Is the Conservative English manifesto just as stupid, tokenistic and wrongly essentialist as everyone said Labour's Scottish/BME/women's manifestos were?
'The only way the "Union" can survive is if the Tories lose; if they win , thanks to the EU referendum, another can of worms will be opened and if Scotland is not given a separate referendum if England votes to come out , then I think there will be riots.'
You must have been on the sauce to come up with that rubbish.
Test Cricket is the most boring sport in the world. And Golf.
I agree with you about golf.
Its not if you play it
Golf is a great game to play, dull to watch and mind numbingly tedious to hear people talking about.
It is the YouGov of sports.
It is great to play but agree with your other comments
The last time I played (pitch and putt) golf, I scored by how many golf balls I lost rather than number of shots. Managed to send 3 over a cliff on the first hole (on that round I broke an old golf ball by cracking the white off it, which I counted as a half).
Test Cricket is the most boring sport in the world. And Golf.
I agree with you about golf.
Its not if you play it
Golf is a great game to play, dull to watch and mind numbingly tedious to hear people talking about.
It is the YouGov of sports.
It is great to play but agree with your other comments
The last time I played (pitch and putt) golf, I scored by how many golf balls I lost rather than number of shots. Managed to send 3 over a cliff on the first hole (on that round I broke an old golf ball by cracking the white off it, which I counted as a half).
The secret is to keep your head down when playing your shot even in pitch and putt
Is the Conservative English manifesto just as stupid, tokenistic and wrongly essentialist as everyone said Labour's Scottish/BME/women's manifestos were?
The Tories are expediting Scottish independence...
The irony is that they call themselves the Conservative and Unionist Party.
I thought that originally, but the Scots aren't going anywhere for a while now. The economics of independence have totally collapsed - the witterings of a few fundamentalists notwithstanding. It looks like we'll all be stuck in a loveless marriage; necessity, rather than any affection, holding things together - at least until the oil price has staged a sustained recovery.
I always thought that Nationalism was something people were prepared to fight wars over. It seems weird for the decision to come down to basically a question of economics, and I'm still not sure that it does.
How many Eurosceptics would sign up for a Federal Europe in return for €500 a year from the Germans? Precious few I would have thought, so why would Scottish nationhood come down to a question of pounds and pence. Bizarre attitude.
Test Cricket is the most boring sport in the world. And Golf.
I agree with you about golf.
Its not if you play it
Golf is a great game to play, dull to watch and mind numbingly tedious to hear people talking about.
It is the YouGov of sports.
It is great to play but agree with your other comments
The last time I played (pitch and putt) golf, I scored by how many golf balls I lost rather than number of shots. Managed to send 3 over a cliff on the first hole (on that round I broke an old golf ball by cracking the white off it, which I counted as a half).
The secret is to keep your head down when playing your shot even in pitch and putt
That is so not true. As anyone who has seen Happy Gilmore will know.
Is it too early to say that, without the useless, boozy, sheep-tupping Aussies and Kiwi "soldiers" we'd probably have won in Gallipoli and succcessfully wrapped up WW1 in 1917?
On the commemorative day for the large numbers of Aussie and Kiwi soldiers who died in Gallipol I dont think that comment is appropriate
My Grandmothers Uncle James was one of the ANZACs 100 years ago today. A 26 year old schoolteacher working in Melbourne. He volunteered and was made Sergeant, perhaps because as Teacher he was slightly older and seen as an authority figure. He was in the 6th bn, who landed and took the ridge. They were completely overrun by Mustafa Kemal's counter attack. The battalion had no time to entrench or set up heavy weapons. A handful of stragglers survived and the Anzacs never got the ridge back. His name is on the Lone Pine Memorial. His war lasted just one day of combat.
I was in Sydney for ANZAC DAY some years ago, and seeing the old soldiers parading was very very moving. I was interested to see many British (presumably post war migrants) proudly marching with them, before retiring to the pub to play 2 Up and be bought drinks by an appreciative public. It is a very stirring experience.
That music chat earlier and your mention of Nirvana Unplugged. I sat here working with it playing in the background. Cobain's rendition of Leadbelly's "Where Did You Sleep Last Night" is a wow moment. Kurt Cobain definitely had something special about him. Warped, depressive, crazy and sharp; anyone who pens the lyrics "I wish I could eat your cancer when you turn black" to his beau, is pretty screwed-up.
Where Did You Sleep Last Night touches me personally because it reminds me of the early part of my relationship when I could never answer my wife correctly when questioned on where I'd slept.....
Yes it is one of my favourite albums
The great thing was it showed that with the amplifiers turned down and the distortion off, nirvana were still a great band and Kurt had a voice like no other
Funny enough the first time I remember watching that show was spring 94 while England were playing the windies away!
Some of his lyrics were v dark as you say., but in my lifetime prob the most gifted songwriter
Seems a good solution if DC fails to form a government - HOC would be fun for Ed if he had to face Boris, Nigel and Alex Salmond
As well as LOTO there are also potential Prime Ministerial possibilities...
"The Telegraph has spoken to senior Conservatives from different parts of the party - ministers, backbenchers and party officials. Several suggested that Mr Cameron could step down even if the Tories win more seats than Labour at the election.
One option being examined is for Mr Cameron to remain Prime Minister for a short period while the Conservative Party arranges a “coronation” for Boris Johnson as leader, who would then take the premiership and try to assemble a Tory-led minority government."
There are any number of pieces of mistaken thinking in that, although I do think they come somewhere near the right conclusion if by the wrong reasoning.
Firstly, and most importantly, it's not 'senior Tories' who anoint a leader; it's the other candidates. It was David Davis choosing not to stand in 2003 that provided Michael Howard with the leadership by acclamation, not other people preventing him from standing. If May or Hammond or Osborne or Javid or whoever wanted to stand then I've little doubt that there would be an election. There will be enough MPs wanting to stop Boris to get another name on the paper (though not enough to prevent his election, I'd guess).
Secondly, the notion that Boris would be better-placed to form a government than Cameron seems bizarre, even if a coronation can be arranged. Do these commentators expect Labour, the Lib Dems, the SNP and the rest to hang around while Cameron remains in No 10 and the rest of his party engages in navel-gazing? The Lib Dems at least have a reasonable working relationship with Cameron - why assume that Boris would be more palatable?
