Anyone in the gambling game will know about the awful FOBT machines that are social menace particularly for the working class.. bookmakers are opening up shops in poor areas specifically to house these machines, known as the "crack cocaine of the gambling industry"
It seems UKIP have committed to reducing the max stake per spin to £2 from £100 .. hopefully whoever is PM will copy this idea
"Social menace" is a very mild way of putting it. There continued use puts the bookies on a par with the tobacco companies in terms of their cynicism and lack of conscience.
I remember, years ago at uni, seeing a guy begging outside a chip shop. About 50 years old, and wearing a filthy threadbare suit. He did okay on the begging, students being a soft touch. I was shocked - innocent that I was - that as soon as he accumulated £1 in change, he'd walk into the chippy, change it for a single coin, and stuff it straight in the fruit machine. Five spins later (usually) and he was back at his pitch trying to scrape together the next pound. It was a rare, rare day when he wasn't there. Terribly sad.
Cheltenham is one of those Ashcroft polls where there is a huge disparity between Q1` and Q2 and the consistent local election results over the last few years which show Lib Dem support increasing and Conservative support decreasing . The latter should help you get your head around your conundrum .
Why do people answer "Conservative" when asked who they'll vote for then ?
Why do people answer "Conservative to Q1 and "Lib Dem" to Q2 and vote Lib Dem in local elections ? Answer that and make a fortune on betting on constituency polls .
It could be that people are thinking of the Conservative-Lib Dem Coalition, and are just using "Conservative" as shorthand. So when they answer about their own constituency, the thinking becomes a bit clearer, and they say "Lib Dem" instead.
A lot of Conservative posters here on PB also say "Conservative Government" when they really mean "Conservative-Lib Dem Coalition Government". But then, they are trying to confuse people.
Anyone in the gambling game will know about the awful FOBT machines that are social menace particularly for the working class.. bookmakers are opening up shops in poor areas specifically to house these machines, known as the "crack cocaine of the gambling industry"
It seems UKIP have committed to reducing the max stake per spin to £2 from £100 .. hopefully whoever is PM will copy this idea
Agree; I'd love to see more emphasis on this. It's not an area I know a massive amount about, but on the face of it UKIP's proposal seems good.
Absolutely agree.
If the firms don't like it, then Betting Shops can be closed. These days they are populated almost exclusively by hopeless losers and wouldn't be missed.
When they were introduced, they served a useful social purpose and took illegal betting off the street. They have long outlived their usefulness though and serve only to provide lazy bookies with easy money from gaming machines.
Royal Specials - William & Kate - First Leader To Tweet A Congrats Message
David Cameron 5/4 Ed Milliband 3/1 Nick Clegg 5/1 Nigel Farage 5/1 Leanne Wood 20/1 Natalie Bennett 20/1 Nicola Sturgeon 20/1
IMO, take all three 20/1 shots so you get 6/1 on *one* of the girls pipping the boys to the post.
Importantly, all are active on twitter.
Great spot Pong, for the reason stated. I suppose the counter-arguement would have to be that the major parties (if one still refers to the LDs as such) is that each has the established "machinery" at the ready with the messages already prepared ready to go.
"Unfortunately David , the Tory representatives tend to show exactly what people say about Tories. They come across as pompous , demonise the poor and unemployed etc, they just give it "why do they not just eat cake" and make people wonder how they can sleep at night. They do not need anyone to make it up , people make opinions from what they see and hear, it is Tories as a group that are disliked, not individual people. "
For once we agree. You keep hearing from Conservatives the mantra 'Tories eat babies' as if it shows Tory malevolence is just an old wives tale peddled by primitives which bears no relation to reality.
The fact is that as malc suggests this is the view of many sane people who over years and witnessed a ruthless insensitivity to those less fortunate than themselves. The oddity to me is that so few of their voters (nice people like David) can't see it
While I agree that there can be some rich people who show a ruthless insensitivity to those less fortunate than themselves, I do not think that DavidL is such a person and, for good measure, I don't think that a party, one of whose revered figures described Tories as "lower than vermin" is in a position to lecture others on demonisation.
It is possible to want the same ends - I do think that with wealth comes responsibility and that we need to make it possible for those who do not have good fortune to improve their lives and have the same chances as others - but disagree about means. And if someone does not share your view about the means that does not make them evil.
Didn’t Nye Bevan say that "as far as he was concerned the Tories were .......” quoting from his experience of dealing with mine-owners and their side-kicks.
If he did then he should have referred just to the mine owners not sought to tar all Tories with the same brush.
I really dislike the demonisation of people who have different political views as if merely holding them was somehow illegitimate.
There are people who hold views which are beyond the pale - those who believe in using violence for political ends or who believe in terror for terror's sake. They could do with being demonised, if anyone has to be but, strangely, some are more tolerant of them than is consistent with their stated beliefs and then hurl accusations of "fascist" at those who really aren't.
None of the political parties hold the moral high ground just by virtue of what they believe. Or what they claim to believe. Let's judge them by their actions. Those who shout loudest about their political virtue are often those whose actions bear little close scrutiny.
Anyone in the gambling game will know about the awful FOBT machines that are social menace particularly for the working class.. bookmakers are opening up shops in poor areas specifically to house these machines, known as the "crack cocaine of the gambling industry"
It seems UKIP have committed to reducing the max stake per spin to £2 from £100 .. hopefully whoever is PM will copy this idea
You seem to have a pretty poor opinion of the common sense of what you term 'the working class'.
"Social menace" is a very mild way of putting it. There continued use puts the bookies on a par with the tobacco companies in terms of their cynicism and lack of conscience.
Nonsense. People should be free to spend their money however they want. I'm opposed to big government interfering in the free market. FOBT machines are simply an offering some consumers choose to spend their money on.
Also - I would never invest in a tobacco company, but I do hold shares in a couple of bookmakers. My conscience is clean.
Anyone in the gambling game will know about the awful FOBT machines that are social menace particularly for the working class.. bookmakers are opening up shops in poor areas specifically to house these machines, known as the "crack cocaine of the gambling industry"
It seems UKIP have committed to reducing the max stake per spin to £2 from £100 .. hopefully whoever is PM will copy this idea
Agree; I'd love to see more emphasis on this. It's not an area I know a massive amount about, but on the face of it UKIP's proposal seems good.
Absolutely agree.
If the firms don't like it, then Betting Shops can be closed. These days they are populated almost exclusively by hopeless losers and wouldn't be missed.
When they were introduced, they served a useful social purpose and took illegal betting off the street. They have long outlived their usefulness though and serve only to provide lazy bookies with easy money from gaming machines.
FOBT's are an area I would like to read up on a little. Do you, Sam or anyone else have link(s) to somewhere I can read up more on it? There were articles a couple of years ago, but I haven't seen much recently.
(This may not be a popular thing to say on this betting website, but I see the legalisation of gambling adverts by the last government as being a rather retrograde step).
This is how cutting immigration works in practice...
Some of the immigration decisions seem very strange. We continue to have large amounts of low skill immigration from the EU and from family migration, we allow multinationals to bring virtually anyone here, and then we kick out highly skilled academics.
The UK is currently particularly mental because of the combination of international treaties and political targets, but any government that tries to manage something like this is inevitably going to bollocks it up a lot of the time. Things that everyone knows the government are shit at, like running car manufacturing companies, are still far easier for centralized bureaucracies to do efficiently than working out who is going to be net beneficial to the country and who will tend to be harmful, or whether two people are genuinely in love.
This is one of the most difficult things for the government to manage, I think that Cameron genuinely thought he could do something about it until he was faced with the reality.
As someone currently living abroad and having recently married a non-EU wife, it's something that makes you think about what the priorities should be. If anything the increasing bureaucracy makes me less likely to return in the future (and pay 40% in tax) and I know loads of others in similar situations trying to get spousal visas.
Surely anyone who can earn enough to pay the higher rate of tax should be welcomed, as well as those on recognised career paths or graduate trainee programmes. The problems are immigration of the unskilled while we still have unemployment, and immigration of those who prefer to stay in their own foreign 'community' and make no attempt to adopt British values and attitudes.
I wonder what the BBC's reaction would have been if was revealed that a top Tory was a tax dodger on the front page of the Guardian? Oh wait, I know the answer to this one...3 days of screaming from the roof tops about it.
"Unfortunately David , the Tory representatives tend to show exactly what people say about Tories. They come across as pompous , demonise the poor and unemployed etc, they just give it "why do they not just eat cake" and make people wonder how they can sleep at night. They do not need anyone to make it up , people make opinions from what they see and hear, it is Tories as a group that are disliked, not individual people. "
For once we agree. You keep hearing from Conservatives the mantra 'Tories eat babies' as if it shows Tory malevolence is just an old wives tale peddled by primitives which bears no relation to reality.
