There are plenty of Scottish seats where tactical voting could make a difference. If the SNP get 50% overall it won't be distributed evenly. They'll get over 60% in a fair number of places.
I would be surprised if the Conservatives won a majority - marginal polling doesn't seem to favour them on that score, although looking to the polling movement towards them (mainly from YG and TNS-BRMB particularly) it's looking like they'll be the largest party in a hung parliament. One thing I don't get is the assumption on PB, that the Lib Dems will automatically form a coalition with the LDs because of noises Clegg's been making recently.
Clegg has to keep his seat - and even if he does in order for any arrangement to happen the LDs need to go through their 'Triple Lock' system, getting the approval of the parliamentary party and and federal executive committee for a deal to occur. Given that it looks like the LDs will be decimated, the mood among them could be vastly different to what it was in 2010.
I think there's a high chance of a second election - I think a Lab-SNP-Green-Plaid block could well end up preventing the Queen's Speech, from either a Con-LD coalition, or a Con minority government from going through. What result a second election could bring, who knows?!
The Tories will certainly have plenty of cash to fight a second election. But will Dave have served his second term once the new election is called?
I am not sure what the protein whatsname in question is, but I have two of the Holland and Barrett muscle gain shakes a day and a couple of small meals (no meat) and have lost 9lb in about three months
7a side football 40 mins a week, 2 or 3 5k runs, 1 15k bike ride, 50 squats a day and a few free weights there you go, my health plan for free!
No excuse for being fat or eating bad, and jealousy of people that put thought and purpose into keeping healthy is a telling trend in modern society
Good for you! With a few caveats though...
Don't want to be a prick but what you're on doesn't sound terribly healthy in the long term. There are many minerals and vitamins that you can't get good levels of without eating meat, and it's also the best form of protein. Your protein shake is probably whey protein which is fine but a bit problematic because of the way the protein is processed to make it into a powder. It will also give you vitamins but the way vitamins operate it's unlikely that synthetic recipes will give you the same accompanying things that eating a real 'food' would. I also use protein powder so a bit hypocritical but only after doing kettlebells to speed recovery. The protein powder might also be sugary, which is bad news. So you should have meat but organic if you can.
Eggs are also a great source of protein and fantastic for your overall health; I break an egg into my protein shake so I can get a mix of different proteins at the same time.
What you also need is FAT and lots of it, dairy is best, olive oil is ok (but some say it's fattening due to the long-chain fatty acids), margerines and sunflower oils etc. (poluunsaturates) are BAD NEWS and to be cut out of your diet. They cause free-radical damage and are complicit in all sorts of chronic disease.
To lose weight healthily and permanently you need to cut out refined sugar and refined carbohydrates. They're not food. Sugar is meant to be a signal that something is ripe and full of vitamins, it's not intended to be dragged out of food and used liberally as part of a diet. This includes processed fruit juice. I don't really use sugar at all any more, I use a bit of honey, agave syrup, or just go without.
I also soak all my flour -I'm a bit of a nut about it, I could go on...
No-one seriously believes there will be a Labour majority, do they? The only sensible discussion point since the start of the campaign is how close the Tories will get to a majority. I can't see it myself, but it is not beyond the bounds of possibility.
Yes Labour should be 1000/1 to win a majority. The price is gradually getting there. Odds of Cons winning a majority is a lot longer than the 9/1 currently quoted on Betfair IMO. With postal voting already well underway and the polls basically tied it's essentially impossible to turn this around and secure a majority.
The only realistic question really is whether Conservatives can win enough seats to stop Miliband getting into number 10. On that score it's going to be very close. I'm hopeful they can do it. They are starting to build some momentum at last.
There are plenty of Scottish seats where tactical voting could make a difference. If the SNP get 50% overall it won't be distributed evenly. They'll get over 60% in a fair number of places.
Tactical voting by whom? Tories have no incentive to do so.
