Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » John Curtice on the exit poll

1356

Comments

  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    edited May 2015

    Pulpstar said:

    On balance, I much prefer New Zealand to Australia. I'm afraid I'd also like to see the Windies win this test.

    137-4 represents a poor bowling effort imo.

    Surely, it's more that the English batting was abysmal. Cricket needs the West Indies to win again. We need their bowlers to be ferocious, their batsmen to build winning innings. It will help our game immensely. And in cricket, cricket is what matters most.
    When were the West Indies actually decent? 20 years ago? They've been second rate for a long, long time.

    Still beating England though...
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    Harsh.

    No TND tweets... hurrumph.


    Chris Deerin retweeted
    Elizabeth Windsor‏@Queen_UK·3 hrs3 hours ago
    Take tomorrow off, people. You work hard enough. This one's on one. Your Queen loves you. Not you Miliband.
  • PolruanPolruan Posts: 2,083
    Evening all

    Loosely on topic, a question for those more expert than me (all of you, potentially) about the order of declaration and how it interacts with target seat lists.

    As we see above, the exit polls are going to tell us that Lab/Con are roughly tied - despite our more excitable brethren comparing EdHenge to the Sheffield moment we can safely assuming that Ed's astounding erection will have more effect on their solitary sex lives than the consciousness of the electorate. Might be Con +3, might be Lab +1, but basically dead heat. And nobody really knows how that plays out in 4-party politics (5 if you include the LDs out of pity) so there won't be a seat forecast worth much.

    So what happens to the betting markets between 11pm and 3am depends a lot on the order of declaration. If, let's say, Labour targets between 80 and 100 go red then it's going to take some serious balls to hold onto a big Conservative largest party position. If the blues defend a top 10 target or even nick one of their targets from Labour, then EICIPM isn't staying favourite for long... and so on.

    Where you could see some real action is in the Labour majority market. Of course nobody thinks it'll happen - but if there's early data that makes it look like it actually could, then the 110 on Betfair might be 25, or 10 pretty quickly. IIRC you could get about 25 on Ken when the polls closed in London, and after 80pc of declarations the price came in to 2 or 3. That was an over-reaction, because although it was clearly closer than the market was predicting, you could analyse the undeclared and conclude that Boris was safe.

    But what it seems to show is that a) the market easily writes off Labour outsiders to excessively long odds and b) it's prone to panic and bring them back in too short because plenty of players don't have a good enough grasp of the meaning of the data that becomes available during the declaration process to remain confident in their positions.

    Could this happen again? Has anyone spent one of their many bored moments lining up target seats against declaration times and seeing if there's a chronological bias towards one party's key targets/defences? (And, I'm tempted to add, anyone want to take on any of my position on a Labour majority...?)
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395

    kle4 said:

    Dair said:

    They really, really don't get it about a Second Referendum on this Debate and in their campaigns.

    Do they block out the polls mentally? Rely on the Daily Records Comfort Reporting of questions about another Referendum?

    It's actually getting moronic. They are gifting votes to the SNP and it can only be based on none of the other parties have a clue about Scotland. It's also insulting to the electorate to think they can't understand how big a Baseball Bat not ruling out another Referendum is.

    Can anyone pinpoint the first really significant declaration we will be getting, a tight marginal or something?
    The first Scottish one from anywhere will be pretty interesting.
    I am hoping it will be Kirkcaldy but it will probably be one of the West Central Belt seats
    I cant remember who was first to call last time.
    Kirkcaldy was first Scottish seat to be called in 2010.
    Kingswood was first marginal to be called.
    Kirkcaldy was the sixth Scottish seat to be declared in 2010. Rutherglen was the first.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415

    Pulpstar said:

    On balance, I much prefer New Zealand to Australia. I'm afraid I'd also like to see the Windies win this test.

    137-4 represents a poor bowling effort imo.

    Surely, it's more that the English batting was abysmal. Cricket needs the West Indies to win again. We need their bowlers to be ferocious, their batsmen to build winning innings. It will help our game immensely. And in cricket, cricket is what matters most.
    257 & 123

    West Indies 189

    Normally implies that the 192 4th innings total is very defendable as the previous scores have been low due to bowler friendly pitches and whatnot
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    Pulpstar said:

    Dair said:

    On balance, I much prefer New Zealand to Australia. I'm afraid I'd also like to see the Windies win this test.