Thirdly, the idea that the PM gets first dibs at forming a government is misleading. The PM remains as such until he resigns or is No Confidenced but it's down to the parties and particularly to the smaller ones to determine how the talks go.
Having said all that, if Cameron fails to win a majority or near-majority, I do expect him to resign. Put more accurately, I expect him to resign if he can't form a government with a working majority, whether coalition or single-party. Much as the party would like a majority, shared power is far better than opposition (but office does not equal power if you don't have a majority). And if he does lose the premiership I expect him to resign quickly and for Boris to become leader - though probably after a leadership election. Either way, a new leader would be in place for the autumn at the latest, and there won't be another GE before then.
The election is now not between Tory vs Labour but between the methods of Yougov, Populus vs Ashcroft, ICM
One group will turn out to be wrong.
Newsnight reporting tonight that the Tory high command are upbeat about their Jock bashing strategy, and even Labour privately are admitting it is working.
Does Nick (P) ?????
Nope. If it was working, the polls would be shifting.
'The only way the "Union" can survive is if the Tories lose; if they win , thanks to the EU referendum, another can of worms will be opened and if Scotland is not given a separate referendum if England votes to come out , then I think there will be riots.'
You must have been on the sauce to come up with that rubbish.
One country, one membership. If the Scots are so keen to stay in after a UK decision to leave, they know what to do. It'd mean customs at Carlisle and borderposts at Berwick, mind.
It's just you. This is the most intriguing election, for so many reasons, in many decades. Anyone who claims otherwise is a twit, with zero hindsight.
It's an intriguing deadlock. People think it's dull because it's deadlocked, but it's fascinating nonetheless, just not fascinating AND mobile. It may be that the really interesting part will come after May 7.
Agreed. People who are bored by this aren't thinking hard enough. Britain stands on the edge of a decision which could, theoretically, 1. eject us from the EU, 2, wipe out all major parties in Scotland, 3. help to dissolve the UK entirely, 4, see the Libs reduced, for the first time in democratic history, to 4th place, 5. see endless Scots Labour bigwigs retired overnight, 6, see the emergence of a major UK-wide party for the first time in decades... and on and on.
All of the above is very possible. And more. Yet all is unpredictable because the polls are all over the place.
I find it hard to understand pb anoraks who are *bored*. What do they want? Civil insurrection??
To be pedantic I'm sure we've been 4th before, the yellow taxi days surely had us behind the NI parties.
Interesting point. Were you ever behind any individual NI party in both votes and seats?
Genuine question. I find it hard to think you were.
In this election you look almost certain to end up behind UKIP in votes and behind the SNP in seats.
Taking a look back, while there were two Liberal factions one was of course in 4th, and for a while the Conservatives in Scotland were still technically the separate Unionist party.
In 1950 the UUP had 10 seats to the Liberal 9, but on ~350,000 votes compared to Liberal ~2,600,000
The Liberals / Lib Dems have never finished lower than third in the national vote share.
There have been a number of occasions when they've not been in the top three parliamentary parties.
1918, when they finished fifth, behind Sinn Fein and Lloyd George's Coalition Liberals. 1931, when they finished fourth, behind the National Liberals 1981, after the SDP split from Labour (and before they formed the SDP-Liberal Alliance).
The 1970 parliament looks like another example on the face of it as there were only six Liberals and the eight Unionists who previously took the Conservative whip resigned it in protest at the Sunningdale agreement. However, the Liberals had won enough by-elections by that point to remain third.
The election is now not between Tory vs Labour but between the methods of Yougov, Populus vs Ashcroft, ICM
One group will turn out to be wrong.
Newsnight reporting tonight that the Tory high command are upbeat about their Jock bashing strategy, and even Labour privately are admitting it is working.
Does Nick (P) ?????
Nope. If it was working, the polls would be shifting.
My personal suspicion is that the whole 'SNP might have UK hostage' story comes up on the doorstep because it is something people have read in the newspapers in recent days. I think us politcos and punters forget what it is like to be asked your views on the doorstep and to have to think of something cogent to say on the spot. It will pass. I'm holding to EICIPM.
Do any of these posters actually physically exist? Indeed, has anyone seen any billboard election poster anywhere in the country? I haven't.
That certainly looks real. Do you live in a marginal?
Yes. And near to several more.
I agree that the picture looks like a real one - I suppose I was asking whether they only exist as one-offs, with the intention of having them spread electronically or via the media, or whether this is the start of a new phase of campaigning. It's a bit late if so.
It's just you. This is the most intriguing election, for so many reasons, in many decades. Anyone who claims otherwise is a twit, with zero hindsight.
It's an intriguing deadlock. People think it's dull because it's deadlocked, but it's fascinating nonetheless, just not fascinating AND mobile. It may be that the really interesting part will come after May 7.
Agreed. People who are bored by this aren't thinking hard enough. Britain stands on the edge of a decision which could, theoretically, 1. eject us from the EU, 2, wipe out all major parties in Scotland, 3. help to dissolve the UK entirely, 4, see the Libs reduced, for the first time in democratic history, to 4th place, 5. see endless Scots Labour bigwigs retired overnight, 6, see the emergence of a major UK-wide party for the first time in decades... and on and on.
All of the above is very possible. And more. Yet all is unpredictable because the polls are all over the place.
I find it hard to understand pb anoraks who are *bored*. What do they want? Civil insurrection??
To be pedantic I'm sure we've been 4th before, the yellow taxi days surely had us behind the NI parties.
Interesting point. Were you ever behind any individual NI party in both votes and seats?
Genuine question. I find it hard to think you were.
In this election you look almost certain to end up behind UKIP in votes and behind the SNP in seats.
Taking a look back, while there were two Liberal factions one was of course in 4th, and for a while the Conservatives in Scotland were still technically the separate Unionist party.
In 1950 the UUP had 10 seats to the Liberal 9, but on ~350,000 votes compared to Liberal ~2,600,000
The Liberals / Lib Dems have never finished lower than third in the national vote share.
