective than you think.
Nick Clegg appears to have sided with the Tories over Ed Miliband and his comments about Libya. He told Radio 5 Live:
[It is] pretty distasteful to reduce this total human tragedy, hundreds of people dying in the Mediterranean, to a political point-scoring blame game. Particularly as we are now bringing politics into this, from the party that of course brought us into an illegal invasion of Iraq for which there was no planning at all for the aftermath Labour supported the invasion. It is very easy to be wise with hindsight.
Nick Clegg appears to have sided with the Tories over Ed Miliband and his comments about Libya. He told Radio 5 Live:
[It is] pretty distasteful to reduce this total human tragedy, hundreds of people dying in the Mediterranean, to a political point-scoring blame game. Particularly as we are now bringing politics into this, from the party that of course brought us into an illegal invasion of Iraq for which there was no planning at all for the aftermath Labour supported the invasion. It is very easy to be wise with hindsight.
Nick Clegg appears to have sided with the Tories over Ed Miliband and his comments about Libya. He told Radio 5 Live:
[It is] pretty distasteful to reduce this total human tragedy, hundreds of people dying in the Mediterranean, to a political point-scoring blame game. Particularly as we are now bringing politics into this, from the party that of course brought us into an illegal invasion of Iraq for which there was no planning at all for the aftermath Labour supported the invasion. It is very easy to be wise with hindsight.
Miligeek is slipping and sliding all over the place..trying to cover his butt..He even looks like he realises he has blundered. Another campaign triumph.
Ludicrously stupid idea to even go on this given his voting record on Chilcott and Labour's dismal record in the areas he complains now. I see Clegg has already banged one in the empty net by raising Iraq.
I'm starting to understand Miliband is a terrifying enough prospect on his own without including the SNP factor. I dread to think what state they are going to leave the country in this time around, should hell yeah get to demonstrate the correct answer was HELL NO.
Shitholes from my youth were Elswick and Scotswood in Newcastle - jeez. All walls covered in cemented broken glass, no indoor loos and streets grimy and without a blade of grass.
Oh and then there's Killingworth Township [I'm not joking about the official name] which was a brutalist architect's wet dream of brick towers, 6ft walls and high rise walkways destined to be filled with muggers, urine and rubbish.
70s urban planners have a great deal to answer for. IIRC The Killingworth Towers were demolished before the debts on them were paid by the local council.
http://www.visitstokescroft.co.uk The most appealing place in any city is the one that zings with a sense of freedom, the once created by the people who live and work there, unplanned, authentic. In Bristol that place is Stokes Croft. ... So enjoy the independence, diversity and creativity, and tread lightly for it is fragile.
[Having lived in Bishopston for 10 years, I'd agree Stokes Croft is a rancid sh1thole]
If the Tories think Facebook and Twitter will win them the election, they
a) don't get how especially Facebook works, and been sold some BS for a lot of money.
b) they completely deluded
c) talking BS to friendly media trying to convince themselves.
On point a) what is it about how Facebook 'works' that makes you say that?
Twitter you obviously only follow people you are interested in and get "outside" news via retweets. So it is one massive echo chamber, but it is one that you actively create for yourself. People who use twitter know that.
Facebook on the other hand invisibly and automatically filters what appears in your timeline. I have forgotten the technical term they use (I am sure somebody can inform us), but basically it just enforces the echo chamber effect without an indivudal even knowing that is the case. Therefore, how do you get to somebody who doesn't even know in the first place that their page is being filtered for them to only things they engage with. Kinda of hard to get to floating and disinterested voters that way.
I thought with Facebook a company could buy access to the news feeds of certain demographics - the value that Facebook are selling to their advertisers is the detailed knowledge about who you are and how likely you are to be receptive to the advertising.
Therefore I imagined that the political parties would be handing Facebook lots of money to get onto the news feeds of the floating voter demographics in the marginal constituencies.
Perhaps, but it was shown that even way back in November the Tories were throwing £100k a month at this and not sure there is much sign that it is doing them much good.