    England have as much chance of winning this test as David Cameron does of winning the election.
    192 should be well defendable with the 1,2,3 innings scores.

    Same as Ed getting to his 270 or so winning post is my read ^^;
    144/4
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    Dair said:

    Pulpstar said:

    On balance, I much prefer New Zealand to Australia. I'm afraid I'd also like to see the Windies win this test.

    137-4 represents a poor bowling effort imo.

    Surely, it's more that the English batting was abysmal. Cricket needs the West Indies to win again. We need their bowlers to be ferocious, their batsmen to build winning innings. It will help our game immensely. And in cricket, cricket is what matters most.
    When were the West Indies actually decent? 20 years ago? They've been second rate for a long, long time.

    Still beating England though...
    England have at least had some peaks since then. I don't get mad at them no matter how poorly they do, as I grew up watching them in the 90s, so it's just a return to that form which, eventually, will come to an end.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited May 2015
    Polruan said:

    Evening all

    Loosely on topic, a question for those more expert than me (all of you, potentially) about the order of declaration and how it interacts with target seat lists.

    As we see above, the exit polls are going to tell us that Lab/Con are roughly tied - despite our more excitable brethren comparing EdHenge to the Sheffield moment we can safely assuming that Ed's astounding erection will have more effect on their solitary sex lives than the consciousness of the electorate. Might be Con +3, might be Lab +1, but basically dead heat. And nobody really knows how that plays out in 4-party politics (5 if you include the LDs out of pity) so there won't be a seat forecast worth much.

    So what happens to the betting markets between 11pm and 3am depends a lot on the order of declaration. If, let's say, Labour targets between 80 and 100 go red then it's going to take some serious balls to hold onto a big Conservative largest party position. If the blues defend a top 10 target or even nick one of their targets from Labour, then EICIPM isn't staying favourite for long... and so on.

    Where you could see some real action is in the Labour majority market. Of course nobody thinks it'll happen - but if there's early data that makes it look like it actually could, then the 110 on Betfair might be 25, or 10 pretty quickly. IIRC you could get about 25 on Ken when the polls closed in London, and after 80pc of declarations the price came in to 2 or 3. That was an over-reaction, because although it was clearly closer than the market was predicting, you could analyse the undeclared and conclude that Boris was safe.

    But what it seems to show is that a) the market easily writes off Labour outsiders to excessively long odds and b) it's prone to panic and bring them back in too short because plenty of players don't have a good enough grasp of the meaning of the data that becomes available during the declaration process to remain confident in their positions.

    Could this happen again? Has anyone spent one of their many bored moments lining up target seats against declaration times and seeing if there's a chronological bias towards one party's key targets/defences? (And, I'm tempted to add, anyone want to take on any of my position on a Labour majority...?)

    2010 declarations and running totals:
    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1f6PlK5ig7p1I9aqfMzV6AMBKKX8TPvEuqoPakoX2W_M/edit

    2015 targets:
    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1iE8RU4rVmDmtRhjo1Ws3Om3IjrmgUVSbcW-tO7cY-RE/edit#gid=0
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,978
    From Sam Coates of the Times

    We find some Labour folk - even frontbenchers - harbour doubts about the legitimacy of coming 2nd in seats & votes but going into No10

    There are some Labour MPs who think Ed M can find any way at all of being PM, that's fine. It wd be his duty / there r European precedents

    Others think political cost of SNP backing wd be so high - both in England and Scotland - that Ed M shouldn't do it if too far behind Tories
  • ArtistArtist Posts: 1,893
    Scott_P said:

    @SamCoatesTimes: So in tomorrow's Times, we speak to a range of Labour MPs about the prospect of only being able to get EM into No10 with SNP MPs...

    @SamCoatesTimes: We find some Labour folk - even frontbenchers - harbour doubts about the legitimacy of coming 2nd in seats & votes but going into No10

    I think there have been some signs in the last week, including Miliband comments on the Question Time show that Labour could refuse to go into power with the SNP in favour of a second election.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Dave can't win here...

