Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Dave rates equally with CON party in latest ComRes online f
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Dave rates equally with CON party in latest ComRes online favourability ratings
Latest favourable/unfavourable ratings from ComRes online see Balls ahead of Osborne & LAB ahead CON. Dave/EdM = pic.twitter.com/h94WiXZOCw
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Ridiculous percentages for a mid-term opposition. Ineffable and unelectable.
Peter Kyle's selecion in Hove (reported by andrea on the last thread) is interesting - the hot favourite was Simon Burgess, who had union backing and the backing of several branches as well as decades in local Labour politics - I remember his name coming up when I was seat-hunting in 1997. A friend who lies in Hove says Kyle single-handedly canvassed every member up to 5 times, and his hard work evidently paid off. He's deputy CEO of ACEVO (a charity that supports other charities) so far from a career politician, something he put forward as an asset.
The ComRes VI figures are now up.
Lab 35% (nc)
Con 26% (-3%)
UKIP 19% (nc)
LD 10% (+2%)
Others 10% (+1%)
Brighton Kemptown: Nancy Platts, (Simon Burgess was the candidate in 2010)
Warrington South: Nick Bent
Swing required is about 1.5% in both seats. In Hove it's 1.9%.
All of them.
Charitable objectives from ACEVO's website:
* To promote the third sector for the benefit of the public by:
* liaising with charities, voluntary organisations, government, private sector bodies and other groups on relevant issues;
* providing advice, training, conferences and seminars on subjects relevant to the third sector;identifying needs in the third sector and establishing projects or policies to address them;
* providing information to the press and the public on the operation of, or problems encountered by, the third sector;
* providing advice and information on fundraising techniques appropriate for third sector organisations and charities; and
* acting as a representative of the third sector in relation to government policies and legislation
I'm sure it's all very helpful, but probably not what most people would consider a charity.
It sounds as if they give advice to chief executives of charities.
CAF is another charity that supports other charities with financial advice. I have a CAF account with CAF chequebook so that all my charitable contributions are claimed against higher rate tax.
https://www.cafonline.org
We need a by-election or defection to Ukip.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/10121641/A-swing-of-the-handbag-reveals-Mrs-Mays-ambition.html
Mike Smithson to receive an OGH in the Queen's Birthday Honours!
Bad news for Cameron, but also his party. He could've handled party management better, but then, the backbenchers have hardly been a model of reason and discipline either. The problem with shooting your general in the back is that by the time the enemy army arrives you've run out of ammunition.
Did we have any sense 23 years ago that a chain of events starting on August 2nd would reverberate through global politics for a generation?
To assume it will be "quiet" in the dog days of summer is hubris of the highest order. By the time of the Party Conferences the political picture might be entirely transformed.
Or it might not.
Begun writing the 'woe is me' look back at the F1 season to date. It'll be a slight pain trying to remember the state of play for each race, but worth it, I think.
There is a lot of hot air spoken on the subject of tax avoidance, but many tax deductions are for very positive reasons, such as encouraging business investment, pension savings or charitable giving. This is one of many reasons that I am sceptical of UKIP's flat tax proposal.
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/346005949913391105
So while it's quiet, may I ask a question of anyone who has an answer?
Some years ago there was a frightful upheaval in the NHS when a whole cohort of young doctors were posted to random places and random specialisms.
I was expected the ructions from that policy to reverberate for years, but I've heard nothing since the original publicity.
What happened? Is it still going on?
Well now, if you let a little thing like that stop you from saying something, you'll never be able to consider really making it in politics for a start.
Is that good for the nation? Personally I think not, surely it has to be bad for democracy when the electorate basically doesn't want any of them in power. The bloody lot of them are so out of touch with the man and woman on the street it's pathetic. I'm sure Dave and Ed and Nick all have their hearts in the right place, but that's not enough is it? Are we condemned to this for the next 20 years?
There are better people available to lead all 3 main parties, but the likes of Cruddas, Davis, Laws Boris and, we'll take your pick of your own favourites really, just ain't going nowhere.
On the Tory side, I just can't imagine Hammond or Gove or May for that matter being any improvement. Labour, well apart from the aforementioned Cruddas, (who's not interested in being leader anyway), any other talented future leaders just have zero experience at the moment. Possibly Stella Creasy, but not for another 10 years or so.