Not only not leading in the polls, the stalemate has been there for 3 months now, they are even starting to be behind Labour on basically all on measures except the economy.
Having read the briefing note provided by the Telegraph it is absolutely clear to me that at no stage was Cameron blamed for the deaths. I am afraid that I just do not share your views on the inherent venality and immorality of the Labour party and of Ed Miliband, so I cannot extract the interpretations that you do from briefings, from speeches and from events involving either Labour or Ed.
[Knocks head agains brick wall] It's NOT MY INTERPRETATION. Are you really incapable of understanding this?
New Statesman: "Miliband will cite this week's Mediterranean refugee deaths, the sidelining of Britain during the Ukraine crisis and the endagering of the UK's EU membership as examples of Cameron's failures"
BBC: Norman Smith "says with the language they have chosen Labour have opened themselves up to the charge that they are indeed implying Mr Cameron bears a direct responsibility for the current refugee crisis whatever their original intentions"
BBC: "Ed Miliband is to accuse David Cameron and world leaders of failing to ‘stand by’ Libya, contributing in part to the crisis in the Mediterranean.”
Sky: "Labour Accuses PM Over Migrant Boat Deaths"
BBC @bbcnickrobinson: "Is EdM accusing PM of having blood on hands? Not in speech extracts but implied in Labour party briefing note"
Having read the briefing note provided by the Telegraph it is absolutely clear to me that at no stage was Cameron blamed for the deaths. I am afraid that I just do not share your views on the inherent venality and immorality of the Labour party and of Ed Miliband, so I cannot extract the interpretations that you do from briefings, from speeches and from events involving either Labour or Ed.
[Knocks head agains brick wall] It's NOT MY INTERPRETATION. Are you really incapable of understanding this?
New Statesman: "Miliband will cite this week's Mediterranean refugee deaths, the sidelining of Britain during the Ukraine crisis and the endagering of the UK's EU membership as examples of Cameron's failures"
BBC: Norman Smith "says with the language they have chosen Labour have opened themselves up to the charge that they are indeed implying Mr Cameron bears a direct responsibility for the current refugee crisis whatever their original intentions"
BBC: "Ed Miliband is to accuse David Cameron and world leaders of failing to ‘stand by’ Libya, contributing in part to the crisis in the Mediterranean.”
Sky: "Labour Accuses PM Over Migrant Boat Deaths"
Having read the briefing note I have no idea how anyone can think that Ed was going to blame Cameron for the deaths.
Shitholes from my youth were Elswick and Scotswood in Newcastle - jeez. All walls covered in cemented broken glass, no indoor loos and streets grimy and without a blade of grass.
Oh and then there's Killingworth Township [I'm not joking about the official name] which was a brutalist architect's wet dream of brick towers, 6ft walls and high rise walkways destined to be filled with muggers, urine and rubbish.
70s urban planners have a great deal to answer for. IIRC The Killingworth Towers were demolished before the debts on them were paid by the local council.
http://www.visitstokescroft.co.uk The most appealing place in any city is the one that zings with a sense of freedom, the once created by the people who live and work there, unplanned, authentic. In Bristol that place is Stokes Croft. ... So enjoy the independence, diversity and creativity, and tread lightly for it is fragile.
[Having lived in Bishopston for 10 years, I'd agree Stokes Croft is a rancid sh1thole]
The Hyson Green estate in Nottingham lasted a similar amount of time to the Killingworth Towers. It's now an ASDA which is a vast improvement, and that's no compliment to the ASDA.
[Knocks head agains brick wall] It's NOT MY INTERPRETATION. Are you really incapable of understanding this?
New Statesman: "Miliband will cite this week's Mediterranean refugee deaths, the sidelining of Britain during the Ukraine crisis and the endagering of the UK's EU membership as examples of Cameron's failures"
BBC: Norman Smith "says with the language they have chosen Labour have opened themselves up to the charge that they are indeed implying Mr Cameron bears a direct responsibility for the current refugee crisis whatever their original intentions"
BBC: "Ed Miliband is to accuse David Cameron and world leaders of failing to ‘stand by’ Libya, contributing in part to the crisis in the Mediterranean.”