    @janemerrick23: Delia Smith backing Labour feels like bigger deal than Coogan. Probably bcos she has broader Middle England appeal + not a Leveson obsessive
  • john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    @SouthamObserver

    'And in cricket, cricket is what matters most.'

    What an incredible revelation.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736

    I've said Kippers are a bunch of Wayne Kerrs

    https://twitter.com/StigAbell/status/594967764068085760

    I remember when Derbyshire fast bowler Alan Ward got the Cricket announcer Major Carr to announce that the aforesaid Wayne Kerr was to go to the Yorkshire dressing room in Queens Park.

    Much to the amusement of the players balcony the announcement was made in typical pompous tones
  • PolruanPolruan Posts: 2,083
    @AndyJS

    Thanks for those. Haven't quite worked out how best to stick the data together but I'll share anything interesting I find.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,328
    Coming to this a bit late but segregation at a Labour party political meeting is an utter disgrace and one reason (more important in my mind than bits of stone) why Labour are unfit to be the government.

    No party which is willing to abandon its alleged principles of equality for all before the law in pursuit of votes from the most reactionary and illiberal of voters is fit to be in government in my view.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    kle4 said:

    Dair said:

    Pulpstar said:

    On balance, I much prefer New Zealand to Australia. I'm afraid I'd also like to see the Windies win this test.

    137-4 represents a poor bowling effort imo.

    Surely, it's more that the English batting was abysmal. Cricket needs the West Indies to win again. We need their bowlers to be ferocious, their batsmen to build winning innings. It will help our game immensely. And in cricket, cricket is what matters most.
    When were the West Indies actually decent? 20 years ago? They've been second rate for a long, long time.

    Still beating England though...
    England have at least had some peaks since then. I don't get mad at them no matter how poorly they do, as I grew up watching them in the 90s, so it's just a return to that form which, eventually, will come to an end.
    I lived in Australia as an English "pome" schoolboy in the 90s. The Ashes were always a humiliation.

    For the Windies I think you need to go back to the 80s as to when they were last at their prime.
  • Peter Kellner on 5Live says Lib Dems may hold 3 seats in Scotland...Tories in 1% lead for second day in a row
  • Flightpath1Flightpath1 Posts: 207

    kle4 said:

    Dair said:

    Pulpstar said:

    On balance, I much prefer New Zealand to Australia. I'm afraid I'd also like to see the Windies win this test.

    137-4 represents a poor bowling effort imo.

    Surely, it's more that the English batting was abysmal. Cricket needs the West Indies to win again. We need their bowlers to be ferocious, their batsmen to build winning innings. It will help our game immensely. And in cricket, cricket is what matters most.
    When were the West Indies actually decent? 20 years ago? They've been second rate for a long, long time.

    Still beating England though...
    England have at least had some peaks since then. I don't get mad at them no matter how poorly they do, as I grew up watching them in the 90s, so it's just a return to that form which, eventually, will come to an end.
    I lived in Australia as an English "pome" schoolboy in the 90s. The Ashes were always a humiliation.

    For the Windies I think you need to go back to the 80s as to when they were last at their prime.
    NZ beat Australia in the delayed ANZAC Day Test (RL).
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    kle4 said:

    Dair said:

    Pulpstar said:

    On balance, I much prefer New Zealand to Australia. I'm afraid I'd also like to see the Windies win this test.

    137-4 represents a poor bowling effort imo.

    Surely, it's more that the English batting was abysmal. Cricket needs the West Indies to win again. We need their bowlers to be ferocious, their batsmen to build winning innings. It will help our game immensely. And in cricket, cricket is what matters most.
    When were the West Indies actually decent? 20 years ago? They've been second rate for a long, long time.