It's as if the establishment has decided to keep us proles at bay by boring us to death. Getting furious with this lot is near impossible, grumpy yes, but that's not enough for any political earthquakes. Really, is it that difficult for a Prime Minister to at least be respected a bit?
Take the top 10 known,(or in positions of power), members of each party, and try and form a dynamic forward thinking cabinet from the mix of them? Nope! It's yawn x 100.
To really sum it up, basically you can work it all out from the posters here on PB. Most of us are tribal, me included, but we get most of our kicks from abusing the other lot-whoever they may be. Finding genuinely positive things to say about our own sides is desperately difficult most of the time. Maybe 'Why be arsed?' is the hip attitude for the foreseeable future.
Groan.
Aside from that i'd say there's a reasonable chance the US and their two poodles are going to push Russia/China into a corner over Syria which could create some excitement.
Also euro-contagion is going to finally reach France sooner or later so if it's sooner that should be a re-run of Greece / Portugal / Ireland / Spain / Italy but bigger.
Failing that, a separate sidebar on PB would be good, with a nonstop commentary on every line of every other posters threads. Then it would be much easier for us all to learn exactly the things we get wrong in every post. You could turn that 4,443 posts, (and counting-Fast!), into one long never ending monologue of bile.
If you did decide to run for parliament, I'd definitely canvass for you, anything to get you into employment. Alternatively, I can pretend you've worked for me in the past and I could give you a reference for a job at Burger King. It probably would be a bit of a naff one unfortunately since I fear you wouldn't stop talking for 2 seconds whilst a customer is trying to place an order....
Please get a proper life for crissakes.
I have posted on it recently, but not sure how to trace it in Vanilla.
Essentially the reorganization (MMC) led to widespread unhappiness, and lost 10 000 doctors (out of 170 000). The Trainees in the system are much less experienced than under the old system, and many posts are unfilled in critical specialities. Last year there were less than 100 applicants for the 198 training posts in A and E. Even assuming that all were suitable for appointment there would be 50% vacancies. a and E departments are staffed by locums, very junior trainees and a few burnt out seniors.
It was a disaster, not only for the individuals concerned, but also for NHS staffing for the forseable future.
Twitter
Ed Fraser @frasereC4 4m
“@ABYASUN: Protesters gathered, built a new barricade. Police fired tear gas #occupygezi pic.twitter.com/Y4xIceb65X”
Personally I think the way out is to present policies in clumps of 2-3, with one good thing being financed by 1-2 unpopular things. Then one has a fighting chance that people will understand the link and say "Well, I don't like X but if it helps Y..."
And you should be off to bed...as I shall imminently.
Voila. Peace, harmony, democracy, human rights, equality for women. Zero terrorism or suicide car bombings. We know how to deal with these countries and their problems don't we.
I can't work out why Israel seems to want Assad to prevail though, sworn enemy and all that. What do the Jews know we don't? Nothing I'm sure.
Book the victory parade for central London in say, 3 months or so? Cheer up the nation a bit.
MORE IMPORTANTLY. PLEASE PAY ATTENTION:
WHEN IS THAT USELESS WASTE OF SPACE SELF INTERESTED HYPOCRITE YEO GOING TO QUIT?
Much longer and my Russian mate Boris, (yes it's true-and deals with 'problem'), is gonna arrange a meeting him at one of his windmills. The discussion will go down, 'Here is what you greenie tree huggers do to birds with these abominations. Wanna try it for yourself?'
By election nailed on.
If anyone breaks their cozy liberal policy orthodoxy then you see BBC political correspondents positively salivating as soon as they get to "...but critics say..." Policies are rubbished because of their source, not their content.
See the ignoring of UKIP for years and every single Newsnight programme ever for details.
I was just pondering on that negative vibe when this popped up in my twitter feed:
'In an official declaration to Parliament released at the end of last week, the Aldershot MP described his job as “advising on the effects of legislative changes and other matters”. He expects to be paid between £15,000 and £20,000 for his work.