The fact is that as malc suggests this is the view of many sane people who over years and witnessed a ruthless insensitivity to those less fortunate than themselves. The oddity to me is that so few of their voters (nice people like David) can't see it
While I agree that there can be some rich people who show a ruthless insensitivity to those less fortunate than themselves, I do not think that DavidL is such a person and, for good measure, I don't think that a party, one of whose revered figures described Tories as "lower than vermin" is in a position to lecture others on demonisation.
It is possible to want the same ends - I do think that with wealth comes responsibility and that we need to make it possible for those who do not have good fortune to improve their lives and have the same chances as others - but disagree about means. And if someone does not share your view about the means that does not make them evil.
Cyclefree, I agree , however many Tory representatives come across as insensitive and uncaring, with opinion that every poor person has brought it upon themselves and should get off their backsides and get lots of money like they have.
the tories allowed this impression to gather in the 80s - Salisbury, Churchill, MacMillan Disraeli etc etc etc are the models of Conservatism that the party often seems intent on forgetting to its great cost
Anyone in the gambling game will know about the awful FOBT machines that are social menace particularly for the working class.. bookmakers are opening up shops in poor areas specifically to house these machines, known as the "crack cocaine of the gambling industry"
It seems UKIP have committed to reducing the max stake per spin to £2 from £100 .. hopefully whoever is PM will copy this idea
You seem to have a pretty poor opinion of the common sense of what you term 'the working class'.
That's rather silly.
It's not a case of 'common sense'; it can be an addiction, and one that (from what I read ages ago) the betting companies are actively and cynically encouraging.
This is how cutting immigration works in practice...
This is how the action of cutting immigration works while the large number of immigrants already in the country continue to be here. Had there been a point system applied to everyone equally (instead of being racially biased in favour of Europeans), then once the lady had qualified she would have been able to stay indefinitely.
The article says 143 000 non EU migrants last year. How are UKIP going to cut these by 2/3 or more to reach their 50 000 figure?
TBF there's a virtuous circle here, because if you bring in strict restrictions on bringing people in, businesses will move their operations abroad, resulting in some of the current immigrants (and British employees) leaving.
I'm not sure the UK losing profitable businesses is a net benefit to the country.
Fascinating clip, and some interesting parallels with this year.
What we didn't have in 1992 though was UKIP splitting the Tory vote.
As I keep saying, like a broken record, it's UKIP that has prevented a near certain Tory majority and looks set to put Miliband into No 10 on a third of the vote backed by leftie nationalists.
It's so frustrating because some of us have been saying for years and years what a threat UKIP were, and the so-called 'modernisers' refused to see the wood for trees. I was told again and again by people that worked in CCHQ that UKIP were a 'flash in the pan' and that UKIP were 'the past, and we need to look to the future'. Now that future has arrived and UKIP will at least quadruple their vote, and Ed Miliband is heading to Downing Street.
If the great 'modernising' experiment of the Cameroons only achieves one coalition government, hamstrung by the Liberal Democrats, and one outright loss, then perhaps we need to course correct somewhat? One idea would be to actually look at the voters we've lost and respond to their concerns with actual policies, rather than rhetoric and gimmicks.
So is it your analysis that what is required is a return to the electoral near-success of the Hague and Howard leaderships, who - as we all know - lost only because they weren't right-wing enough?
My latest wheeze..."Progressive Housing Policy to deal with Immigration"
I believe that working class people are most affected by the downsides of mass immigration; it puts pressure on their wages, and changes the nature of their hometowns, while those who benefit from it live in areas that poor migrants cant afford to move to while reaping the fruits of their labour
Why is it that the three main parties are so in love with progressive taxes but don't consider redressing the balance in other ways?
Those on low wages in poor areas that face competition for their work are often at breaking point anyway in terms of making ends meet and the consequences and decisions that flow from that... then they see their towns change and when they mention it they are derided as this or that "ist" or "ic"
Surely the comfortably off are more well disposed to cope with an influx of poor migrants living in their community, as that community is less crowded and they are also wealthy enough to have the option of moving? I believe the frustrations of people that are thought of as "thick racists" are borne of frustration at the increasing lack of control they have over their lives, worsened by crowded/changing communities and decreasing wages
As I said before in "Mass Immigration is a Stealth Tax on the Working Class" (http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/05/20/mass-migration-is-a-tax-on-working-classes/) economic migration makes the rich richer and poor poorer. One way the balance could be redressed is for new estates and affordable housing only to be built in areas where the top 1% live, the Cotswolds, Surrey, Buckinghamshire for instance. Maybe then the people that live off the migrants labour would be more appreciative of how the other 99% live or maybe they would stop and think about the overall effect on people lives that mass immigration has, rather than seeing it as a balance sheet
"Social menace" is a very mild way of putting it. There continued use puts the bookies on a par with the tobacco companies in terms of their cynicism and lack of conscience.
Nonsense. People should be free to spend their money however they want. I'm opposed to big government interfering in the free market. FOBT machines are simply an offering some consumers choose to spend their money on.
Also - I would never invest in a tobacco company, but I do hold shares in a couple of bookmakers. My conscience is clean.
Broadly speaking, I'm opposed to government interference. I'd legalise (or decriminalise) a good portion of the drugs that are currently illegal, for example. I certainly wouldn't ban fruit machines outright, despite the anecdote I wrote.
However, FOBT seem specifically tailored to target the most vulnerable (just as loan sharks do), and a measure of regulation is called for.
The clarity of your conscience is a personal matter! FWIW I hold shares in a number of defence companies; I sleep just fine.
Royal Specials - William & Kate - First Leader To Tweet A Congrats Message
David Cameron 5/4 Ed Milliband 3/1 Nick Clegg 5/1 Nigel Farage 5/1 Leanne Wood 20/1 Natalie Bennett 20/1 Nicola Sturgeon 20/1
IMO, take all three 20/1 shots so you get 6/1 on *one* of the girls pipping the boys to the post.
Importantly, all are active on twitter.
As PM Cameron would I guess be the first of them all to be informed, so its no surprise at his odds. In the good old days wouldn't he have had to be in at the birth? Or was that just when the queen gave birth?
Cheltenham is one of those Ashcroft polls where there is a huge disparity between Q1` and Q2 and the consistent local election results over the last few years which show Lib Dem support increasing and Conservative support decreasing . The latter should help you get your head around your conundrum .
Why do people answer "Conservative" when asked who they'll vote for then ?
Why do people answer "Conservative to Q1 and "Lib Dem" to Q2 and vote Lib Dem in local elections ? Answer that and make a fortune on betting on constituency polls .
It could be that people are thinking of the Conservative-Lib Dem Coalition, and are just using "Conservative" as shorthand. So when they answer about their own constituency, the thinking becomes a bit clearer, and they say "Lib Dem" instead.
A lot of Conservative posters here on PB also say "Conservative Government" when they really mean "Conservative-Lib Dem Coalition Government". But then, they are trying to confuse people.
If that's true - and I'm not sure it is - then the LibDems will not poll 9% on May 7th, but 11%.
As an aside, I know a lot of people have criticised the two stage polling question, and have claimed that many respondents think the question refers to local elections. If that were true, then you would see the LibDems rise in question 2 in areas where they have local representation, but no chance of winning the parliamentary constituency.
That does not happen: in LibDem constituencies there is a c. 10% boost in LibDem vote shares on Q2. In non LD constituencies, there is either no benefit or just a minimal (1-2%) one. This would seem to suggest that Q2 is picking up a real shift in how people feel about their local constituency.
Ted Jeory @TedJeory 1m1 minute ago Former Met Police assistant commissioner Chris Allison appointed new commissioner at Lbth, along with children's services expert Alan Wood
Anyone in the gambling game will know about the awful FOBT machines that are social menace particularly for the working class.. bookmakers are opening up shops in poor areas specifically to house these machines, known as the "crack cocaine of the gambling industry"
It seems UKIP have committed to reducing the max stake per spin to £2 from £100 .. hopefully whoever is PM will copy this idea
You seem to have a pretty poor opinion of the common sense of what you term 'the working class'.
That's rather silly.
It's not a case of 'common sense'; it can be an addiction, and one that (from what I read ages ago) the betting companies are actively and cynically encouraging.
So why not call for alcohol, cigarettes and chocolate , etc to be banned as well. I am sure there a few toffs who gamble , just they do not have to mix with the great unwashed.
A single solitary orange diamond looking forlorn in an Oadby garden. The LDs once thought that they could take the seat.
One field near the private school voting Conservative.
Quite a bunch of Tory posters in Wardown Crescent, Luton South. But, this will be an easy Labour hold, as the Conservatives aren't putting any effort into winning it.
I counted 18 Tory posters to 8 Labour, in Winchmore Hill, Southgate, which is a surprisingly marginal ward.
I spotted a Labour canvass team in Finchley High Road, so they clearly think they can win there.