There have been a number of occasions when they've not been in the top three parliamentary parties.
1918, when they finished fifth, behind Sinn Fein and Lloyd George's Coalition Liberals. 1931, when they finished fourth, behind the National Liberals 1981, after the SDP split from Labour (and before they formed the SDP-Liberal Alliance).
The 1970 parliament looks like another example on the face of it as there were only six Liberals and the eight Unionists who previously took the Conservative whip resigned it in protest at the Sunningdale agreement. However, the Liberals had won enough by-elections by that point to remain third.
I was really looking for a truer example, so ruling out cases of two Liberal parties (or as I mentioned the Unionist party).
surbiton Although ironically some polls, including a recent Panelbase, have shown a narrow majority of SNP voters would support leaving the EU even if Scots as a whole would vote to stay
Do any of these posters actually physically exist? Indeed, has anyone seen any billboard election poster anywhere in the country? I haven't.
That certainly looks real. Do you live in a marginal?
Yes. And near to several more.
I agree that the picture looks like a real one - I suppose I was asking whether they only exist as one-offs, with the intention of having them spread electronically or via the media, or whether this is the start of a new phase of campaigning. It's a bit late if so.
Loads of billboards in South Thanet (mainly UKIP, some Conservative). Large UKIP ads on the sides of buses there too.
At about 12:56pm yesterday, a mad old lady in the local corner shop told me that "Kate" (by which, on further interrogation, it turned out she meant the Duchess of Cambridge) had gone into hospital during the morning, and that the birth of the royal baby was therefore imminent.
This is obviously a much more reliable source of information than the TV news or the mainstream media, none of which have mentioned such a thing, so we should all be aware that the birth might happen at any moment.
At about 12:56pm yesterday, a mad old lady in the local corner shop told me that "Kate" (by which, on further interrogation, it turned out she meant the Duchess of Cambridge) had gone into hospital during the morning, and that the birth of the royal baby was therefore imminent.
This is obviously a much more reliable source of information than the TV news or the mainstream media, none of which have mentioned such a thing, so we should all be aware that the birth might happen at any moment.
At about 12:56pm yesterday, a mad old lady in the local corner shop told me that "Kate" (by which, on further interrogation, it turned out she meant the Duchess of Cambridge) had gone into hospital during the morning, and that the birth of the royal baby was therefore imminent.
This is obviously a much more reliable source of information than the TV news or the mainstream media, none of which have mentioned such a thing, so we should all be aware that the birth might happen at any moment.
After the initial delivery, a Royal Baby then goes through a series of larval stages before it reaches its final form, at which point it is revealed to the general population.
'The only way the "Union" can survive is if the Tories lose; if they win , thanks to the EU referendum, another can of worms will be opened and if Scotland is not given a separate referendum if England votes to come out , then I think there will be riots.'
You must have been on the sauce to come up with that rubbish.
One country, one membership. If the Scots are so keen to stay in after a UK decision to leave, they know what to do. It'd mean customs at Carlisle and borderposts at Berwick, mind.
Monkeys Even on that poll on 2011 Holyrood votes 40% of SNP voters would vote to leave the EU, 44% to stay as opposed to 33% of all Scots who would vote to leave with 45% voting to stay
2011 Even on that poll on 2011 Holyrood votes 40% of SNP voters would vote to leave the EU, 44% to stay as opposed to 33% of all Scots who would vote to leave with 45% voting to stay
Or you could look at Westminster voting intention, if you were that way inclined - stay in 52 percent to 33 percent.
Salmond took a party from less than 20 per cent of the vote at Westminster to nearly 50 per cent.
He took independence support from below 30 per cent to 45 per cent.
He took the SNP into minority Government and then to majority Government.
He was several times as good as you think.
Agree totally. In the 21st century so far, he has been the most outstanding political leader in Britain whether supporters of other parties agree or not.
A person has to be judged on results - not whether you like him or not.
monkeys Westminster voting intention is not those who have already cast a vote for the SNP and anyway even on that poll the 33% of SNP voters wishing to leave the EU is more than the 26% of Scottish Labour and 12% of Scottish LD voters who wish to do so
monkeys Westminster voting intention is not those who have already cast a vote for the SNP and anyway even on that poll the 33% of SNP voters wishing to leave the EU is more than the 26% of Scottish Labour and 12% of Scottish LD voters who wish to do so
Monkeys What it shows is that at least a third to 40% of SNP voters want to leave the EU, giving Sturgeon a big headache if she tries to push a very pro EU line
monkeys Westminster voting intention is not those who have already cast a vote for the SNP and anyway even on that poll the 33% of SNP voters wishing to leave the EU is more than the 26% of Scottish Labour and 12% of Scottish LD voters who wish to do so
So what?
The idea that Scotland or SNP supporters are uniquely in favour of the EU (or 'social democracy') is rarely backed up by polling evidence.
While I understand the SNP's need to highlight differences (when it suits it), in truth, Scots and other residents of the British Isles have very similar opinions across a whole range of topics - there is much more that unites us than divides us, whatever the SNP's rhetoric.
Monkeys What it shows is that at least a third to 40% of SNP voters want to leave the EU, giving Sturgeon a big headache if she tries to push a very pro EU line
So less than a majority, yeah? Anyway, unless you can show that those 40 percent are going to suddenly start waving a Union Jack around in the event of Scotland wanting to remain in the EU, it isn't terribly interesting.
Was your panelbase poll a subsample of a UK-wide poll?
Monkeys On the Holyrood figures 45% of SNP voters wanted to stay in the EU, 40% to leave, ie SNP voters are split down the middle, Panelbase even had SNP Out voters ahead even if a subsample
Despite Labour's small but seemingly resolute lead in tonight's YouGov poll, Chris Hanretty's latest updated 2015 UK Parliamentary Election Forecast shows the Tories as having a 19 seat lead, i.e. 286 vs Labour's 267 which is marginally ahead of Sporting's 15 seat lead for the Blue Team who have mid-spread prices of 285 for the Tories vs 270 for Labour.