Sky: "Labour Accuses PM Over Migrant Boat Deaths"
BBC @bbcnickrobinson: "Is EdM accusing PM of having blood on hands? Not in speech extracts but implied in Labour party briefing note"
Just because the Liberal Media Elite have interpreted Ed's remarks that way, doesn't mean the headbangers on here have to agree with them...
If the Tories think Facebook and Twitter will win them the election, they
a) don't get how especially Facebook works, and been sold some BS for a lot of money.
b) they completely deluded
c) talking BS to friendly media trying to convince themselves.
On point a) what is it about how Facebook 'works' that makes you say that?
Twitter you obviously only follow people you are interested in and get "outside" news via retweets. So it is one massive echo chamber, but it is one that you actively create for yourself. People who use twitter know that.
Facebook on the other hand invisibly and automatically filters what appears in your timeline. I have forgotten the technical term they use (I am sure somebody can inform us), but basically it just enforces the echo chamber effect without an indivudal even knowing that is the case. Therefore, how do you get to somebody who doesn't even know in the first place that their page is being filtered for them to only things they engage with. Kinda of hard to get to floating and disinterested voters that way.
I thought with Facebook a company could buy access to the news feeds of certain demographics - the value that Facebook are selling to their advertisers is the detailed knowledge about who you are and how likely you are to be receptive to the advertising.
Therefore I imagined that the political parties would be handing Facebook lots of money to get onto the news feeds of the floating voter demographics in the marginal constituencies.
Perhaps, but it was shown that even way back in November the Tories were throwing £100k a month at this and not sure there is much sign that it is doing them much good.
Not only not leading in the polls, the stalemate has been there for 3 months now, they are even starting to be behind Labour on basically all on measures except the economy.
Facebook is a pretty pisspoor way to fight an election. That is Shapps for you. If they win it will be depite rather than because of Social Media.
Having read the briefing note I have no idea how anyone can think that Ed was going to blame Cameron for the deaths.
Well they did.
In any case I expect the briefing note was backed up by phone calls from the Labour spin-doctors to journalists.
It does seem unlikely that such a diverse group of media outlets came up with exactly the same interpretation of the briefing note without a little prompting. I'll give Labour HQ a call and ask them to add SO to their list
Having read the briefing note provided by the Telegraph it is absolutely clear to me that at no stage was Cameron blamed for the deaths. I am afraid that I just do not share your views on the inherent venality and immorality of the Labour party and of Ed Miliband, so I cannot extract the interpretations that you do from briefings, from speeches and from events involving either Labour or Ed.
[Knocks head agains brick wall] It's NOT MY INTERPRETATION. Are you really incapable of understanding this?
New Statesman: "Miliband will cite this week's Mediterranean refugee deaths, the sidelining of Britain during the Ukraine crisis and the endagering of the UK's EU membership as examples of Cameron's failures"
BBC: Norman Smith "says with the language they have chosen Labour have opened themselves up to the charge that they are indeed implying Mr Cameron bears a direct responsibility for the current refugee crisis whatever their original intentions"
BBC: "Ed Miliband is to accuse David Cameron and world leaders of failing to ‘stand by’ Libya, contributing in part to the crisis in the Mediterranean.”
Sky: "Labour Accuses PM Over Migrant Boat Deaths"
Having read the briefing note I have no idea how anyone can think that Ed was going to blame Cameron for the deaths.
Maybe you should consider that there are folk working for Miliband such as Tom Baldwin who speak to the journalists and BRIEF them verbally on what it really means and the line they would like projected. It is what PR people do.
If there is really a 5% swing con-lab in England, as is asserted here, then how come I am reading from the Times that the tories may take Stoke on Trent South??
It can increase awareness but unless policies (or perhaps personality) are a hook then it's just water off a duck's back [to mix my aquatic metaphors].