There was a spurt of Tory activity in my patch last week (a group came up by train from London for several hours) and the poster count is less embarrassing - the Conservative Club (which had 0 for weeks, then one) now has four, and several open fields along main roads have a series of them. Still don't get the impression they are trying very hard, with the candidate skipping three hustings events, one of them on local TV - these tend to attract the faithful, but it's unwise not to bother IMO. LibDem poster count is 0, though a borough candidate has lots of unbranded posters for himself. Green posters seen 1, UKIP 2.
You really are getting dangerously close to hubris.
He can't help himself. The thought of all those juicy expenses is making him giddy with excitement.
Not to mention another guaranteed 62-month part-time employment contract with a full-time salary, a redundancy payment if the contract ends by his losing his seat, a final salary pension that vests faster than any seen in the private sector, an unreceipted tax-free food allowance, and the opportunity to spend his office allowance on jobs for his family that he needn't advertise, while much of the actual work is done by ZHC interns!
Anyone in the gambling game will know about the awful FOBT machines that are social menace particularly for the working class.. bookmakers are opening up shops in poor areas specifically to house these machines, known as the "crack cocaine of the gambling industry"
It seems UKIP have committed to reducing the max stake per spin to £2 from £100 .. hopefully whoever is PM will copy this idea
You seem to have a pretty poor opinion of the common sense of what you term 'the working class'.
Is there any way we could have the facility to choose between 'oldest comment first' and 'newest comment first', please?
Getting to the oldest comment on a very lively post is a pain and, once there, often means one can never catch up and one misses half the conversation, including critically important contributions.
(Regardless, thanks for the ever fascinating site, OGH. And to PB's contributors, probably the most literate, subtle and well-informed on the electoral scene.)
My latest wheeze..."Progressive Housing Policy to deal with Immigration"
I believe that working class people are most affected by the downsides of mass immigration; it puts pressure on their wages, and changes the nature of their hometowns, while those who benefit from it live in areas that poor migrants cant afford to move to while reaping the fruits of their labour
Why is it that the three main parties are so in love with progressive taxes but don't consider redressing the balance in other ways?
Those on low wages in poor areas that face competition for their work are often at breaking point anyway in terms of making ends meet and the consequences and decisions that flow from that... then they see their towns change and when they mention it they are derided as this or that "ist" or "ic"
Surely the comfortably off are more well disposed to cope with an influx of poor migrants living in their community, as that community is less crowded and they are also wealthy enough to have the option of moving? I believe the frustrations of people that are thought of as "thick racists" are borne of frustration at the increasing lack of control they have over their lives, worsened by crowded/changing communities and decreasing wages
As I said before in "Mass Immigration is a Stealth Tax on the Working Class" (http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/05/20/mass-migration-is-a-tax-on-working-classes/) economic migration makes the rich richer and poor poorer. One way the balance could be redressed is for new estates and affordable housing only to be built in areas where the top 1% live, the Cotswolds, Surrey, Buckinghamshire for instance. Maybe then the people that live off the migrants labour would be more appreciative of how the other 99% live or maybe they would stop and think about the overall effect on people lives that mass immigration has, rather than seeing it as a balance sheet
Only one problem with your theory: UKIP votes are highest in places where there is lower than average immigration.
Clearly those most have to deal with the consequences of mass immigration are most comfortable with it.
Dave will probably know in advance. He will be getting the doctors to induce birth at the most politically expedient time. (I am of course joking...though?..)
Anyone in the gambling game will know about the awful FOBT machines that are social menace particularly for the working class.. bookmakers are opening up shops in poor areas specifically to house these machines, known as the "crack cocaine of the gambling industry"
It seems UKIP have committed to reducing the max stake per spin to £2 from £100 .. hopefully whoever is PM will copy this idea
Agree; I'd love to see more emphasis on this. It's not an area I know a massive amount about, but on the face of it UKIP's proposal seems good.
Absolutely agree.
If the firms don't like it, then Betting Shops can be closed. These days they are populated almost exclusively by hopeless losers and wouldn't be missed.
When they were introduced, they served a useful social purpose and took illegal betting off the street. They have long outlived their usefulness though and serve only to provide lazy bookies with easy money from gaming machines.
FOBT's are an area I would like to read up on a little. Do you, Sam or anyone else have link(s) to somewhere I can read up more on it? There were articles a couple of years ago, but I haven't seen much recently.
(This may not be a popular thing to say on this betting website, but I see the legalisation of gambling adverts by the last government as being a rather retrograde step).
Thanks, Jessop.
I don't have a single source I can recommend. Isam is probably your man.
There is nothing wrong in principle with the legalisation of gambling adverts, but they should be honest, fair, and correct. They are manifestly not, because they do not make it plain that successful punters will have their accounts closed.
I have taken this up with the Advertising Standards Authority but although they were sympathetic they felt they were stymied by having to deal with individual adverts rather than a matter of principle. The Gambling Commission was less helpful, which rather reinforced my impression that it is in the industry's pocket.
Occasionally I have wondered whether the laws on cartels might be brought to bear on them. All major bookies block successful punters, so they are effectively operating a cartel. I do not know enough about the relevant law however and it would obviously be a tricky line to pursue.
Maybe I might devote a little more time and effort to this subject after the election. There aren't many votes in it, so I wouldn't expect much support from any Party, but UKIP's eminently sensible suggestion would be a nice start.
The Tories win the prize for the most irresponsible pledge of the election. Removing the option to raise revenue to balance the books if growth falters, the only way is even more cuts in spending. Perhaps not surprising given its the Tories, it also rules out for five years any redistribution via the tax system to address the huge problem of increasing inequality. I noticed that that the one tax not covered was the highly inequitable council tax.No doubt local council will be given the unpopular job of raising more revenue.
Calm down. Revenues can be increased by moving the tax bands.
Playing around with taxation never really increases the tax raised as a %age of GDP .
If there is a recession, or perhaps more accurately one of the usual downturns in the business cycle, then the usual action would be to ease monetary strictness and to allow the cyclical deficit to increase. You might expect a reduction of taxation. In a recession you would expect the deficit to grow - the cyclical defict, and to fall in a period of growth. We currently need to cut spending and have relatively high taxes because of the massive structural deficit inherited from Labour.
Fascinating clip, and some interesting parallels with this year.
What we didn't have in 1992 though was UKIP splitting the Tory vote.
As I keep saying, like a broken record, it's UKIP that has prevented a near certain Tory majority and looks set to put Miliband into No 10 on a third of the vote backed by leftie nationalists.
It's so frustrating because some of us have been saying for years and years what a threat UKIP were, and the so-called 'modernisers' refused to see the wood for trees. I was told again and again by people that worked in CCHQ that UKIP were a 'flash in the pan' and that UKIP were 'the past, and we need to look to the future'. Now that future has arrived and UKIP will at least quadruple their vote, and Ed Miliband is heading to Downing Street.
If the great 'modernising' experiment of the Cameroons only achieves one coalition government, hamstrung by the Liberal Democrats, and one outright loss, then perhaps we need to course correct somewhat? One idea would be to actually look at the voters we've lost and respond to their concerns with actual policies, rather than rhetoric and gimmicks.
In 2010 the Conservatives got 36% of the vote. The BBC poll of polls currently has them on 34%, and it is perfectly possible that in eight days they may get the same percentage as last time.
The major difference is little to do with UKIP: it is the Lib Dem's collapse and the consequent increase in Labour's vote from 29% to the mid-low thirties. If the Conservatives have lost voters to UKIP, they've picked others up from elsewhere.
Given the situation the coalition found itself in, and the polling from a couple of years ago showing double-digit Labour leads, it is quite surprising that the Conservatives are in this relatively good position. It's also remarkable that Labour are not rimping home.
The modernisation has been a qualified success. But then I would say that, as like the direction of travel. ;-)
But 34-36% of the vote is not enough to win a majority. If our definition of success is a large polling deficit midterm before recovering to be twenty seats short then we may as well pack up and go home. Our strategy must be to work out how many seats we need for a workable majority, and then to work out the voting coalition we need to get us there. Sometimes it seems like the left-wing of the party would prefer a minority and coalition with the Lib Dems than to get a majority with the "wrong type" of voters.
A single solitary orange diamond looking forlorn in an Oadby garden. The LDs once thought that they could take the seat.
One field near the private school voting Conservative.
Quite a bunch of Tory posters in Wardown Crescent, Luton South. But, this will be an easy Labour hold, as the Conservatives aren't putting any effort into winning it.
I counted 18 Tory posters to 8 Labour, in Winchmore Hill, Southgate, which is a surprisingly marginal ward.
I spotted a Labour canvass team in Finchley High Road, so they clearly think they can win there.