Despite Labour's small but seemingly resolute lead in tonight's YouGov poll, Chris Hanretty's latest updated 2015 UK Parliamentary Election Forecast shows the Tories as having a 19 seat lead, i.e. 286 vs Labour's 267 which is marginally ahead of Sporting's 15 seat lead for the Blue Team who have mid-spread prices of 285 vs 270 for Labour.
Interestingly there was an article in the Grauniad a few days ago saying the Tories would try to make a go of it if they got 284+........
Monkeys On the Holyrood figures 45% of SNP voters wanted to stay in the EU, 40% to leave, ie SNP voters are split down the middle, Panelbase even had SNP Out voters ahead even if a subsample
Monkeys London is likely to have a far higher In vote in any referendum than SNP voters give backing to the EU, which would make SNP attempts to blame Westminster for foisting an EU exit on Scotland look farcical in the still unlikely event of an Out vote, night
Despite Labour's small but seemingly resolute lead in tonight's YouGov poll, Chris Hanretty's latest updated 2015 UK Parliamentary Election Forecast shows the Tories as having a 19 seat lead, i.e. 286 vs Labour's 267 which is marginally ahead of Sporting's 15 seat lead for the Blue Team who have mid-spread prices of 285 vs 270 for Labour.
Interestingly there was an article in the Grauniad a few days ago saying the Tories would try to make a go of it if they got 284+........
It surely depends what the LDs, UKIP and DUP are on. I think if the four parties add up to 323 Cameron will remain in office. I know a lot of people might have objections to lumping the LDs, UKIP and DUP together but they do have one thing in common which is none of them want the SNP in power in any way. That could be the crucial factor.
The election is now not between Tory vs Labour but between the methods of Yougov, Populus vs Ashcroft, ICM
One group will turn out to be wrong.
Newsnight reporting tonight that the Tory high command are upbeat about their Jock bashing strategy, and even Labour privately are admitting it is working.
Does Nick (P) ?????
Nope. If it was working, the polls would be shifting.
Despite Labour's small but seemingly resolute lead in tonight's YouGov poll, Chris Hanretty's latest updated 2015 UK Parliamentary Election Forecast shows the Tories as having a 19 seat lead, i.e. 286 vs Labour's 267 which is marginally ahead of Sporting's 15 seat lead for the Blue Team who have mid-spread prices of 285 vs 270 for Labour.
Interestingly there was an article in the Grauniad a few days ago saying the Tories would try to make a go of it if they got 284+........
It surely depends what the LDs, UKIP and DUP are on. I think if the four parties add up to 323 Cameron will remain in office. I know a lot of people might have objections to lumping the LDs, UKIP and DUP together but they do have one thing in common which is none of them want the SNP in power in any way. That could be the crucial factor.
I think the Lib Dems might have serious reservations if the figure adds up (With DUP) to solely 323. There is alot more stability in going with Labour in that case - 329 is a different matter.
Despite Labour's small but seemingly resolute lead in tonight's YouGov poll, Chris Hanretty's latest updated 2015 UK Parliamentary Election Forecast shows the Tories as having a 19 seat lead, i.e. 286 vs Labour's 267 which is marginally ahead of Sporting's 15 seat lead for the Blue Team who have mid-spread prices of 285 vs 270 for Labour.
Interestingly there was an article in the Grauniad a few days ago saying the Tories would try to make a go of it if they got 284+........
It surely depends what the LDs, UKIP and DUP are on. I think if the four parties add up to 323 Cameron will remain in office. I know a lot of people might have objections to lumping the LDs, UKIP and DUP together but they do have one thing in common which is none of them want the SNP in power in any way. That could be the crucial factor.
I think the Lib Dems might have serious reservations if the figure adds up (With DUP) to solely 323. There is alot more stability in going with Labour in that case - 329 is a different matter.
Also: if the LibDems lose a great many seats to the Tories, and end up on (say) 15, then I simply can't see them going for anything other than supply and confidence. Another Tory coalition, after they got their arses kicked in a bunch of Tory/LibDem seats would not be palatable to party members (or MPs).
The election is now not between Tory vs Labour but between the methods of Yougov, Populus vs Ashcroft, ICM
One group will turn out to be wrong.
Newsnight reporting tonight that the Tory high command are upbeat about their Jock bashing strategy, and even Labour privately are admitting it is working.
Does Nick (P) ?????
Nope. If it was working, the polls would be shifting.
Based on what a Tory activist friend tells me, it is working in getting UKIP leaners back in the fold in his marginal.
Perhaps the polling has too much distortion in the UKIP estimates to show a UKIP Tory shift
Or maybe it's working but only in marginals. That would hardly make a dent in national VI numbers, even if they're capturing tactical voting which they may not without a "thinking about your constituency" squeeze question.
The other unknown is whether there are counter-effects among leftier voters, eg: "Don't like the SNP, better vote Labour to make sure they have enough" or "Lab + SNP might actually be left-wing, maybe it's worth voting after all"
The election is now not between Tory vs Labour but between the methods of Yougov, Populus vs Ashcroft, ICM
One group will turn out to be wrong.
Newsnight reporting tonight that the Tory high command are upbeat about their Jock bashing strategy, and even Labour privately are admitting it is working.
Does Nick (P) ?????
Nope. If it was working, the polls would be shifting.
Based on what a Tory activist friend tells me, it is working in getting UKIP leaners back in the fold in his marginal.
Perhaps the polling has too much distortion in the UKIP estimates to show a UKIP Tory shift
Or maybe it's working but only in marginals. That would hardly make a dent in national VI numbers, even if they're capturing tactical voting which they may not without a "thinking about your constituency" squeeze question.
The other unknown is whether there are counter-effects among leftier voters, eg: "Don't like the SNP, better vote Labour to make sure they have enough" or "Lab + SNP might actually be left-wing, maybe it's worth voting after all"
Alternatively, PaulM may be suffering from wishful thinking. One thing I've learnt from this site is that people who tell you things are going awesomely well (Rik W, Marcus Wood, others) usually end up losing.
US Presidential 2016. This article from the NY Daily News, the most left wing of the NY dailies, is very interesting. I am not sure yet whether this is just the liberal wing of the party begging for an alternative to Hillary, or if it is authentic deep worry that she will be an electoral liability.