    Still beating England though...
    England have at least had some peaks since then. I don't get mad at them no matter how poorly they do, as I grew up watching them in the 90s, so it's just a return to that form which, eventually, will come to an end.
    Yes, absolutely, England and Wales have had some decent turns over that period. The West Indies just haven't. They're currently around the level of Bangladesh without the good 1 day performances. I wonder if it's time for the Windies to dissolve into nations and gain both some national pride and get a decent inter island competition (assuming that doesnt exist already).
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    The LDs holding 3 seats in Scotland? Really? I'll have to see it with my own eyes.
  • Chris123Chris123 Posts: 174
    Cyclefree said:

    Coming to this a bit late but segregation at a Labour party political meeting is an utter disgrace and one reason (more important in my mind than bits of stone) why Labour are unfit to be the government.

    No party which is willing to abandon its alleged principles of equality for all before the law in pursuit of votes from the most reactionary and illiberal of voters is fit to be in government in my view.

    Don't quite see the connection between equality for all before the law and segregated seats. Are you saying separate schools for boys and girls are against the principle of equality? I'm a libertarian and my take is that people should do as they wish. If one person was forced to sit somewhere they did not want to be, there would be grounds for discussion. But if there is no "victim," there is no case.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,035
    164/4 - will we get a result before the YouGov?
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,207

    True though

    I can see why the Tories are throwing stones over the idea of putting manifesto pledges on display, given the many they haven't kept

    Shall we talk about Labours' record on manifesto pledges..........
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    http://electionforecast.co.uk/

    Lab within 7 seats of most seats or 4 more gains from Con

    Current price 6.0

    Why?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,978

    http://electionforecast.co.uk/

    Lab within 7 seats of most seats or 4 more gains from Con

    Current price 6.0

    Why?

    Because Ed is Crap.

    I believe it has been mentioned/factored in.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,657
    Sandpit said:

    164/4 - will we get a result before the YouGov?

    Peter Kellner on 5 live indicating second night of 1% conservative lead
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736

    http://electionforecast.co.uk/

    Lab within 7 seats of most seats or 4 more gains from Con

    Current price 6.0

    Why?

    Back in to 5.5 but still

    Why?
  • steve_garnersteve_garner Posts: 1,019

    http://electionforecast.co.uk/

    Lab within 7 seats of most seats or 4 more gains from Con

    Current price 6.0

    Why?

    Because it's not going to happen.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,978
    Front page of the Sun says YouGov is Con 34 Lab 33

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CEHGBjrWAAIUNNo.jpg
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736

    http://electionforecast.co.uk/

    Lab within 7 seats of most seats or 4 more gains from Con

    Current price 6.0

    Why?

    Because it's not going to happen.
    OK I see not worth a bet then

    just wondered
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    Are people thinking that Labour might win Glasgow North East?

    I'm wondering if that Ashcroft poll showing a Labour lead was a rogue, because I THINK that seat voted very heavily "Yes" (I think it roughly corresponds with Glasgow Springburh and Glasgow Provan, which both went 57% Yes).
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,533
    edited May 2015

    Front page of the Sun says YouGov is Con 34 Lab 33

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CEHGBjrWAAIUNNo.jpg

    Have the papers given up on the fact we are only a few days away from a GE? The most important story in the whole world, druggie quits Corrie. Even the Mirror have failed on a surprising number of occasions to get the defacto Tory are baby eating scum as their lead story.
  • Eh_ehm_a_ehEh_ehm_a_eh Posts: 552
    AndyJS said:

    kle4 said:

    Dair said:

    They really, really don't get it about a Second Referendum on this Debate and in their campaigns.

    Do they block out the polls mentally? Rely on the Daily Records Comfort Reporting of questions about another Referendum?

    It's actually getting moronic. They are gifting votes to the SNP and it can only be based on none of the other parties have a clue about Scotland. It's also insulting to the electorate to think they can't understand how big a Baseball Bat not ruling out another Referendum is.

    Can anyone pinpoint the first really significant declaration we will be getting, a tight marginal or something?
    The first Scottish one from anywhere will be pretty interesting.
    I am hoping it will be Kirkcaldy but it will probably be one of the West Central Belt seats
    I cant remember who was first to call last time.
    Kirkcaldy was first Scottish seat to be called in 2010.
    Kingswood was first marginal to be called.
    Kirkcaldy was the sixth Scottish seat to be declared in 2010. Rutherglen was the first.
    I bow to your encyclopedia.