There was a spurt of Tory activity in my patch last week (a group came up by train from London for several hours) and the poster count is less embarrassing - the Conservative Club (which had 0 for weeks, then one) now has four, and several open fields along main roads have a series of them. Still don't get the impression they are trying very hard, with the candidate skipping three hustings events, one of them on local TV - these tend to attract the faithful, but it's unwise not to bother IMO. LibDem poster count is 0, though a borough candidate has lots of unbranded posters for himself. Green posters seen 1, UKIP 2.
You really are getting dangerously close to hubris.
He can't help himself. The thought of all those juicy expenses is making him giddy with excitement.
Not to mention another guaranteed 62-month part-time employment contract with a full-time salary, a redundancy payment if the contract ends by his losing his seat, a final salary pension that vests faster than any seen in the private sector, an unreceipted tax-free food allowance, and the opportunity to spend his office allowance on jobs for his family that he needn't advertise, while much of the actual work is done by ZHC interns!
Lovely jubbly!
I don't think that Nick was noted for living the high life before, so I think unlikely to want to do so now.
Indeed I wish that all parties had candidates with real experience of industry and the world as Nick. He is no wet behind the ears PPE SPAD.
My latest wheeze..."Progressive Housing Policy to deal with Immigration"
I believe that working class people are most affected by the downsides of mass immigration; it puts pressure on their wages, and changes the nature of their hometowns, while those who benefit from it live in areas that poor migrants cant afford to move to while reaping the fruits of their labour
Why is it that the three main parties are so in love with progressive taxes but don't consider redressing the balance in other ways?
Those on low wages in poor areas that face competition for their work are often at breaking point anyway in terms of making ends meet and the consequences and decisions that flow from that... then they see their towns change and when they mention it they are derided as this or that "ist" or "ic"
Surely the comfortably off are more well disposed to cope with an influx of poor migrants living in their community, as that community is less crowded and they are also wealthy enough to have the option of moving? I believe the frustrations of people that are thought of as "thick racists" are borne of frustration at the increasing lack of control they have over their lives, worsened by crowded/changing communities and decreasing wages
As I said before in "Mass Immigration is a Stealth Tax on the Working Class" (http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/05/20/mass-migration-is-a-tax-on-working-classes/) economic migration makes the rich richer and poor poorer. One way the balance could be redressed is for new estates and affordable housing only to be built in areas where the top 1% live, the Cotswolds, Surrey, Buckinghamshire for instance. Maybe then the people that live off the migrants labour would be more appreciative of how the other 99% live or maybe they would stop and think about the overall effect on people lives that mass immigration has, rather than seeing it as a balance sheet
Only one problem with your theory: UKIP votes are highest in places where there is lower than average immigration.
Clearly those most have to deal with the consequences of mass immigration are most comfortable with it.
I'm not really bothered about who gets the votes out of it but making the country better
I think Ukips vote is highest in places next door to where it has slready happened, and where it has Ukip win ankngst those who are stuck - see Dagdnham and Rainham for instance
My latest wheeze..."Progressive Housing Policy to deal with Immigration"
I believe that working class people are most affected by the downsides of mass immigration; it puts pressure on their wages, and changes the nature of their hometowns, while those who benefit from it live in areas that poor migrants cant afford to move to while reaping the fruits of their labour
Why is it that the three main parties are so in love with progressive taxes but don't consider redressing the balance in other ways?
Those on low wages in poor areas that face competition for their work are often at breaking point anyway in terms of making ends meet and the consequences and decisions that flow from that... then they see their towns change and when they mention it they are derided as this or that "ist" or "ic"
Surely the comfortably off are more well disposed to cope with an influx of poor migrants living in their community, as that community is less crowded and they are also wealthy enough to have the option of moving? I believe the frustrations of people that are thought of as "thick racists" are borne of frustration at the increasing lack of control they have over their lives, worsened by crowded/changing communities and decreasing wages
As I said before in "Mass Immigration is a Stealth Tax on the Working Class" (http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/05/20/mass-migration-is-a-tax-on-working-classes/) economic migration makes the rich richer and poor poorer. One way the balance could be redressed is for new estates and affordable housing only to be built in areas where the top 1% live, the Cotswolds, Surrey, Buckinghamshire for instance. Maybe then the people that live off the migrants labour would be more appreciative of how the other 99% live or maybe they would stop and think about the overall effect on people lives that mass immigration has, rather than seeing it as a balance sheet
Only one problem with your theory: UKIP votes are highest in places where there is lower than average immigration.
Clearly those most have to deal with the consequences of mass immigration are most comfortable with it.
Precisely, and it is this statistic that shows UKIP are indeed just ignorant, authoritarian bigots. The people who actually live among immigrants are fine with them. UKIPpers know nothing of them, they just hate them anyway and think others should hate them too.
We can be likewise pretty sure that the UKKKIPer who has "a problem with negroes" doesn't know any black people, and that the UKIPper who thought gay marriage caused floods didn't know any gay people.
Proportionately, more UKIP MEPs have been imprisoned than Romanian immigrants to the UK. My worst nightmare would be if a family of UKIPpers moved in next door.
A bit of a shock on the way home yesterday - Tory placards in Spennymoor! OK, they were in a farmer's field, but still, we have standards to maintain. Note to self: one more place not to buy eggs!
My latest wheeze..."Progressive Housing Policy to deal with Immigration"
I believe that working class people are most affected by the downsides of mass immigration; it puts pressure on their wages, and changes the nature of their hometowns, while those who benefit from it live in areas that poor migrants cant afford to move to while reaping the fruits of their labour
Why is it that the three main parties are so in love with progressive taxes but don't consider redressing the balance in other ways?
Those on low wages in poor areas that face competition for their work are often at breaking point anyway in terms of making ends meet and the consequences and decisions that flow from that... then they see their towns change and when they mention it they are derided as this or that "ist" or "ic"
Surely the comfortably off are more well disposed to cope with an influx of poor migrants living in their community, as that community is less crowded and they are also wealthy enough to have the option of moving? I believe the frustrations of people that are thought of as "thick racists" are borne of frustration at the increasing lack of control they have over their lives, worsened by crowded/changing communities and decreasing wages
As I said before in "Mass Immigration is a Stealth Tax on the Working Class" (http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/05/20/mass-migration-is-a-tax-on-working-classes/) economic migration makes the rich richer and poor poorer. One way the balance could be redressed is for new estates and affordable housing only to be built in areas where the top 1% live, the Cotswolds, Surrey, Buckinghamshire for instance. Maybe then the people that live off the migrants labour would be more appreciative of how the other 99% live or maybe they would stop and think about the overall effect on people lives that mass immigration has, rather than seeing it as a balance sheet
Only one problem with your theory: UKIP votes are highest in places where there is lower than average immigration.
Clearly those most have to deal with the consequences of mass immigration are most comfortable with it.
That's a very poor reading of it. Part of the issue is that a big chunk of the people in areas of high immigration are second generation immigrants of the same ethnic group themselves, so they have less issue with it (e.g. large parts of Birmingham). The other part of the issue is that those who most dislike dealing with the consequences of immigration move out of the area to low immigration areas (e.g. East Londoners moving to Kent and Essex).
A bit of a shock on the way home yesterday - Tory placards in Spennymoor! OK, they were in a farmer's field, but still, we have standards to maintain. Note to self: one more place not to buy eggs!
My latest wheeze..."Progressive Housing Policy to deal with Immigration"
I believe that working class people are most affected by the downsides of mass immigration; it puts pressure on their wages, and changes the nature of their hometowns, while those who benefit from it live in areas that poor migrants cant afford to move to while reaping the fruits of their labour
Why is it that the three main parties are so in love with progressive taxes but don't consider redressing the balance in other ways?
Those on low wages in poor areas that face competition for their work are often at breaking point anyway in terms of making ends meet and the consequences and decisions that flow from that... then they see their towns change and when they mention it they are derided as this or that "ist" or "ic"
Surely the comfortably off are more well disposed to cope with an influx of poor migrants living in their community, as that community is less crowded and they are also wealthy enough to have the option of moving? I believe the frustrations of people that are thought of as "thick racists" are borne of frustration at the increasing lack of control they have over their lives, worsened by crowded/changing communities and decreasing wages
As I said before in "Mass Immigration is a Stealth Tax on the Working Class" (http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/05/20/mass-migration-is-a-tax-on-working-classes/) economic migration makes the rich richer and poor poorer. One way the balance could be redressed is for new estates and affordable housing only to be built in areas where the top 1% live, the Cotswolds, Surrey, Buckinghamshire for instance. Maybe then the people that live off the migrants labour would be more appreciative of how the other 99% live or maybe they would stop and think about the overall effect on people lives that mass immigration has, rather than seeing it as a balance sheet
Only one problem with your theory: UKIP votes are highest in places where there is lower than average immigration.
Clearly those most have to deal with the consequences of mass immigration are most comfortable with it.
This old myth gets trotted out all the time. The BBC were in Boston and Skegness the other day, a region which has the highest proportion of Eastern European migration in the country. Of course it is also an area where the UKIP vote share will be very high.