But as the author points out, trying to brush off the Russian uranium link as simply vast right wing conspiracy isn't going to fly when the sources is well-researched and it is the NYT and WP leading on the story. 61% of independents thinking Hillary is not trustworthy is certainly a warning flag.
The election is now not between Tory vs Labour but between the methods of Yougov, Populus vs Ashcroft, ICM
One group will turn out to be wrong.
Newsnight reporting tonight that the Tory high command are upbeat about their Jock bashing strategy, and even Labour privately are admitting it is working.
Does Nick (P) ?????
Nope. If it was working, the polls would be shifting.
Based on what a Tory activist friend tells me, it is working in getting UKIP leaners back in the fold in his marginal.
Perhaps the polling has too much distortion in the UKIP estimates to show a UKIP Tory shift
Or maybe it's working but only in marginals. That would hardly make a dent in national VI numbers, even if they're capturing tactical voting which they may not without a "thinking about your constituency" squeeze question.
The other unknown is whether there are counter-effects among leftier voters, eg: "Don't like the SNP, better vote Labour to make sure they have enough" or "Lab + SNP might actually be left-wing, maybe it's worth voting after all"
Alternatively, PaulM may be suffering from wishful thinking. One thing I've learnt from this site is that people who tell you things are going awesomely well (Rik W, Marcus Wood, others) usually end up losing.
Yup, or PaulM's activist friend. What sounds likely here is that people agree with Con activists about the problem (UK government held hostage by separatists) but wouldn't have reached the same conclusion that the solution is to vote Conservative (as opposed to say voting UKIP to stand up for England) if they hadn't been talking to this friendly Conservative activist who stated it as if it was obvious.
I think any sensible Republican would beat Hillary. She is yesterday's woman, and tainted by scandal.
However, I think it is entirely possible that the Republicans decide to lose this election.
Allegedly Obama people have been briefing against her, but I wonder if they actually have a strategy. Obama barely beat her with almost unanimous support among black voters, and without a black candidate it's not obvious who could replace them in a winning coalition.
Very disappointing polls yesterday. Spelling out the honest facts about SNP and Labour doesn't appear to be having much of an impact at all.
These things take time to sink in - whether the time remaining is sufficient - who knows?
They've been on this for ages. It's not just a problem of getting it to sink in, it's getting them to make the dubious, unintuitive logical leap from disliking Salmond to voting Conservative.
If the polls are still pointing to Lab getting most seats right before the election Labour should run the exact same poster but with the caption changed to "Make sure Labour get a majority".
Very disappointing polls yesterday. Spelling out the honest facts about SNP and Labour doesn't appear to be having much of an impact at all.
I agree, it's difficult to see how Cameron is going to turn this around now. Even if the Blues win more seats than Labour which still appears quite likely, they would need to score something north of 300 to remain in Government given the range of the left wing opposition, which together seem certain to top that figure.
Very disappointing polls yesterday. Spelling out the honest facts about SNP and Labour doesn't appear to be having much of an impact at all.
I agree, it's difficult to see how Cameron is going to turn this around now. Even if the Blues win more seats than Labour which still appears quite likely, they would need to score something north of 300 to remain in Government given the range of the left wing opposition, which together seem certain to top that figure.
The remaining twist in this race is what's going to happen when the voters cotton onto the fact that Ed Miliband is actually likely to be Prime Minister. This won't necessarily work out in the Conservatives' favour - they currently benefit from voter thinking he's a hopeless loser, and that impression is undermined if he's looking like he's winning - but it could concentrate the minds of the UKIP-curious, and at least it provides another roll of the dice.
This new poster has got "Are You Thinking What We're Thinking" written all over it and like Michael Howards famous flop I can't see this succeeding either.
I'm trying to see this from a Tory point of view but I still can't make the connection between disliking Salmond and voting Tory?
I shot a commercial for Pantene some years ago which was part of a worlwide campaign that tried to parallel the sensation of buying a new dress with washing your hair in Pantene. It was an expensive failure. As with all P&G products it was researched to death but as with all research it never answers all the questions
People firstly didn't make the connection between buying a new dress and using a new shampoo and they didn't make the further connection to why that shampoo should be pantene.
Surely it was SLAB that was wanting to grab Londoners cash through the mansion tax to pay for additional Scottish nurses or something daft. I think the Tories have overdone this and need to get back to the economy and the need to be prudent going forward.
It still seems to me that Tory gains are coming at the cost of Lib Dems which (a) makes them less useful as Coalition partners and (b) makes them less inclined to be. In contrast Labour losses are likely to be almost exclusively to another left wing party who intend to support them in government.
This makes the number of Lab/Con gains the key and at the moment the polling is indicating North of 40. Unless that changes materially we will have a Labour government. It is as simple as that.
It still seems to me that Tory gains are coming at the cost of Lib Dems which (a) makes them less useful as Coalition partners and (b) makes them less inclined to be. In contrast Labour losses are likely to be almost exclusively to another left wing party who intend to support them in government.
Yes, it must be quite frustrating for the Tories. They are not going to get a majority - possibly not even close - and so the only chance for a majority government is if the LDs do much better than expected and they are inclined to renew their partnership, and the Tories don't lose too many seats. But the only people they are taking seats off are the LDs, helping with the latter but hurting the former.
I cannot see how the Tories can win this. Labour are simply taking too many seats from them in England while only losing seats to people who will still act to prevent a Tory government.
At present the only hopes for the Tories are all possible occurences, but impossible to prove until election day, and in some cases downright unlikely or in fact the opposite seems to be occuring.
1) The polls are simply wrong 2) Labour are piling up votes in safe seats and Tories losing votes in safe seats, making their vote more efficient, so they will not lose as many to Labour as it seems. 3) The LDs will do better than expected in their SNP/Lab fights, but worse in their Con fights
The polls just being wrong seems the most likely of those, given Lab are doing better in the marginals than across England as a whole I believe making more gains for the vote share likely, not the reverse, but that's not something they can rely on.
Jacks ARSE vs Ashcrofts sample. An eager nation is on tenterhooks.