You can see why there is a possibility of a green mp here
Still think Bristol W is a more likely Lab gain. As I've mentioned before, there are too many bad wards for the Greens for them to win. If you took out Clifton, Clifton W and Lawrence Hill and added in Horfield (from NW) and Southville (from S) you might have a Green seat
Paddy Power Politics @pppolitics 14s15 seconds ago Miliband addressing foreign policy in the media today, or more specifically, policies that are foreign to him. # GE2015
If there is really a 5% swing con-lab in England, as is asserted here, then how come I am reading from the Times that the tories may take Stoke on Trent South??
I think we're moving into the start where the national polls are less and less useful and it all depends on the local battles.
You can see why there is a possibility of a green mp here
Still think Bristol W is a more likely Lab gain. As I've mentioned before, there are too many bad wards for the Greens for them to win. If you took out Clifton, Clifton W and Lawrence Hill and added in Horfield (from NW) and Southville (from S) you might have a Green seat
Then antics of this Green Councillor may not have won converts.
If there is really a 5% swing con-lab in England, as is asserted here, then how come I am reading from the Times that the tories may take Stoke on Trent South??
Is that being predicted by the same half bit pundits that have the Tories on seven seats in Scotland ?
Killingworth was just down the road from me as I lived above my parents shop in Four Lane Ends.
The 64 look us down to the swimming baths there and I'll never forget the 10ft of black bags piled up when the bin men went on strike. It stank and felt like something horrible was happening.
I was a kid and it made a long lasting impression of losing control.
Shitholes from my youth were Elswick and Scotswood in Newcastle - jeez. All walls covered in cemented broken glass, no indoor loos and streets grimy and without a blade of grass.
Oh and then there's Killingworth Township [I'm not joking about the official name] which was a brutalist architect's wet dream of brick towers, 6ft walls and high rise walkways destined to be filled with muggers, urine and rubbish.
70s urban planners have a great deal to answer for. IIRC The Killingworth Towers were demolished before the debts on them were paid by the local council.
http://www.visitstokescroft.co.uk The most appealing place in any city is the one that zings with a sense of freedom, the once created by the people who live and work there, unplanned, authentic. In Bristol that place is Stokes Croft. ... So enjoy the independence, diversity and creativity, and tread lightly for it is fragile.
[Having lived in Bishopston for 10 years, I'd agree Stokes Croft is a rancid sh1thole]
The Hyson Green estate in Nottingham lasted a similar amount of time to the Killingworth Towers. It's now an ASDA which is a vast improvement, and that's no compliment to the ASDA.
If there is really a 5% swing con-lab in England, as is asserted here, then how come I am reading from the Times that the tories may take Stoke on Trent South??
Is that being predicted by the same half bit pundits that have the Tories on seven seats in Scotland ?
It's probably what Tory activists in the seat are "feeling on the doorstep"
Having read the briefing note provided by the Telegraph it is absolutely clear to me that at no stage was Cameron blamed for the deaths. I am afraid that I just do not share your views on the inherent venality and immorality of the Labour party and of Ed Miliband, so I cannot extract the interpretations that you do from briefings, from speeches and from events involving either Labour or Ed.
[Knocks head agains brick wall] It's NOT MY INTERPRETATION. Are you really incapable of understanding this?
New Statesman: "Miliband will cite this week's Mediterranean refugee deaths, the sidelining of Britain during the Ukraine crisis and the endagering of the UK's EU membership as examples of Cameron's failures"
BBC: Norman Smith "says with the language they have chosen Labour have opened themselves up to the charge that they are indeed implying Mr Cameron bears a direct responsibility for the current refugee crisis whatever their original intentions"
BBC: "Ed Miliband is to accuse David Cameron and world leaders of failing to ‘stand by’ Libya, contributing in part to the crisis in the Mediterranean.”
Sky: "Labour Accuses PM Over Migrant Boat Deaths"
Having read the briefing note I have no idea how anyone can think that Ed was going to blame Cameron for the deaths.
Maybe you should consider that there are folk working for Miliband such as Tom Baldwin who speak to the journalists and BRIEF them verbally on what it really means and the line they would like projected. It is what PR people do.
Comments
However, it strikes me as perfectly possible for 1 activist /internet troll to set up multiple, if not hundreds of accounts in order to be selected for the surveys. This could account for the now clear divergence between online and telephone polls.