Many people in Thanet/Thurrock will have moved away from London or still work in London so probably have a fair understanding of overseas immigration and how it affects jobs/services. If UKIP were making huge strides in The Western Isles, Cumbria or Witney the point might stand up better to scrutiny.
Sky News Newsdesk @SkyNewsBreak 59s60 seconds ago Ipsos MORI poll for STV News suggests the #SNP could win all 59 Scottish seats in the general election #GE2015 18 retweets 5 favorites Reply Retweeted18 Favorite5 More
May I direct you to an interesting piece of research that found voters of white British heritage in London vote UKIP at exactly the same rates to the rest of the UK?
"Unfortunately David , the Tory representatives tend to show exactly what people say about Tories. They come across as pompous , demonise the poor and unemployed etc, they just give it "why do they not just eat cake" and make people wonder how they can sleep at night. They do not need anyone to make it up , people make opinions from what they see and hear, it is Tories as a group that are disliked, not individual people. "
For once we agree. You keep hearing from Conservatives the mantra 'Tories eat babies' as if it shows Tory malevolence is just an old wives tale peddled by primitives which bears no relation to reality.
It is possible to want the same ends - I do think that with wealth comes responsibility and that we need to make it possible for those who do not have good fortune to improve their lives and have the same chances as others - but disagree about means. And if someone does not share your view about the means that does not make them evil.
Didn’t Nye Bevan say that "as far as he was concerned the Tories were .......” quoting from his experience of dealing with mine-owners and their side-kicks.
If he did then he should have referred just to the mine owners not sought to tar all Tories with the same brush.
I really dislike the demonisation of people who have different political views as if merely holding them was somehow illegitimate.
There are people who hold views which are beyond the pale - those who believe in using violence for political ends or who believe in terror for terror's sake. They could do with being demonised, if anyone has to be but, strangely, some are more tolerant of them than is consistent with their stated beliefs and then hurl accusations of "fascist" at those who really aren't.
None of the political parties hold the moral high ground just by virtue of what they believe. Or what they claim to believe. Let's judge them by their actions. Those who shout loudest about their political virtue are often those whose actions bear little close scrutiny.
What made Bevan's comments particularly unpleasant is that he made them at time when exterminationist rhetoric was common in Europe.
Anyone in the gambling game will know about the awful FOBT machines that are social menace particularly for the working class.. bookmakers are opening up shops in poor areas specifically to house these machines, known as the "crack cocaine of the gambling industry"
It seems UKIP have committed to reducing the max stake per spin to £2 from £100 .. hopefully whoever is PM will copy this idea
Agree; I'd love to see more emphasis on this. It's not an area I know a massive amount about, but on the face of it UKIP's proposal seems good.
Absolutely agree.
If the firms don't like it, then Betting Shops can be closed. These days they are populated almost exclusively by hopeless losers and wouldn't be missed.
When they were introduced, they served a useful social purpose and took illegal betting off the street. They have long outlived their usefulness though and serve only to provide lazy bookies with easy money from gaming machines.
FOBT's are an area I would like to read up on a little. Do you, Sam or anyone else have link(s) to somewhere I can read up more on it? There were articles a couple of years ago, but I haven't seen much recently.
(This may not be a popular thing to say on this betting website, but I see the legalisation of gambling adverts by the last government as being a rather retrograde step).
My latest wheeze..."Progressive Housing Policy to deal with Immigration"
I believe that working class people are most affected by the downsides of mass immigration; it puts pressure on their wages, and changes the nature of their hometowns, while those who benefit from it live in areas that poor migrants cant afford to move to while reaping the fruits of their labour
Why is it that the three main parties are so in love with progressive taxes but don't consider redressing the balance in other ways?
Those on low wages in poor areas that face competition for their work are often at breaking point anyway in terms of making ends meet and the consequences and decisions that flow from that... then they see their towns change and when they mention it they are derided as this or that "ist" or "ic"
Surely the comfortably off are more well disposed to cope with an influx of poor migrants living in their community, as that community is less crowded and they are also wealthy enough to have the option of moving? I believe the frustrations of people that are thought of as "thick racists" are borne of frustration at the increasing lack of control they have over their lives, worsened by crowded/changing communities and decreasing wages
Only one problem with your theory: UKIP votes are highest in places where there is lower than average immigration.
Clearly those most have to deal with the consequences of mass immigration are most comfortable with it.
Precisely, and it is this statistic that shows UKIP are indeed just ignorant, authoritarian bigots. The people who actually live among immigrants are fine with them. UKIPpers know nothing of them, they just hate them anyway and think others should hate them too.
We can be likewise pretty sure that the UKKKIPer who has "a problem with negroes" doesn't know any black people, and that the UKIPper who thought gay marriage caused floods didn't know any gay people.
Proportionately, more UKIP MEPs have been imprisoned than Romanian immigrants to the UK. My worst nightmare would be if a family of UKIPpers moved in next door.
If there's one ignorant authoritarian bigot who posts here regularly, it's you. Your comments about Scots, Labour voters, and UKIP voters prove that beyond doubt.
But 34-36% of the vote is not enough to win a majority. If our definition of success is a large polling deficit midterm before recovering to be twenty seats short then we may as well pack up and go home. Our strategy must be to work out how many seats we need for a workable majority, and then to work out the voting coalition we need to get us there. Sometimes it seems like the left-wing of the party would prefer a minority and coalition with the Lib Dems than to get a majority with the "wrong type" of voters.
I'm not a Conservative (tm), and I pretty much disagree with you. In fact, it highlights one of the problems with political parties: they appear more interested in power over the country, than actually generating and selling ideas that are to the benefit of the country.
The SNP are proving how selling ideas (however much you may disagree with those ideas) can electorally work. Blair did it as well. Cameron and Miliband are not, I think for different reasons.
But it is hard (and may even be impossible in some cases), so the parties just scratch around for policies that will attract certain segments of voters. It's cr@p.
Survation. @Survation 14m14 minutes ago "Only" is CNBC's word not mine. 5-10 seats would be impressive under FPTP. Keep in mind the number of SNP seats in 2010.
My latest wheeze..."Progressive Housing Policy to deal with Immigration"
I believe that working class people are most affected by the downsides of mass immigration; it puts pressure on their wages, and changes the nature of their hometowns, while those who benefit from it live in areas that poor migrants cant afford to move to while reaping the fruits of their labour
Why is it that the three main parties are so in love with progressive taxes but don't consider redressing the balance in other ways?
Those on low wages in poor areas that face competition for their work are often at breaking point anyway in terms of making ends meet and the consequences and decisions that flow from that... then they see their towns change and when they mention it they are derided as this or that "ist" or "ic"
Surely the decreasing wages
As I said before in "Mass Immigration is a Stealth Tax on the Working Class" (http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/05/20/mass-migration-is-a-tax-on-working-classes/) economic migration makes the rich richer and poor poorer. One way the balance could be redressed is for new estates and affordable housing only to be built in areas where the top 1% live, the Cotswolds, Surrey, Buckinghamshire for instance. Maybe then the people that live off the migrants labour would be more appreciative of how the other 99% live or maybe they would stop and think about the overall effect on people lives that mass immigration has, rather than seeing it as a balance sheet
Only one problem with your theory: UKIP votes are highest in places where there is lower than average immigration.
Clearly those most have to deal with the consequences of mass immigration are most comfortable with it.
This old myth gets trotted out all the time. The BBC were in Boston and Skegness the other day, a region which has the highest proportion of Eastern European migration in the country. Of course it is also an area where the UKIP vote share will be very high.
Many people in Thanet/Thurrock will have moved away from London or still work in London so probably have a fair understanding of overseas immigration and how it affects jobs/services. If UKIP were making huge strides in The Western Isles, Cumbria or Witney the point might stand up better to scrutiny.
People who commute through towns affected will vote Ukip to stop it happening in their home... Look at the Ukip vote in stops on the fenchurch st line and Liverpool St- Southend route past zone 5
A single solitary orange diamond looking forlorn in an Oadby garden. The LDs once thought that they could take the seat.
One field near the private school voting Conservative.
Quite a bunch of Tory posters in Wardown Crescent, Luton South. But, this will be an easy Labour hold, as the Conservatives aren't putting any effort into winning it.
I counted 18 Tory posters to 8 Labour, in Winchmore Hill, Southgate, which is a surprisingly marginal ward.
I spotted a Labour canvass team in Finchley High Road, so they clearly think they can win there.
There was a spurt of Tory activity in my patch last week (a group came up by train from London for several hours) and the poster count is less embarrassing - the Conservative Club (which had 0 for weeks, then one) now has four, and several open fields along main roads have a series of them. Still don't get the impression they are trying very hard, with the candidate skipping three hustings events, one of them on local TV - these tend to attract the faithful, but it's unwise not to bother IMO. LibDem poster count is 0, though a borough candidate has lots of unbranded posters for himself. Green posters seen 1, UKIP 2.