Leicester City vs Burnley at 1500. Very difficult to forecast. On the one hand Leicester have had a Lazarus like revival and Burnley cannot score in a brothel, on the other hand that was the situation when the sides met in October. The game ended 2:2 as Leicesters notoriously leaky defence got Burnley scoring again. It set off our autumn slump and staged a Burnley revival.
Leicester would benefit from a draw as we would remain above them, and Leicester City never make anything easy. The Burnley defence is hard to break down. 1 nil the scoreline, but probably to Burnley off a Morgan own goal.
"Tory attacks on Miliband failing" says Lord Ashcroft
"Rather than “crumbling” under fire, Miliband had won support by showing “a good deal of resilience in the face of some rather unseemly attacks”, Ashcroft said."
I'm not impressed with the continued speculation and focus on the health of Nigel Farage. If one of the other leaders had a known disability I seriously doubt we'd be hearing about it on a continued basis with undertones that it makes them unfit to hold office/be an MP.
Here's two cricket questions to which I wonder if anyone can supply an answer:
1) For the second week in a row there is no county games taking part on a Saturday - why don't the games which start of a Sunday instead start on the Saturday ?
2) Moeen Ali - what was the point in bringing him to the West Indies when Joe Root can already bowl offspin better than him and Adil Rashid was already there as a spin bowling allrounder ?
Lord Ashcroft, like Tim Montgomerie is not Dave's number 1 fan - though he also observes:
the Conservatives holding on to more seats overall against Labour than they would with a uniform national swing, but failing to gain seats that they would otherwise win from the Lib Dems.
At the same time, my polling has Labour winning fewer Tory and Lib Dem seats overall, and losing more to the SNP, than the national polls suggest ought to be the case. It is, in fact, the Lib Dems who are doing best in the marginals, holding on to more seats against Labour and (particularly) the Conservatives than they would with a uniform swing.
It still seems to me that Tory gains are coming at the cost of Lib Dems which (a) makes them less useful as Coalition partners and (b) makes them less inclined to be. In contrast Labour losses are likely to be almost exclusively to another left wing party who intend to support them in government.
Yes, it must be quite frustrating for the Tories. They are not going to get a majority - possibly not even close - and so the only chance for a majority government is if the LDs do much better than expected and they are inclined to renew their partnership, and the Tories don't lose too many seats. But the only people they are taking seats off are the LDs, helping with the latter but hurting the former.
I cannot see how the Tories can win this. Labour are simply taking too many seats from them in England while only losing seats to people who will still act to prevent a Tory government.
At present the only hopes for the Tories are all possible occurences, but impossible to prove until election day, and in some cases downright unlikely or in fact the opposite seems to be occuring.
1) The polls are simply wrong 2) Labour are piling up votes in safe seats and Tories losing votes in safe seats, making their vote more efficient, so they will not lose as many to Labour as it seems. 3) The LDs will do better than expected in their SNP/Lab fights, but worse in their Con fights
The polls just being wrong seems the most likely of those, given Lab are doing better in the marginals than across England as a whole I believe making more gains for the vote share likely, not the reverse, but that's not something they can rely on.
Very good summary.
I suppose one other hope for the Conservatives is that UKIP takes much more support from Labour than it does from them.
That might see 5-10 northern / midland / Welsh Conservative marginals held and maybe 5-10 Labour seats go UKIP.
The establishment Tories wont like this but they really need the Conservative vote to transfer en mass to UKIP in Dudley North, Grimsby, Heywood, Penistone, Rotherham, Rother Valley and a few other places.
It still seems to me that Tory gains are coming at the cost of Lib Dems which (a) makes them less useful as Coalition partners and (b) makes them less inclined to be. In contrast Labour losses are likely to be almost exclusively to another left wing party who intend to support them in government.
Yes, it must be quite frustrating for the Tories. They are not going to get a majority - possibly not even close - and so the only chance for a majority government is if the LDs do much better than expected and they are inclined to renew their partnership, and the Tories don't lose too many seats. But the only people they are taking seats off are the LDs, helping with the latter but hurting the former.
I cannot see how the Tories can win this. Labour are simply taking too many seats from them in England while only losing seats to people who will still act to prevent a Tory government.
At present the only hopes for the Tories are all possible occurences, but impossible to prove until election day, and in some cases downright unlikely or in fact the opposite seems to be occuring.
1) The polls are simply wrong 2) Labour are piling up votes in safe seats and Tories losing votes in safe seats, making their vote more efficient, so they will not lose as many to Labour as it seems. 3) The LDs will do better than expected in their SNP/Lab fights, but worse in their Con fights
The polls just being wrong seems the most likely of those, given Lab are doing better in the marginals than across England as a whole I believe making more gains for the vote share likely, not the reverse, but that's not something they can rely on.
Here's two cricket questions to which I wonder if anyone can supply an answer:
1) For the second week in a row there is no county games taking part on a Saturday - why don't the games which start of a Sunday instead start on the Saturday ?
2) Moeen Ali - what was the point in bringing him to the West Indies when Joe Root can already bowl offspin better than him and Adil Rashid was already there as a spin bowling allrounder ?
I agree 1. is very strange.
I think Moeen is a better bowler than Root but not really a front line spinner.
Do I detect here some growing concern among Scottish Tories that the anti-Scottish tone of the Crosby led Cameron campaign is snuffing out the dying embers of the Conservative and Unionist Party branch office?
I'm not impressed with the continued speculation and focus on the health of Nigel Farage. If one of the other leaders had a known disability I seriously doubt we'd be hearing about it on a continued basis with undertones that it makes them unfit to hold office/be an MP.
Between his plane crash and his brush with cancer, Farage has had problems in the past. It would not surprise me if he had continuing back pain as a residue of the crash. The smoking and drinking are taking its toll too though.
Politicians are not a famously healthy bunch. It is a life that tends to take a toll of coronaries and liver.
Do I detect here some growing concern among Scottish Tories that the anti-Scottish tone of the Crosby led Cameron campaign is snuffing out the dying embers of the Conservative and Unionist Party branch office?