I would be surprised if the Conservatives won a majority - marginal polling doesn't seem to favour them on that score, although looking to the polling movement towards them (mainly from YG and TNS-BRMB particularly) it's looking like they'll be the largest party in a hung parliament. One thing I don't get is the assumption on PB, that the Lib Dems will automatically form a coalition with the LDs because of noises Clegg's been making recently.
Clegg has to keep his seat - and even if he does in order for any arrangement to happen the LDs need to go through their 'Triple Lock' system, getting the approval of the parliamentary party and and federal executive committee for a deal to occur. Given that it looks like the LDs will be decimated, the mood among them could be vastly different to what it was in 2010.
I think there's a high chance of a second election - I think a Lab-SNP-Green-Plaid block could well end up preventing the Queen's Speech, from either a Con-LD coalition, or a Con minority government from going through. What result a second election could bring, who knows?!
The Tories will certainly have plenty of cash to fight a second election. But will Dave have served his second term once the new election is called?
I think that if there's a second GE, it'll happen this autumn - or, at the very latest spring 2016. I don't think Cameron will do a full-term as PM, I think he'll go in 2017, after the EU referendum. I think 2020 will be the GE where the Tories go into it without Cameron as a leader - either Boris or George Osborne will be leading them. Conservatives should hope it isn't the latter!
Bizarre. That's one of the rare occasions when using a scantily clad woman in an advert is entirely justifiable. Have we really reached the point when encouraging people to buy a product to be fitter is offensive?
Disagree with you here. It's got nothing to do with encouraging fitness and everything to do with objectification and figure fascism. The company know this and are using the image specifically to provoke, and thereby garner publicity and sales. There is no reason or need to look like that, or look like the male version of the poster to go to the beach. You're beach ready when you put your trunks or bikini on, regardless of your shape. Still, long live the patriarchy and everything.
+1. The advert is advertising diet pills (of unknown ingredients) instead of exercise. It's a solve make believe problem quick advert of the worst kind...
They're not of unknown ingredients, and they're not instead of exercise. They aren't a substitute for a nourishing diet, but what's in them isn't terrible by modern standards.
And it's not a make-believe problem - we are not meant to be fat.
I am not sure what the protein whatsname in question is, but I have two of the Holland and Barrett muscle gain shakes a day and a couple of small meals (no meat) and have lost 9lb in about three months
7a side football 40 mins a week, 2 or 3 5k runs, 1 15k bike ride, 50 squats a day and a few free weights there you go, my health plan for free!
No excuse for being fat or eating bad, and jealousy of people that put thought and purpose into keeping healthy is a telling trend in modern society
There are plenty of excuses for being fat. Mine is that I eat and drink too much.
Look on the bright side.
Come the famine, the skinnies will be the first to go.....
Or as a frequent Facebook post has it 'It wouldn't be fair to be this intelligent, this witty, this charming and thin.....'
So in the immortal words of Mr Major, put up or shut up
And what's the result if you don't use rounded numbers for the DK/WA adjustment?
Exactly. Sunil really is extraordinarily arrogant about this.
NB the 602 & 608 are also rounded inputs
Especially in this case, it really wouldn't take much to change 34.4% Con into 34.5% ---> 35% reported. Not a meaningful distinction, but certainly a mistake to claim the pollsters are wrong
I'm only going by what I can glean from the tables - sorry if this appears arrogant! (wasn't my intention)
I really do wish YouGov would give me an official figure for the final weighted sample - all the other pollsters do so. Even ICM and Ashcroft give you enough info to calculate a final weighted sample.
You continually insinuate that the pollsters' headline figures are wrong, with no justification. It amounts to a slur on their integrity. More transparency would be great but a lack of it doesn't warrant you changing their numbers.
YouGov also don't tell you exactly how they are handling likelihood to vote as far as I can see. They may see that as proprietary; I don't know.
The justification is what I can see from the tables. Is it really my fault that YouGov don't provide a figure for the total weighting (or even a Green Party sample!)?
Until such a time that they do, I have to go by total sample minus the rough % they state for DK/WNV.