You really are getting dangerously close to hubris.
He can't help himself. The thought of all those juicy expenses is making him giddy with excitement.
Not to mention another guaranteed 62-month part-time employment contract with a full-time salary, a redundancy payment if the contract ends by his losing his seat, a final salary pension that vests faster than any seen in the private sector, an unreceipted tax-free food allowance, and the opportunity to spend his office allowance on jobs for his family that he needn't advertise, while much of the actual work is done by ZHC interns!
Lovely jubbly!
I don't think that Nick was noted for living the high life before, so I think unlikely to want to do so now.
Indeed I wish that all parties had candidates with real experience of industry and the world as Nick. He is no wet behind the ears PPE SPAD.
On the footy performance topic - Hartlepool looked like certainties for relegation earlier in the season, but survived. To quote Mandy, people "Underestimated Hartlepool" and the club is clearly "A Fighter not a Quitter". So according to the theory, this should reduce the Kippers' chances of taking the seat.
If UKIP score good second places in the two Sunlun seats, that could be a pointer to closer than expected results in Hartlepool and South Shields.
Ruth Davidson is proving to be a great appointment - rather sooner than I expected. I thought it'd take another GE for the Tories to get back on the front foot - it seems to be accelerating due to SNP bulldozing and chronically weak SLAB.
Royal Specials - William & Kate - First Leader To Tweet A Congrats Message
David Cameron 5/4 Ed Milliband 3/1 Nick Clegg 5/1 Nigel Farage 5/1 Leanne Wood 20/1 Natalie Bennett 20/1 Nicola Sturgeon 20/1
IMO, take all three 20/1 shots so you get 6/1 on *one* of the girls pipping the boys to the post.
Importantly, all are active on twitter.
3/1? It's hard to see the newly empowered anti establishment figure, Ed Millibrand tweeting the Royals. Hell, No.
I hope he doesn't although I expect he will so the Mail can't get all offended over it. Personally I find it faintly embarrassing to be living in a monarchy in the 21st Century, though I accept that I am not in the majority (yet)
A single solitary orange diamond looking forlorn in an Oadby garden. The LDs once thought that they could take the seat.
One field near the private school voting Conservative.
Quite a bunch of Tory posters in Wardown Crescent, Luton South. But, this will be an easy Labour hold, as the Conservatives aren't putting any effort into winning it.
I counted 18 Tory posters to 8 Labour, in Winchmore Hill, Southgate, which is a surprisingly marginal ward.
I spotted a Labour canvass team in Finchley High Road, so they clearly think they can win there.
There was a spurt of Tory activity in my patch last week (a group came up by train from London for several hours) and the poster count is less embarrassing - the Conservative Club (which had 0 for weeks, then one) now has four, and several open fields along main roads have a series of them. Still don't get the impression they are trying very hard, with the candidate skipping three hustings events, one of them on local TV - these tend to attract the faithful, but it's unwise not to bother IMO. LibDem poster count is 0, though a borough candidate has lots of unbranded posters for himself. Green posters seen 1, UKIP 2.
You really are getting dangerously close to hubris.
He can't help himself. The thought of all those juicy expenses is making him giddy with excitement.
Not to mention another guaranteed 62-month part-time employment contract with a full-time salary, a redundancy payment if the contract ends by his losing his seat, a final salary pension that vests faster than any seen in the private sector, an unreceipted tax-free food allowance, and the opportunity to spend his office allowance on jobs for his family that he needn't advertise, while much of the actual work is done by ZHC interns!
Lovely jubbly!
I don't think that Nick was noted for living the high life before, so I think unlikely to want to do so now.
Indeed I wish that all parties had candidates with real experience of industry and the world as Nick. He is no wet behind the ears PPE SPAD.
He wasn't cheap!
But you are. Nick is great and we should cheer on our own.
A single solitary orange diamond looking forlorn in an Oadby garden. The LDs once thought that they could take the seat.
One field near the private school voting Conservative.
Quite a bunch of Tory posters in Wardown Crescent, Luton South. But, this will be an easy Labour hold, as the Conservatives aren't putting any effort into winning it.
I counted 18 Tory posters to 8 Labour, in Winchmore Hill, Southgate, which is a surprisingly marginal ward.
I spotted a Labour canvass team in Finchley High Road, so they clearly think they can win there.
There was a spurt of Tory activity in my patch last week (a group came up by train from Lnot to bother IMO. LibDem poster count is 0, though a borough candidate has lots of unbranded posters for himself. Green posters seen 1, UKIP 2.
You really are getting dangerously close to hubris.
He can't help himself. The thought of all those juicy expenses is making him giddy with excitement.
Not to mention another guaranteed 62-month part-time employment contract with a full-time salary, a redundancy payment if the contract ends by his losing his seat, a final salary pension that vests faster than any seen in the private sector, an unreceipted tax-free food allowance, and the opportunity to spend his office allowance on jobs for his family that he needn't advertise, while much of the actual work is done by ZHC interns!
Lovely jubbly!
I don't think that Nick was noted for living the high life before, so I think unlikely to want to do so now.
Indeed I wish that all parties had candidates with real experience of industry and the world as Nick. He is no wet behind the ears PPE SPAD.
My understanding is that he took quite a pay cut when entering Parliament in 1997. Not sure if he has a family but if he does they certainly weren't evident while I was working with him up in Broxtowe recently. Nor was there much evidence of work being done by ZHC interns. It seemed to be mostly in the hands of unpaid volunteers like me, and of course himself. One reason I would expect him to beat Anna Soubry is precisely the high reputation he enjoyed amongst his former constituents as a hard-working backbench MP.
Of course not all MPs are like that. It's partly because I wish more MPs were that I was prepared to give up two days of my precious time to give him a hand. I am not a Party member and haven't voted Labour since 1997, but will probably do so this time.
[This was a Party Election Broadcast on behalf of CREEP - the Campaign for the Reelection of Palmer.]
Could it be Miliband's nocturnal rendezvous with Russell Brand has failed to make him alluring to Scottish voters?
So Miliband is resigned to seeking a huge chunk of Labour seats go to the SNP, but rather than go north to try stem the tide of losses, he goes to Rusty Rockets for an interview to reach the kids.
Blair wouldn't have done that, and neither would Brown.
There is not going to be a grand coalition under any circumstances. It is inconceivable in the UK parliamentary system. Quite apart from anything else, why on earth would either party want it?
What we might see is a 'grand confidence and supply', but even that is highly unlikely. More likely would be an informal arrangement where one of the two big parties decided to abstain on a confidence vote in order temporarily to keep the other in as a minority government. They would do this if they thought it was better, from a purely party-political viewpoint, to let things fester for a bit, heaping unpopularity on the poor saps trying to hold things together. They might also do this if they thought they needed more time themselves before provoking an election - for example, because funds were short or if they wanted to change leader first.
With regard to FOBTS as someone who works in the betting industry, for an independent bookmaker, I too would like to see the max stake per spin being reduced, however at some stage people should take responsibility for their own actions so 2 pounds seems rather low. Additionally this wouldn't stop addicts from playing. In practice the percentages would be reduced on slot machines and people would lose the same amount less rapidly.
I prefer the idea of restricting licences and number of machines in shops in conjunction with a restriction to perhaps 15 pounds a spin at roulette, with a longer gap enforced between games.
Just how wrong do the polls need to be in Scotland for the SNP to win less than 50 seats? The last seven polls in Scotland have an average SNP tally of over 51%. Tactical voting is more or less irrelevant if the polls are even remotely right.
But 34-36% of the vote is not enough to win a majority. If our definition of success is a large polling deficit midterm before recovering to be twenty seats short then we may as well pack up and go home. Our strategy must be to work out how many seats we need for a workable majority, and then to work out the voting coalition we need to get us there. Sometimes it seems like the left-wing of the party would prefer a minority and coalition with the Lib Dems than to get a majority with the "wrong type" of voters.
I'm not a Conservative (tm), and I pretty much disagree with you. In fact, it highlights one of the problems with political parties: they appear more interested in power over the country, than actually generating and selling ideas that are to the benefit of the country.
The SNP are proving how selling ideas (however much you may disagree with those ideas) can electorally work. Blair did it as well. Cameron and Miliband are not, I think for different reasons.
But it is hard (and may even be impossible in some cases), so the parties just scratch around for policies that will attract certain segments of voters. It's cr@p.
When did I ever say we should not generate and sell ideas? All I am an arguing is how we transfer our ideas into a policy platform that applies Conservative values to help people of a large range of backgrounds - enough to get us to a majority. Scratching around for policies and soundbites to attract certain segments of voters is central to the Cameroon faction, so it seems surprising you are arguing against it. Remember Huskies in the Arctic? What we need to do is to return to our Conservative values and win over UKIP voters again.