In the register of interests, Sir Gerald makes no mention of QuickQuid. He describes himself as a “Consultant to CNU Online Holdings LLC (Enova), of 200W Jackson Blvd Suite 500, Chicago IL 60600”, which trades as QuickQuid.'
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-mp-sir-gerald-howarth-is-consultant-to-payday-lender-quickquid-8660328.html
The more I consider Syria, the more I think there are now only two options:
1) Do Nothing - clearly, there's a humanitarian role to play in places like Jordan and Turkey and perhaps Iraq as Assad exacts his vengeance in Aleppo and then elsewhere. The end of it all will in truth be a return to the status quo ante - Syria involved deeply in Lebanon and allied with Iran.
2) Intervene decisively and effectively - this means troops on the ground and in the air and might involve intervention in Lebanon with all that will entail. It means ending the ability of Assad to wage war against his own people with all that entails but it doesn't mean carte blanche for the rebels.
Politically, it will be an imposed solution including an ongoing military presence. It might open the door to a lasting peace on Israel's northern border.
Option 2) is more than risky, it's politically impossible and logistically difficult though with American support it's possible. The political impossibility is because it will mean a complete volte-face of post-Iraq foreign and security policy and would risk a direct challenge to Iran and possibly Russia. Domestically, the British and American Governments will face an enormous backlash probably far in excess of what happened with Iraq. It would likely destroy the Coalition in the UK.
The time when we could have provided the logistics to enable the rebels to defeat Assad on their own has passed and in lieu of our support, the rebels have gone elsewhere as has Assad and the intervention of Hizbollah fighters from Iran and Lebanon has been decisive.
It is and will continue to be an awful human tragedy which will haunt the region for decades and for all the blithe comments from a few on here about the irrelevance of the Middle East in the era of fracking, that suffering will, thanks to the wonders of the modern media, be ours to witness.
I fear Dan Hodges might just burst into tears if he sees it.
Very fecking appealing all round. But Syria have weapons of mass destruction that could be launched in 45 mins and hit your house right? Just wanted the line to throw out there to garner public opinion.
I tell you what, compromise? Accept all women and children from Syria as refugees and arm the men up to the teeth and tell them to go back in and fight for their country.
Fecking ghost of New Labours disasterous foreign policy still hausts us here I see.
http://bit.ly/1672DBW
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/15/iran-presidential-election-hassan-rouhani-wins
At the present time, what is occurring in Syria is deplorable, but there is no case for intervention in an internal Syrian matter. That is, unless proponents of intervention would be happy with the People's Republic of China deciding to intervene liberally in the internal affairs of the United Kingdom in the years ahead, because the PRC was unhappy about how the Queen's Peace was being kept in the Rhondda. Liberal interventionism is an irrational, incoherent and hypocritical doctrine, characterised by thinly veiled charlatanry. That is why is no surprise that both Cameron and Blair are among the doctrine's avid supporters.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22858795
With Gove looking to Disraeli and Clegg to Gladstone, perhaps we should be looking forward to a new Victorian era...
1.The road to hell is paved with good intentions
2. No politician will pass up the opportunity to be seen as militarily strong and decisive no matter how ludicrous, impractical or self defeating the example might be.
For these reasons the west have been straining at the leash to get involved in Syria, ignoring all the past examples of where that eventually leads. Dave will have his war and we, the Middle East and the rest of the world will all suffer for it.
Lab 39
Con 30
LD 10
UKIP 14
We do not have the armed forces to do it.
We do not have the money to do it.
The British public rightly do not want to fight another war for a good while.
Mostly it is a very bad idea to enter a war with no clear aim in mind, and one that it is very hard to conceive what victory looks like.
Enjoy yourself in the middle east, it may not be possible to visit much longer.
"nation states have no right to interfere in the internal affairs of other nation states"
Now: that's a wonderfully attractive line, and one that powered the LibDems to north of 20% of the vote in 2000.
But life is not so simple. Consider:
1. A sovereign state decides to strip a minority - say Roma gypsies - of the vote. That's their concern, right?
2. Said state decides to discourage said minority from procreating, through - say - forced sterilisation.
3. Now they go one further and decide to round said minority up, and put them in camps. OK to intervene now?
4. Camps now have facilities for extermination of said minority. Now?
5. Said state extends their initial reach from an internal minority to British nationals. Said nationals are now 'interned' and accused of spying. Now?