Here's two cricket questions to which I wonder if anyone can supply an answer:
1) For the second week in a row there is no county games taking part on a Saturday - why don't the games which start of a Sunday instead start on the Saturday ?
2) Moeen Ali - what was the point in bringing him to the West Indies when Joe Root can already bowl offspin better than him and Adil Rashid was already there as a spin bowling allrounder ?
I agree 1. is very strange.
I think Moeen is a better bowler than Root but not really a front line spinner.
I think Root has real potential as a bowler but has never been used enough.
Do I detect here some growing concern among Scottish Tories that the anti-Scottish tone of the Crosby led Cameron campaign is snuffing out the dying embers of the Conservative and Unionist Party branch office?
No
The campaign is not anti-Scottish
The SNP is not Scotland and vice versa
Dying embers? Scottish Tory vote is solid as a rock, which is part of the problem (it ain't growing!)
I'm not impressed with the continued speculation and focus on the health of Nigel Farage. If one of the other leaders had a known disability I seriously doubt we'd be hearing about it on a continued basis with undertones that it makes them unfit to hold office/be an MP.
Between his plane crash and his brush with cancer, Farage has had problems in the past. It would not surprise me if he had continuing back pain as a residue of the crash. The smoking and drinking are taking its toll too though.
Politicians are not a famously healthy bunch. It is a life that tends to take a toll of coronaries and liver.
I don't doubt it. But why should it be the concern of the media?
Comments
It is the YouGov of sports.
'The only way the "Union" can survive is if the Tories lose; if they win , thanks to the EU referendum, another can of worms will be opened and if Scotland is not given a separate referendum if England votes to come out , then I think there will be riots.'
You must have been on the sauce to come up with that rubbish.
London Mayor is being lined up for a rapid 'coronation' as Conservative leader in the event that David Cameron fails to win an outright majority
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11562263/Tories-to-anoint-Boris-Johnson-as-leader-in-waiting-if-David-Cameron-fails-at-election.html
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/
How many Eurosceptics would sign up for a Federal Europe in return for €500 a year from the Germans? Precious few I would have thought, so why would Scottish nationhood come down to a question of pounds and pence. Bizarre attitude.
Salmond took a party from less than 20 per cent of the vote at Westminster to nearly 50 per cent.
He took independence support from below 30 per cent to 45 per cent.
He took the SNP into minority Government and then to majority Government.
He was several times as good as you think.
The great thing was it showed that with the amplifiers turned down and the distortion off, nirvana were still a great band and Kurt had a voice like no other
Funny enough the first time I remember watching that show was spring 94 while England were playing the windies away!
Some of his lyrics were v dark as you say., but in my lifetime prob the most gifted songwriter
"The Telegraph has spoken to senior Conservatives from different parts of the party - ministers, backbenchers and party officials. Several suggested that Mr Cameron could step down even if the Tories win more seats than Labour at the election.
One option being examined is for Mr Cameron to remain Prime Minister for a short period while the Conservative Party arranges a “coronation” for Boris Johnson as leader, who would then take the premiership and try to assemble a Tory-led minority government."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3054583/The-rape-justice-Damning-new-evidence-Labour-peer-Lord-Janner-s-child-sex-abuse-covered-police-social-workers-20-years.html
Firstly, and most importantly, it's not 'senior Tories' who anoint a leader; it's the other candidates. It was David Davis choosing not to stand in 2003 that provided Michael Howard with the leadership by acclamation, not other people preventing him from standing. If May or Hammond or Osborne or Javid or whoever wanted to stand then I've little doubt that there would be an election. There will be enough MPs wanting to stop Boris to get another name on the paper (though not enough to prevent his election, I'd guess).
Secondly, the notion that Boris would be better-placed to form a government than Cameron seems bizarre, even if a coronation can be arranged. Do these commentators expect Labour, the Lib Dems, the SNP and the rest to hang around while Cameron remains in No 10 and the rest of his party engages in navel-gazing? The Lib Dems at least have a reasonable working relationship with Cameron - why assume that Boris would be more palatable?
Thirdly, the idea that the PM gets first dibs at forming a government is misleading. The PM remains as such until he resigns or is No Confidenced but it's down to the parties and particularly to the smaller ones to determine how the talks go.
Having said all that, if Cameron fails to win a majority or near-majority, I do expect him to resign. Put more accurately, I expect him to resign if he can't form a government with a working majority, whether coalition or single-party. Much as the party would like a majority, shared power is far better than opposition (but office does not equal power if you don't have a majority). And if he does lose the premiership I expect him to resign quickly and for Boris to become leader - though probably after a leadership election. Either way, a new leader would be in place for the autumn at the latest, and there won't be another GE before then.
The Tories now finally have some posters up in their strongest areas, but their campaign remains dozy at the moment. We had Eddie Izzard yesterday to liven things up: http://www.nottinghampost.com/Election-2015-Eddie-Izzard-comes-Beeston-campaign/story-26381547-detail/story.html; they struck back by having Michael Gove nearby.
There have been a number of occasions when they've not been in the top three parliamentary parties.
1918, when they finished fifth, behind Sinn Fein and Lloyd George's Coalition Liberals.
1931, when they finished fourth, behind the National Liberals
1981, after the SDP split from Labour (and before they formed the SDP-Liberal Alliance).
The 1970 parliament looks like another example on the face of it as there were only six Liberals and the eight Unionists who previously took the Conservative whip resigned it in protest at the Sunningdale agreement. However, the Liberals had won enough by-elections by that point to remain third.
I agree that the picture looks like a real one - I suppose I was asking whether they only exist as one-offs, with the intention of having them spread electronically or via the media, or whether this is the start of a new phase of campaigning. It's a bit late if so.
Why do you cite one poll against the many which show the opposite?
This is obviously a much more reliable source of information than the TV news or the mainstream media, none of which have mentioned such a thing, so we should all be aware that the birth might happen at any moment.
A person has to be judged on results - not whether you like him or not.
While I understand the SNP's need to highlight differences (when it suits it), in truth, Scots and other residents of the British Isles have very similar opinions across a whole range of topics - there is much more that unites us than divides us, whatever the SNP's rhetoric.