There is not going to be a grand coalition under any circumstances. It is inconceivable in the UK parliamentary system. Quite apart from anything else, why on earth would either party want it?
What we might see is a 'grand confidence and supply', but even that is highly unlikely. More likely would be an informal arrangement where one of the two big parties decided to abstain on a confidence vote in order temporarily to keep the other in as a minority government. They would do this if they thought it was better, from a purely party-political viewpoint, to let things fester for a bit, heaping unpopularity on the poor saps trying to hold things together. They might also do this if they thought they needed more time themselves before provoking an election - for example, because funds were short or if they wanted to change leader first.
But a grand coalition is for the birds.
I agree with this - I think we may well have the very real possibility of Labour abstaining a Conservative Queen Speech. It of course will mean wipeout in Scotland at Holyrood, but that may well be on the cards anyway.
Dan Hodges made a very observant point about EdM yesterday re this. EdM talks about *being involved/talking to people* then hides behind newspaper articles, meetings with Labour activists, hands off responsibility to others and on and on.
One either has the personal cojones to tackle it head on or you don't. EdM doesn't. He can be all brave and radical in theory - but not when it comes to hands-on.
Going to Scotland and meeting SLABers isn't doing anything. Ditto meeting Russell Brand et al.
Could it be Miliband's nocturnal rendezvous with Russell Brand has failed to make him alluring to Scottish voters?
So Miliband is resigned to seeking a huge chunk of Labour seats go to the SNP, but rather than go north to try stem the tide of losses, he goes to Rusty Rockets for an interview to reach the kids.
Blair wouldn't have done that, and neither would Brown.
17% is the absolute max Con will get in Scotland. 16.5% is where I think they will be. So the only way they can beat Lab is by Lab falling below them rather than Con adding any more.
With regard to FOBTS as someone who works in the betting industry, for an independent bookmaker, I too would like to see the max stake per spin being reduced, however at some stage people should take responsibility for their own actions so 2 pounds seems rather low. Additionally this wouldn't stop addicts from playing. In practice the percentages would be reduced on slot machines and people would lose the same amount less rapidly.
I prefer the idea of restricting licences and number of machines in shops in conjunction with a restriction to perhaps 15 pounds a spin at roulette, with a longer gap enforced between games.
Thanks Midwinter.
Again, those are sensible proposals and would represent a big improvement on the current situation.
The Scottish rout is now locked in. Ed Miliband is desperately looking for votes in England wherever he can find them and he is probably being advised that the yoof vote may not turn out. Hence the night with the most toxic Brand of all. Unless they told him he was visiting Jo Brand and something went wrong. I only hope that the video with Brand has an allergy warning attached- this contains nuts.
Conservatives polling at 17% in Scotland compares with 16.7% in 2010.
All we are seeing is what we have known since 1997-the Conservative support is down to its core vote and will change very little over time for the foreseeable future.
What the IPSOS poll is not providing is any evidence for substantial tactical voting.
Ruth Davidson is proving to be a great appointment - rather sooner than I expected. I thought it'd take another GE for the Tories to get back on the front foot - it seems to be accelerating due to SNP bulldozing and chronically weak SLAB.
Cheltenham is one of those Ashcroft polls where there is a huge disparity between Q1` and Q2 and the consistent local election results over the last few years which show Lib Dem support increasing and Conservative support decreasing . The latter should help you get your head around your conundrum .
Why do people answer "Conservative" when asked who they'll vote for then ?
Why do people answer "Conservative to Q1 and "Lib Dem" to Q2 and vote Lib Dem in local elections ? Answer that and make a fortune on betting on constituency polls .
It could be that people are thinking of the Conservative-Lib Dem Coalition, and are just using "Conservative" as shorthand. So when they answer about their own constituency, the thinking becomes a bit clearer, and they say "Lib Dem" instead.
A lot of Conservative posters here on PB also say "Conservative Government" when they really mean "Conservative-Lib Dem Coalition Government". But then, they are trying to confuse people.
It's like the phenomenon of people being asked who they'd vote for in a national election saying 'Don't Know' then being asked about their constituency and coming up with an answer - usually Labour.
Do they think they are being asked who they want to run the local council?
A single solitary orange diamond looking forlorn in an Oadby garden. The LDs once thought that they could take the seat.
One field near the private school voting Conservative.
Quite a bunch of Tory posters in Wardown Crescent, Luton South. But, this will be an easy Labour hold, as the Conservatives aren't putting any effort into winning it.
I counted 18 Tory posters to 8 Labour, in Winchmore Hill, Southgate, which is a surprisingly marginal ward.
I spotted a Labour canvass team in Finchley High Road, so they clearly think they can win there.
There was a spurt of Tory activity in my patch last week (a group came up by train from Lnot to bother IMO. LibDem poster count is 0, though a borough candidate has lots of unbranded posters for himself. Green posters seen 1, UKIP 2.
You really are getting dangerously close to hubris.
He can't help himself. The thought of all those juicy expenses is making him giddy with excitement.
Not to mention another guaranteed 62-month
Lovely jubbly!
I don't think that Nick was noted for living the high life before, so I think unlikely to want to do so now.
Indeed I wish that all parties had candidates with real experience of industry and the world as Nick. He is no wet behind the ears PPE SPAD.
My understanding is that he took quite a pay cut when entering Parliament in 1997. Not sure if he has a family but if he does they certainly weren't evident while I was working with him up in Broxtowe recently. Nor was there much evidence of work being done by ZHC interns. It seemed to be mostly in the hands of unpaid volunteers like me, and of course himself. One reason I would expect him to beat Anna Soubry is precisely the high reputation he enjoyed amongst his former constituents as a hard-working backbench MP.
Of course not all MPs are like that. It's partly because I wish more MPs were that I was prepared to give up two days of my precious time to give him a hand. I am not a Party member and haven't voted Labour since 1997, but will probably do so this time.
[This was a Party Election Broadcast on behalf of CREEP - the Campaign for the Reelection of Palmer.]
Count me in to CREEP. Labour are going to need a few wiser older heads to add a bit of common sense to the parliamentary party.
Comments
I remember, years ago at uni, seeing a guy begging outside a chip shop. About 50 years old, and wearing a filthy threadbare suit. He did okay on the begging, students being a soft touch. I was shocked - innocent that I was - that as soon as he accumulated £1 in change, he'd walk into the chippy, change it for a single coin, and stuff it straight in the fruit machine. Five spins later (usually) and he was back at his pitch trying to scrape together the next pound. It was a rare, rare day when he wasn't there. Terribly sad.
How about 2/1?
A lot of Conservative posters here on PB also say "Conservative Government" when they really mean "Conservative-Lib Dem Coalition Government". But then, they are trying to confuse people.
If the firms don't like it, then Betting Shops can be closed. These days they are populated almost exclusively by hopeless losers and wouldn't be missed.
When they were introduced, they served a useful social purpose and took illegal betting off the street. They have long outlived their usefulness though and serve only to provide lazy bookies with easy money from gaming machines.
(Of course he will, try and stop him).
Cameron will have the edge; being PM he'll be tipped off first by Buck House.
I really dislike the demonisation of people who have different political views as if merely holding them was somehow illegitimate.
There are people who hold views which are beyond the pale - those who believe in using violence for political ends or who believe in terror for terror's sake. They could do with being demonised, if anyone has to be but, strangely, some are more tolerant of them than is consistent with their stated beliefs and then hurl accusations of "fascist" at those who really aren't.
None of the political parties hold the moral high ground just by virtue of what they believe. Or what they claim to believe. Let's judge them by their actions. Those who shout loudest about their political virtue are often those whose actions bear little close scrutiny.
Also - I would never invest in a tobacco company, but I do hold shares in a couple of bookmakers. My conscience is clean.
(This may not be a popular thing to say on this betting website, but I see the legalisation of gambling adverts by the last government as being a rather retrograde step).
As someone currently living abroad and having recently married a non-EU wife, it's something that makes you think about what the priorities should be. If anything the increasing bureaucracy makes me less likely to return in the future (and pay 40% in tax) and I know loads of others in similar situations trying to get spousal visas.
Surely anyone who can earn enough to pay the higher rate of tax should be welcomed, as well as those on recognised career paths or graduate trainee programmes. The problems are immigration of the unskilled while we still have unemployment, and immigration of those who prefer to stay in their own foreign 'community' and make no attempt to adopt British values and attitudes.
Of the outsiders, Sturgeon probably the most value as she is more pro monarchy than Wood or Bennett. She tweets alot too.
I wonder what the BBC's reaction would have been if was revealed that a top Tory was a tax dodger on the front page of the Guardian? Oh wait, I know the answer to this one...3 days of screaming from the roof tops about it.
Wonder what Ed makes of Hodge's tax affairs?