6. Without trial and due process, British nationals are no longer reachable. It's not a threat to the existence of the British state, but it sure sucks to be a British national in Ruritania now.
This state isn't threatening to invade anyone, but I would presume you'd be happy wit military intervention at some point. The only question is where the line is drawn, not whether there is a line.
Elizabeth Warren?
Some time before (6) the FCO would have warned British citizens to leave. Anyone who chooses to ignore that advice will have made an informed decision. (That's one of the reasons I objected to the Govt wasting time and money on the Chandlers who were kidnapped by Somali pirates in waters they'd specifically been told to avoid) That assumption might be true of @Life but for others, such as me, that's not true.
When a sovereign state deals with foreign nationals, it ceases exclusively to deal with its internal affairs. So intervention may be justified once stages 5 and 6 are reached, but not before. It was intervention under the guise of stages 1 to 4 (ie protection of an ethnic minority) that dominated the German Reich's policy in relation to Poland and Czechoslovakia in the late 1930s.
It also doesn't seem to be true, not that that has much to do with whether it works or not.
Add this to the list of things that Cameron's critics assume he has done, or will do so in the future? Its ironic that some are totally convinced that Cameron will not be able to renegotiate powers back from the EU before delivering any EU referendum if he is re-elected as PM 2015 with a majority. But some how Cameron will apparently be able to have his 'war' which we will all suffer for, and despite Cameron proving his critics wrong with a similar intervention in Libya.
Cameron is not Blair, and Obama isn't Bush when it comes to Foreign intervention, and then there is Putin and the Russian stance on Syria. There is already a very bloody civil war raging in Syria, and with untold atrocities and damage inflicted on all sides. But there is also a lot of scary outside elements involved in this war, chemical weapons are already being deployed and may yet land up in the hands of others equally prepared to use them to further elsewhere.
We are not going into Syria with boots on the ground under Cameron. The legacy of Blair's wars and Brown's economic incompetence means that no UK Government is going to be in a position to gather the support or financial backing to do so anywhere in the Middle East. Even if they wanted too, and which I very much doubt is the case right now. Cameron will be judged on his actions, not the perceived prejudice or spin of his opponents here on PB. We should be very concerned at the current situation in Syria, and where this civil war might lead. So lets not forget that our Government would be failing if it wasn't closely monitoring the situation there right now, and ready to offer assistance if needed, especially humanitarian aid.
Thanks to Tony Blair and the New Labour spin operation, the UK public will never again be able to base their decisions on any Foreign intervention simple on the word of their Government when it comes to what is in the best interests of this country with regard outside threats. Despite all the usual partisan spin on here, surely that is the most damaging aspect of all this current speculation over what we shouldn't or should do with regard the situation in Syria?
That's why I said "general election". She might even make Dem Nominee by playing the female card but she wouldn't win nationally. Lying about your heritage for a salary won't endear you to swing voters.
[edited for grammar, clarity]
There is now a clear EU In/Out Referendum on the table from Cameron if the UK electorate wants it. And if they do, they vote in a Conservative Government with a majority to deliver it. And it will be delivered if they do win one. Cameron has already made clear his preferred option to remain in a reformed EU, but that also obligates the EU to step up to the plate and to deliver if it wants the UK to remain a big contributor to their project. And this time its not the UK who is the sick man of Europe, its the Eurozone.
A timeline which is thoroughly sourced all the way through here: bit.ly/148Ypsc
Money doesn't usually seem to stop countries going to war. People who thought the country was broke and needed to cut welfare discover that they can afford to borrow some more after all.
That said, I doubt Obama will be too enthusiastic about joining another war in the Middle East.
You've either made up a Straw Indian to defend her or you aren't aware of the real problems with her odd claims.
find myself agreeing with every word of this (apart from the suggestion that drone attacks have a "legal" framework)
But as far as the political implications go, it's good late night comedian stuff but it wouldn't swing an election.
3 points for discussion regarding Syria
Putin's military, I believe, has been given a makeover with regards as to the capability and hardware. When you've got the toys, the boys will want to play with them.