You may very well think that.
I couldn;t possibly comment.
a) don't get how especially Facebook works, and been sold some BS for a lot of money.
b) they completely deluded
c) talking BS to friendly media trying to convince themselves.
I think if it does work, it would be a bad thing. Politics should be retail. Public meetings, talking to undecided voters. Motivating volunteers.
Ed Miliband, at his Q&A, is now taking questions from the press. The previous questions came from Chatham House members.
Q: To what extend do you blame David Cameron personally for what happened in Libya?
Miliband says the international community as a whole bears some responsibility for what happened in Libya. After Iraq, we should have learnt about the need for post-conflict planning. But that did not happen.
But of course the people traffickers are to blame for the migrant deaths.
He did, however, come up with an answer of quite spectacular emptiness to the follow-up question:
Q: What else would you have done in Libya?
Miliband says the key thing is focus. The British government disengaged. It should not have done that.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2015/apr/24/election-2015-live-david-cameron-unveils-conservative-manifesto-for-england
They're quite good at it and have successfully portrayed a thriving economy based on the inflation of house prices and the filching of Scottish resources. The reality, however, is completely different to the claims of the party and their brainwashed supporters.
The ensuing conversation went something like this [a bit muffled].
"Bang!!!
WFT...
WFT have you done, mate - don't you have eyes?!??!?!
Sorry, mate - I didn't see you there...
I need to get to XXX Important meeting, I'm the Chief Constable...
Yeah, right - F-Off
No, I am sonny...
F-Off
repeat for 5 mins"
It was the best thing ever!!!
EVEL cannot work without FFA.
onest Vern = waffle waffle waffle distraction.
Looks like extreme venality and immorality to me.
Q: How could post-war planning have been better?
Miliband says he would reconvene the Friends of Libya group.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2015/apr/24/election-2015-live-david-cameron-unveils-conservative-manifesto-for-england
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11558665/Miliband-accuses-Cameron-over-migrant-deaths-live.html
LOL. Poor old pensioners. You pay into a scheme forced onto you by your government for your whole life, and when its time to get something out of this rotten ponzi scheme you are 'benefiting from targeted giveaways'
Facebook on the other hand invisibly and automatically filters what appears in your timeline. I have forgotten the technical term they use (I am sure somebody can inform us), but basically it just enforces the echo chamber effect without an indivudal even knowing that is the case. Therefore, how do you get to somebody who doesn't even know in the first place that their page is being filtered for them to only things they engage with. Kinda of hard to get to floating and disinterested voters that way.
Latest London Poll
Lab 44 Con 32 UKIP 10 LD 8 Grn 5
LD is equivalent to under 300k votes across the whole of Greater London.
I see you still completely ignore the point that the BBC, Sky and New Statesman all agreed that Labour were blaming Cameron for the deaths.
Now Andrew Neil is pulling apart Vernon coaker on daily politics highlighting the gross hypocrisy.
I cannot understand why Labour have shot themselves in the foot. Has the Tory war chest been used to bribe Miliband's speechwriters
Fake outrage from either side is one of the most annoying points of modern politics.
The problem is that his solution is either a blank sheet of paper or completely counterproductive.
He might make a decent Junior Professor somewhere, but Prime Minister? Hell No!
It would not be so bad if he had a decent team behind him. He doesn't; and they do seem rather invisible. We do not see much of the shadow cabinet, not even Ed Balls.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/england/bristol
I think even the most ardent tory supporter would probably concede the blues are on to a stuffing in the capital.
Labour have a landslide in East London. N,S and W were all in play.
UKIP probably doing well in Havering, Bexley, Bromley etc.
To be honest slightly disappointed by that poll from a Labour perspective. Con -> Lab swing is around 5% which is broadly similar to the national picture.
My gut feeling of Labour winning 50 seats in the capital unlikely on these numbers...
But then negatives stick in the mind more. Fallon's intervention is the only one I recall.