It's not a case of 'common sense'; it can be an addiction, and one that (from what I read ages ago) the betting companies are actively and cynically encouraging.
I believe that working class people are most affected by the downsides of mass immigration; it puts pressure on their wages, and changes the nature of their hometowns, while those who benefit from it live in areas that poor migrants cant afford to move to while reaping the fruits of their labour
Why is it that the three main parties are so in love with progressive taxes but don't consider redressing the balance in other ways?
Those on low wages in poor areas that face competition for their work are often at breaking point anyway in terms of making ends meet and the consequences and decisions that flow from that... then they see their towns change and when they mention it they are derided as this or that "ist" or "ic"
Surely the comfortably off are more well disposed to cope with an influx of poor migrants living in their community, as that community is less crowded and they are also wealthy enough to have the option of moving? I believe the frustrations of people that are thought of as "thick racists" are borne of frustration at the increasing lack of control they have over their lives, worsened by crowded/changing communities and decreasing wages
As I said before in "Mass Immigration is a Stealth Tax on the Working Class" (http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/05/20/mass-migration-is-a-tax-on-working-classes/) economic migration makes the rich richer and poor poorer. One way the balance could be redressed is for new estates and affordable housing only to be built in areas where the top 1% live, the Cotswolds, Surrey, Buckinghamshire for instance. Maybe then the people that live off the migrants labour would be more appreciative of how the other 99% live or maybe they would stop and think about the overall effect on people lives that mass immigration has, rather than seeing it as a balance sheet
However, FOBT seem specifically tailored to target the most vulnerable (just as loan sharks do), and a measure of regulation is called for.
The clarity of your conscience is a personal matter! FWIW I hold shares in a number of defence companies; I sleep just fine.
As an aside, I know a lot of people have criticised the two stage polling question, and have claimed that many respondents think the question refers to local elections. If that were true, then you would see the LibDems rise in question 2 in areas where they have local representation, but no chance of winning the parliamentary constituency.
That does not happen: in LibDem constituencies there is a c. 10% boost in LibDem vote shares on Q2. In non LD constituencies, there is either no benefit or just a minimal (1-2%) one. This would seem to suggest that Q2 is picking up a real shift in how people feel about their local constituency.
Former Met Police assistant commissioner Chris Allison appointed new commissioner at Lbth, along with children's services expert Alan Wood
Lovely jubbly!
SKY: Government is ordered by the Supreme Court to take immediate action over its obligations under European law on air pollution limits
Is there any way we could have the facility to choose between 'oldest comment first' and 'newest comment first', please?
Getting to the oldest comment on a very lively post is a pain and, once there, often means one can never catch up and one misses half the conversation, including critically important contributions.
(Regardless, thanks for the ever fascinating site, OGH. And to PB's contributors, probably the most literate, subtle and well-informed on the electoral scene.)
Clearly those most have to deal with the consequences of mass immigration are most comfortable with it.
Dave will probably know in advance. He will be getting the doctors to induce birth at the most politically expedient time.
(I am of course joking...though?..)
I don't have a single source I can recommend. Isam is probably your man.
There is nothing wrong in principle with the legalisation of gambling adverts, but they should be honest, fair, and correct. They are manifestly not, because they do not make it plain that successful punters will have their accounts closed.
I have taken this up with the Advertising Standards Authority but although they were sympathetic they felt they were stymied by having to deal with individual adverts rather than a matter of principle. The Gambling Commission was less helpful, which rather reinforced my impression that it is in the industry's pocket.
Occasionally I have wondered whether the laws on cartels might be brought to bear on them. All major bookies block successful punters, so they are effectively operating a cartel. I do not know enough about the relevant law however and it would obviously be a tricky line to pursue.
Maybe I might devote a little more time and effort to this subject after the election. There aren't many votes in it, so I wouldn't expect much support from any Party, but UKIP's eminently sensible suggestion would be a nice start.
If there is a recession, or perhaps more accurately one of the usual downturns in the business cycle, then the usual action would be to ease monetary strictness and to allow the cyclical deficit to increase. You might expect a reduction of taxation.
In a recession you would expect the deficit to grow - the cyclical defict, and to fall in a period of growth. We currently need to cut spending and have relatively high taxes because of the massive structural deficit inherited from Labour.
Indeed I wish that all parties had candidates with real experience of industry and the world as Nick. He is no wet behind the ears PPE SPAD.
I think Ukips vote is highest in places next door to where it has slready happened, and where it has Ukip win ankngst those who are stuck - see Dagdnham and Rainham for instance
We can be likewise pretty sure that the UKKKIPer who has "a problem with negroes" doesn't know any black people, and that the UKIPper who thought gay marriage caused floods didn't know any gay people.
Proportionately, more UKIP MEPs have been imprisoned than Romanian immigrants to the UK. My worst nightmare would be if a family of UKIPpers moved in next door.
Note to self: one more place not to buy eggs!
Lib Dems 5% (-1) Greens 2% (-2)
Many people in Thanet/Thurrock will have moved away from London or still work in London so probably have a fair understanding of overseas immigration and how it affects jobs/services. If UKIP were making huge strides in The Western Isles, Cumbria or Witney the point might stand up better to scrutiny.
Ipsos MORI poll for STV News suggests the #SNP could win all 59 Scottish seats in the general election #GE2015
18 retweets 5 favorites
Reply Retweeted18 Favorite5
More
Quite possibly.
SNP 54% (+2) Lab 20% (-4) Con 17% (+5) Lib Dems 5% (-1) Greens 2% (-2)
http://news.stv.tv/scotland-decides/318815-stvipsos-mori-poll-snp-set-to-win-all-scots-seats-at-general-election/
May I direct you to an interesting piece of research that found voters of white British heritage in London vote UKIP at exactly the same rates to the rest of the UK?
http://quarterly.demos.co.uk/article/issue-5/ukip-in-london/
This shows the 'those most familiar with immigration are most comfortable with it' myth is indeed a myth.
Could it be Miliband's nocturnal rendezvous with Russell Brand has failed to make him alluring to Scottish voters?
The SNP are proving how selling ideas (however much you may disagree with those ideas) can electorally work. Blair did it as well. Cameron and Miliband are not, I think for different reasons.
But it is hard (and may even be impossible in some cases), so the parties just scratch around for policies that will attract certain segments of voters. It's cr@p.
Survation. @Survation 32m32 minutes ago
Media Alert, Financial Markets. @damiansurvation this morning on the potential for UKIP seats, share and "Brexit": http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000375243 …
Survation. @Survation 14m14 minutes ago
"Only" is CNBC's word not mine. 5-10 seats would be impressive under FPTP. Keep in mind the number of SNP seats in 2010.
eg. 2007/08 £157,329.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8044207.stm?table=total&order=asc#expensestable
If UKIP score good second places in the two Sunlun seats, that could be a pointer to closer than expected results in Hartlepool and South Shields.
Just tried to get on Con to come 2nd in Ayr carrick & cumnock @ 5.66/1
Spreadex rejected my trade, then worsened their odds. Now 4/1.
Seems a bit crappy of them, tbh.
More on the Labour Party candidate arrested for electoral fraud in Blackburn with Darwen - http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/blackburn/12919255.Blackburn_Labour_council_election_candidate_arrested____on_suspicion_of_electoral_fraud_and_integrity_issues___/ …
Of course not all MPs are like that. It's partly because I wish more MPs were that I was prepared to give up two days of my precious time to give him a hand. I am not a Party member and haven't voted Labour since 1997, but will probably do so this time.
[This was a Party Election Broadcast on behalf of CREEP - the Campaign for the Reelection of Palmer.]
Blair wouldn't have done that, and neither would Brown.
What we might see is a 'grand confidence and supply', but even that is highly unlikely. More likely would be an informal arrangement where one of the two big parties decided to abstain on a confidence vote in order temporarily to keep the other in as a minority government. They would do this if they thought it was better, from a purely party-political viewpoint, to let things fester for a bit, heaping unpopularity on the poor saps trying to hold things together. They might also do this if they thought they needed more time themselves before provoking an election - for example, because funds were short or if they wanted to change leader first.
But a grand coalition is for the birds.
I prefer the idea of restricting licences and number of machines in shops in conjunction with a restriction to perhaps 15 pounds a spin at roulette, with a longer gap enforced between games.
On these figures, it's hard to identify a single Scottish Labour seat that would be held.
One either has the personal cojones to tackle it head on or you don't. EdM doesn't. He can be all brave and radical in theory - but not when it comes to hands-on.
Going to Scotland and meeting SLABers isn't doing anything. Ditto meeting Russell Brand et al.
Again, those are sensible proposals and would represent a big improvement on the current situation.
All we are seeing is what we have known since 1997-the Conservative support is down to its core vote and will change very little over time for the foreseeable future.
What the IPSOS poll is not providing is any evidence for substantial tactical voting.
Do they think they are being asked who they want to run the local council?