Was your panelbase poll a subsample of a UK-wide poll?
Perhaps the polling has too much distortion in the UKIP estimates to show a UKIP Tory shift
Is that a spoof advert ?
The other unknown is whether there are counter-effects among leftier voters, eg:
"Don't like the SNP, better vote Labour to make sure they have enough"
or
"Lab + SNP might actually be left-wing, maybe it's worth voting after all"
But as the author points out, trying to brush off the Russian uranium link as simply vast right wing conspiracy isn't going to fly when the sources is well-researched and it is the NYT and WP leading on the story. 61% of independents thinking Hillary is not trustworthy is certainly a warning flag.
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/josh-greenman-democrats-fair-warning-hillary-clinton-article-1.2195981
I think any sensible Republican would beat Hillary. She is yesterday's woman, and tainted by scandal.
However, I think it is entirely possible that the Republicans decide to lose this election.
Allegedly Obama people have been briefing against her, but I wonder if they actually have a strategy. Obama barely beat her with almost unanimous support among black voters, and without a black candidate it's not obvious who could replace them in a winning coalition.
I'm trying to see this from a Tory point of view but I still can't make the connection between disliking Salmond and voting Tory?
I shot a commercial for Pantene some years ago which was part of a worlwide campaign that tried to parallel the sensation of buying a new dress with washing your hair in Pantene. It was an expensive failure. As with all P&G products it was researched to death but as with all research it never answers all the questions
People firstly didn't make the connection between buying a new dress and using a new shampoo and they didn't make the further connection to why that shampoo should be pantene.
150 minutes
It still seems to me that Tory gains are coming at the cost of Lib Dems which (a) makes them less useful as Coalition partners and (b) makes them less inclined to be. In contrast Labour losses are likely to be almost exclusively to another left wing party who intend to support them in government.
This makes the number of Lab/Con gains the key and at the moment the polling is indicating North of 40. Unless that changes materially we will have a Labour government. It is as simple as that.
Or the 'Blue Dream Team' as it's known colloquially
Your continuing rejection of my ARSE is the surest indication that all is supremely well with my mighty organ.
"Your continuing rejection of my ARSE is the surest indication that all is supremely well with my mighty organ."
But I'm a huge admirer of your ARSE! I see it like Picasso's 'Les Damoiselles d'Avignon'.
A pefect piece of work but not ideal for choosing a favourite
http://www.galerie-creation.com/pablo-picasso-les-demoiselles-d-avignon-1907-n-317416-0.jpg
I cannot see how the Tories can win this. Labour are simply taking too many seats from them in England while only losing seats to people who will still act to prevent a Tory government.
At present the only hopes for the Tories are all possible occurences, but impossible to prove until election day, and in some cases downright unlikely or in fact the opposite seems to be occuring.
1) The polls are simply wrong
2) Labour are piling up votes in safe seats and Tories losing votes in safe seats, making their vote more efficient, so they will not lose as many to Labour as it seems.
3) The LDs will do better than expected in their SNP/Lab fights, but worse in their Con fights
The polls just being wrong seems the most likely of those, given Lab are doing better in the marginals than across England as a whole I believe making more gains for the vote share likely, not the reverse, but that's not something they can rely on.
Jacks ARSE vs Ashcrofts sample. An eager nation is on tenterhooks.
Leicester City vs Burnley at 1500. Very difficult to forecast. On the one hand Leicester have had a Lazarus like revival and Burnley cannot score in a brothel, on the other hand that was the situation when the sides met in October. The game ended 2:2 as Leicesters notoriously leaky defence got Burnley scoring again. It set off our autumn slump and staged a Burnley revival.
Leicester would benefit from a draw as we would remain above them, and Leicester City never make anything easy. The Burnley defence is hard to break down. 1 nil the scoreline, but probably to Burnley off a Morgan own goal.
"Rather than “crumbling” under fire, Miliband had won support by showing “a good deal of resilience in the face of some rather unseemly attacks”, Ashcroft said."
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/24/tory-attacks-on-ed-miliband-failing-lord-ashcroft
"General Election 2015: Cameron to blame for failing to lead Labour in polls, says Lord Ashcroft"
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/general-election-2015-cameron-to-blame-for-failing-to-lead-labour-in-polls-says-lord-ashcroft-10203132.html
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CDauD0LWIAAyqT2.jpg
Not yet on an actual billboard, AFAIK.....
1) For the second week in a row there is no county games taking part on a Saturday - why don't the games which start of a Sunday instead start on the Saturday ?
2) Moeen Ali - what was the point in bringing him to the West Indies when Joe Root can already bowl offspin better than him and Adil Rashid was already there as a spin bowling allrounder ?
the Conservatives holding on to more seats overall against Labour than they would with a uniform national swing, but failing to gain seats that they would otherwise win from the Lib Dems.
At the same time, my polling has Labour winning fewer Tory and Lib Dem seats overall, and losing more to the SNP, than the national polls suggest ought to be the case. It is, in fact, the Lib Dems who are doing best in the marginals, holding on to more seats against Labour and (particularly) the Conservatives than they would with a uniform swing.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-tories-are-turning-off-undecided-voters-10202890.html
I suppose one other hope for the Conservatives is that UKIP takes much more support from Labour than it does from them.
That might see 5-10 northern / midland / Welsh Conservative marginals held and maybe 5-10 Labour seats go UKIP.
The establishment Tories wont like this but they really need the Conservative vote to transfer en mass to UKIP in Dudley North, Grimsby, Heywood, Penistone, Rotherham, Rother Valley and a few other places.
"His comments come as the Tories’ hopes of a breakthrough are dashed by the latest “poll of polls” for The Independent"
Clearly Cameron thought he was doing fine until the Independent showed up and averaged some polls...
I think Moeen is a better bowler than Root but not really a front line spinner.
Do I detect here some growing concern among Scottish Tories that the anti-Scottish tone of the Crosby led Cameron campaign is snuffing out the dying embers of the Conservative and Unionist Party branch office?
Politicians are not a famously healthy bunch. It is a life that tends to take a toll of coronaries and liver.
The campaign is not anti-Scottish
The SNP is not Scotland and vice versa