It's actually one think I liked about the UKIP manifesto in that each section was introduced with a quote and glossy stock photo of other senior members of UKIP (rather than just stock photos), to give them a bit of prominence (and presumably so they couldn't claim later, as Farage has about the 2010 one, that the manifesto is crap).
I just learned new word
I can't stand it. Anyone with my unpopular opinion?
The most appealing place in any city is the one that zings with a sense of freedom, the once created by the people who live and work there, unplanned, authentic. In Bristol that place is Stokes Croft. ... So enjoy the independence, diversity and creativity, and tread lightly for it is fragile.
[Having lived in Bishopston for 10 years, I'd agree Stokes Croft is a rancid sh1thole]
Therefore I imagined that the political parties would be handing Facebook lots of money to get onto the news feeds of the floating voter demographics in the marginal constituencies.
(shocked) smileything
But basically: FB might be more effective than you think.
(Edit: ah, it was 2010: http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/pressrelease/facebook_fuels_the_friend_vote )
Milipede has form when it comes to Mili-tary intervention
I'm starting to understand Miliband is a terrifying enough prospect on his own without including the SNP factor. I dread to think what state they are going to leave the country in this time around, should hell yeah get to demonstrate the correct answer was HELL NO.
150 years ago today, the line from Loughton to Ongar was first opened by the Great Eastern Railway.
The Epping Ongar Railway, which runs heritage trains over the eastern-most portion, has special train services today, tomorrow and Sunday.
Oh and then there's Killingworth Township [I'm not joking about the official name] which was a brutalist architect's wet dream of brick towers, 6ft walls and high rise walkways destined to be filled with muggers, urine and rubbish.
70s urban planners have a great deal to answer for. IIRC The Killingworth Towers were demolished before the debts on them were paid by the local council.
fields.eca.ac.uk/gis/?p=500
Not only not leading in the polls, the stalemate has been there for 3 months now, they are even starting to be behind Labour on basically all on measures except the economy.
New Statesman: "Miliband will cite this week's Mediterranean refugee deaths, the sidelining of Britain during the Ukraine crisis and the endagering of the UK's EU membership as examples of Cameron's failures"
BBC: Norman Smith "says with the language they have chosen Labour have opened themselves up to the charge that they are indeed implying Mr Cameron bears a direct responsibility for the current refugee crisis whatever their original intentions"
BBC: "Ed Miliband is to accuse David Cameron and world leaders of failing to ‘stand by’ Libya, contributing in part to the crisis in the Mediterranean.”
Sky: "Labour Accuses PM Over Migrant Boat Deaths"
BBC @bbcnickrobinson: "Is EdM accusing PM of having blood on hands? Not in speech extracts but implied in Labour party briefing note"
Wernicke's Aphasia is something many a politician seems to suffer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Receptive_aphasia
One song destined to get me in floods is Josh Ritter's Another New World https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsGXWTJ-r_c
In any case I expect the briefing note was backed up by phone calls from the Labour spin-doctors to journalists.
Or in the immortal words of Monty Python :
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=JC46VcHTNtHhaJ_UgagN&url=http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=anwy2MPT5RE&ved=0CB0QtwIwAA&usg=AFQjCNFWw3FXwvQGJ-ZuLixKlMOoBXLhmg
Of course, what we now know for certain is that Ed does not blame Dave for the deaths.
http://t.co/wSapAnMarv
Is it a known medical condition or is it a new euphemism for being over emotionally tired?
It can increase awareness but unless policies (or perhaps personality) are a hook then it's just water off a duck's back [to mix my aquatic metaphors].
Miliband addressing foreign policy in the media today, or more specifically, policies that are foreign to him. # GE2015
@Ed_Miliband: I support British intervention in Libya for 3 reasons: it is a just cause, with a feasible plan, and has international support
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2635019/Councillor-slammed-complained-salary-Twitter-despite-earning-32-000-year.html
The 64 look us down to the swimming baths there and I'll never forget the 10ft of black bags piled up when the bin men went on strike. It stank and felt like something horrible was happening.
I was a kid and it made a long lasting impression of losing control.
Remember the ambassadors comments that were a game changer ? No me neither..