As far as likelihood to vote goes, on Table 1 for today's poll, I can see virtually an equal propensity to vote amongst Tories and Labour fans (IIRC 91% down to 7/10 likelihood).
The last six opinion polls have the SNP vote share at: 53, 49, 55, 49, 48, 51
Could someone explain to me how many seats they think that unprecedented tactical voting is going to keep the SNP from winning if a vote share of anything like that level is reached? Or is the tacit suggestion that we should simply disbelieve these polls?
I think 55% is looking increasingly achievable, which starts to render tactical voting irrelevant. There is one Tory in Stirling who is considering voting SLAB, I doubt his vote will make a difference !!
The last six opinion polls have the SNP vote share at: 53, 49, 55, 49, 48, 51
Could someone explain to me how many seats they think that unprecedented tactical voting is going to keep the SNP from winning if a vote share of anything like that level is reached? Or is the tacit suggestion that we should simply disbelieve these polls?
I think 55% is looking increasingly achievable, which starts to render tactical voting irrelevant. There is one Tory in Stirling who is considering voting SLAB, I doubt his vote will make a difference !!
For the first time ever Dorset will have a top flight football team next year. How many of the proper counties on their proper boundaries have not had one? Cornwall, Shropshire, Worcestershire, Herefordshire, Cheshire, Huntingdonshire, Cambridgeshire and Somerset spring to mind (Devon if Plymouth have never made it). There must be a few others. Would Sunderland once have been in County Durham?
On traditional boundaries, Dorset will still not have had a top flight team as Bournemouth was in Hampshire until the 70s.
Indeed.
The most striking examples are Cheshire and Worcestershire. Both traditional counties had very large populations. Cheshire was/is in the shadow of Liverpool and Manchester and it's FL teams have always been a bit flaky. I'm not sure why Dudley's never had a FL team.
Rugby League may also have had something to do with Cheshire's lack of top flight football teams: Warrington and Widnes were (are?) pretty big deals in the county and probably took a fair bit of working class support away from football.
That'll be Warrington and Widnes in the County Palatine of Lancaster, north of the Mersey? ;-)
Any debate or discussion involving things being placed in counties is impossible these days after successive Governments spent millions continuously buggering about with the boundaries....
Top Tier Football Grounds in traditional Counties: Somerset has had one. (Bristol City were top flight late 70's)
Nottingham Forest is in Nottinghamshire (just), Notts County is in Nottingham City, although the name suggests otherwise.
Named after the "city and county of Nottingham" no doubt.
I know Bristolians who will be mighty cross if you suggest that their city is in Somerset.
I always thought it was in Gloucestershire.
Parts of North Bristol are in 'South Gloucestershire' It's all due to re-carving back the hated 'Avon' county.
Bristol is now officially its own ceremonial county but historically was sometimes seen as its own county and sometimes as part of Gloucestershire. Ashton Gate is in Bedminster, which was traditionally in Somerset (annexed by Bristol in 1831).
So Somerset has had a top flight team, while Gloucestershire has not (Rovers have never been in the top flight)
Don't forget that Eton has won the FA cup 2 or 3 times... Surely that gives Berkshire* a top flight team?
* or Buckinghamshire, depending on who you believe...
Slough and Eton were historically in Buckinghamshire. Just as Staines and Sunbury were historically in Middlesex.
Indeed. But the postal address is Eton, Windsor, Berks (albeit with a Slough postcode) - by Act of Parliament
Postal addresses no longer require a "county"!
So I can say just plain "Ilford" rather than "Ilford, Essex"
You point to the mess that is UK (certainly English) local government organisation.
If Labour do go down to a glorious defeat I'm at least glad that the S N P will be what the Lib Dems never were-a beating heart. In my lifetime the country has always been a nicer place to live when we haven't had a Tory Government.
Even Blair for all his right -wing posturing made one of his first acts getting rid of the homeless in Central London by appointing a 'tzar'whose job it was to find accommodation for them. And she did it brilliantly.
I despise Duncan Smith's malevolence and Cameron's ignorance. I just hope Nicola doesn't drop the baton like Clegg did five years ago
Thanks for your excellent prospectus on why we should vote Tory.