The US has the toys, the capability, plus the pork barrel politics to ensure that the toys and capacity continues. If you have new toys, you want to play with them.
Cameron, through Fox, got rid of the carriers, upgraded Harriers and Nimrods, then cut the UK's capacity which means we will, if required, be flying out of Cyprus which won't please the Greek's, Turkey, Cypriot's, Israel or Egypt.
Our grunts on the ground are knackered, through cuts in manpower, leading to faster, continuous recycling through war zones.
Oh! But goodie, we have some drones which can be flown from a desk in deepest England. The Russians, like most of the other nations will have been thinking of countering the weapons. Against a non industrialised country like Afghanistan or Iraq, no problem. Against a prepared and capable force, it will be like the air forces of the first world war, in which, due to advances in technology, one side was able to destroy the opposition force very quickly before new technology on the other side caused a balance of sorts to occur.
However, with the best will in the world, I can't see the UK coming up with new toys fast enough, when we do not have the capability or capacity to do so. We will have to survive on the scraps and cast offs from the USA and other more capable nations.
Not this old meme. The aircraft carriers were pointless without aircraft, and Hoon got rid of the Sea Harrier FA2 around 2006. The coalition did cut the GR7/9's, but the RAF had been rather reticent to fly them off RN ships. You see, that would have made Hoon's stupid Joint Force Harrier scheme work, and the RAF didn't want the RN getting their grubby little mitts on the toys.
Remember, in 2005 Labour decommissioned HMS Invincible, which then sat at Portsmouth without engines, apparently ready to go to sea within six months (later eighteen). Despite the fact the cannibalisation was done to get spares for the sister ships because they could not get spares. In the meantime, ask yourself what happened to the crew of the ship, and how long it would have taken the RN to train up a brand new crew for Invincible.
In the meantime, Ark Royal and Lusty were used as glorified helicopter carriers, with a Harrier actually landing on them being seen as an event and not routine. That was because Joint Force Harrier had allowed the RAF to nick almost all the planes.
As for Nimrod MRA4: anyone who knows anything about that project can see what an utter hideous balls-up it was. People associate with Nimrod because of its long service and illustrious name. Sadly the MRA4 project should have been scrapped a decade earlier, the moment they realised that airframes made in the 1960s were not made to the same precision as today, and that the new wings did not fit.
Sadly, as ever bureaucratic inertia kept the project going.
I'd like to see your argument about why the carriers should have been kept without planes to fly them off (*), why the Tornado should have been scrapped instead of the Harriers, and why the Nimrod MRA4 project should have been kept going.
(*) Lusty is still in use as a helicopter carrier until the end of HMS Ocean's refit.
How soon after the Harrier's were sold off to the US Marines for spare parts and our carriers effectively decommissioned, the Nimrods chopped literally, did the Libya spring start which would have used the same effectively?
We then had to use Typhoons from a base in Italy. Vastly over expensively equipped for the job they were not set up for. We couldn't even use the George Cross island of Malta which would have made more tactical sense probably from political problems but we don't have the set up to send the RAF equipment and resources except, expensively, by, for crying out loud, road.
Cameron even sent in a special forces unit, supposedly to make contact with the "rebels" and promptly got themselves arrested. Seemingly, the Captain of a RN ship in the harbour picking up EU nationals had to intercede to get them out.
In his haste to equal Blair's record in taking effective action in Sierra Leone and Yugoslavia, Cameron has shown that he may have the brains but not the ability. Now he wants his own version of the Iraq debacle.
Edmund, the procurement in the UK goes to BAE, a company that with due respect has not the most brilliant record in the supply of weapons to the UK military. Massive delays, cost over runs etc..
Regrettably, I have to sympathise with them, due to the meddling by politicians and/or civil servants with "brilliant" ideas wanting immediate and therefore expensive changes to the original plans.
And we could not have used the Harriers there, as the RAF would have been using them in Afghanistan. And the RN and FAA weren't exactly current in flying them off the carriers.
One of the problems is that we were spending far too much on small amounts of specific capabilities. Either we increased funding, or scrapped projects. Personally I'd have increased the MOD's funding, but I can see why that was a political non-starter.
Still, this is a very old thread now.