For the first time ever Dorset will have a top flight football team next year. How many of the proper counties on their proper boundaries have not had one? Cornwall, Shropshire, Worcestershire, Herefordshire, Cheshire, Huntingdonshire, Cambridgeshire and Somerset spring to mind (Devon if Plymouth have never made it). There must be a few others. Would Sunderland once have been in County Durham?
On traditional boundaries, Dorset will still not have had a top flight team as Bournemouth was in Hampshire until the 70s.
Indeed.
The most striking examples are Cheshire and Worcestershire. Both traditional counties had very large populations. Cheshire was/is in the shadow of Liverpool and Manchester and it's FL teams have always been a bit flaky. I'm not sure why Dudley's never had a FL team.
Rugby League may also have had something to do with Cheshire's lack of top flight football teams: Warrington and Widnes were (are?) pretty big deals in the county and probably took a fair bit of working class support away from football.
That'll be Warrington and Widnes in the County Palatine of Lancaster, north of the Mersey? ;-)
Any debate or discussion involving things being placed in counties is impossible these days after successive Governments spent millions continuously buggering about with the boundaries....
Considering all the top flight footballers who live in Cheshire its surprising the county does not have a top flight team.
There are plenty of Scottish seats where tactical voting could make a difference. If the SNP get 50% overall it won't be distributed evenly. They'll get over 60% in a fair number of places.
Tactical voting by whom? Tories have no incentive to do so.
Comments
Don't want to be a prick but what you're on doesn't sound terribly healthy in the long term. There are many minerals and vitamins that you can't get good levels of without eating meat, and it's also the best form of protein. Your protein shake is probably whey protein which is fine but a bit problematic because of the way the protein is processed to make it into a powder. It will also give you vitamins but the way vitamins operate it's unlikely that synthetic recipes will give you the same accompanying things that eating a real 'food' would. I also use protein powder so a bit hypocritical but only after doing kettlebells to speed recovery. The protein powder might also be sugary, which is bad news. So you should have meat but organic if you can.
Eggs are also a great source of protein and fantastic for your overall health; I break an egg into my protein shake so I can get a mix of different proteins at the same time.
What you also need is FAT and lots of it, dairy is best, olive oil is ok (but some say it's fattening due to the long-chain fatty acids), margerines and sunflower oils etc. (poluunsaturates) are BAD NEWS and to be cut out of your diet. They cause free-radical damage and are complicit in all sorts of chronic disease.
To lose weight healthily and permanently you need to cut out refined sugar and refined carbohydrates. They're not food. Sugar is meant to be a signal that something is ripe and full of vitamins, it's not intended to be dragged out of food and used liberally as part of a diet. This includes processed fruit juice. I don't really use sugar at all any more, I use a bit of honey, agave syrup, or just go without.
I also soak all my flour -I'm a bit of a nut about it, I could go on...
The only realistic question really is whether Conservatives can win enough seats to stop Miliband getting into number 10. On that score it's going to be very close. I'm hopeful they can do it. They are starting to build some momentum at last.
Tactical voting by whom? Tories have no incentive to do so.
Come the famine, the skinnies will be the first to go.....
Or as a frequent Facebook post has it 'It wouldn't be fair to be this intelligent, this witty, this charming and thin.....'
Until such a time that they do, I have to go by total sample minus the rough % they state for DK/WNV.
As far as likelihood to vote goes, on Table 1 for today's poll, I can see virtually an equal propensity to vote amongst Tories and Labour fans (IIRC 91% down to 7/10 likelihood).
The UKIP figs are +1 and LD's -1 from those numbers you replied to, my mishtake
https://medium.com/@chrisdeerin/why-i-will-vote-labour-b058b17e042f
Not quite sure what relevance the chap in the gimp suit has to the debate - I can guess who is wearing the killer heels though.
Any debate or discussion involving things being placed in counties is impossible these days after successive Governments spent millions continuously buggering about with the boundaries....