  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699
    O/T
    Labour in Hornsey/Wood Green are going to have to issue a retraction and face possible legal action following the issue of a leaflet claiming that Lynne Featherstone was a minister at the Home Office when the Go Home vans were sent out .
    A little bit of checking would have told them that she was actually at the DFID at the time .
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    kle4 said:

    john_zims said:

    @Scott_P

    'Two nuggets from Indy's @DavidAxelrod interview: 1. Air wars win elections not ground wars, 2. He's going back to Chicago before Thursday.'

    IOS will be gutted after telling us for the past two years about Labour's superior ground war.

    I'd have thought air wars were more significant in the States when you can bombard the populace with endless campaign ads.
    What is new here in Britain is the various videos the parties have placed on Youtube, unrestricted by requirements of balance or even truthfulness. The question is whether any voters ever get to see them, presumably after being prompted by Twitter or Facebook. I'm no expert but my impression is, as people used to say during the space race, that the Tories' American political consultants have done a better job than Labour's American political consultants.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    User Actions
    Follow

    Tweets MPs Delete
    @deletedbyMPs
    DT @JackDromeyMP: RT @mariamkhan29: This is #LabourTogether - No question the rally was segregate... http://pltw.ps/_ko4v9DK
  • PolruanPolruan Posts: 2,083
    Cyclefree said:

    Coming to this a bit late but segregation at a Labour party political meeting is an utter disgrace and one reason (more important in my mind than bits of stone) why Labour are unfit to be the government.

    No party which is willing to abandon its alleged principles of equality for all before the law in pursuit of votes from the most reactionary and illiberal of voters is fit to be in government in my view.

    As far as I can see, the people present are essentially part of a club, in which they are free to participate or not. The rules of that club appear to include segregated seating. Labour are trying to reach out to all of the electorate, including members of that club, and unless the rules of that club are illegal then it could be considered a bit rude to treat its members as pariahs to be excluded from the political debate (well, unless they're also SNP members).

    Think of the slippery slope argument... if we object to this, then cabinet ministers could start insisting on bringing female colleagues to back-channel policy negotiations in all-male private members clubs.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736

    http://electionforecast.co.uk/

    Lab within 7 seats of most seats or 4 more gains from Con

    Current price 6.0

    Why?

    Because Ed is Crap.

    I believe it has been mentioned/factored in.
    Why is EICIPM odds on?
  • DadgeDadge Posts: 2,052

    From Sam Coates of the Times

    We find some Labour folk - even frontbenchers - harbour doubts about the legitimacy of coming 2nd in seats & votes but going into No10

    There are some Labour MPs who think Ed M can find any way at all of being PM, that's fine. It wd be his duty / there r European precedents

    Others think political cost of SNP backing wd be so high - both in England and Scotland - that Ed M shouldn't do it if too far behind Tories

    Tory spin alert. If Tories stay in power, they'll have to deal with SNP as well.
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    edited May 2015
    Danny565 said:

    Are people thinking that Labour might win Glasgow North East?

    I'm wondering if that Ashcroft poll showing a Labour lead was a rogue, because I THINK that seat voted very heavily "Yes" (I think it roughly corresponds with Glasgow Springburh and Glasgow Provan, which both went 57% Yes).

    Yes, the idea Willie Bain will be an MP on May 8th is pretty bizarre.

    If for no other reason than it's Willie Bain.
  • steve_garnersteve_garner Posts: 1,019

    http://electionforecast.co.uk/

    Lab within 7 seats of most seats or 4 more gains from Con

    Current price 6.0

    Why?

    Because it's not going to happen.
    OK I see not worth a bet then

    just wondered
    No point losing money.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,978

    http://electionforecast.co.uk/

    Lab within 7 seats of most seats or 4 more gains from Con

    Current price 6.0

    Why?

    Because Ed is Crap.

    I believe it has been mentioned/factored in.
    Why is EICIPM odds on?
    Because the electoral system favours Labour over the Tories.

    I might do another thread on electoral reform to educate/remind PBers.
  • Chris123Chris123 Posts: 174
    edited May 2015
    Let's get real here. In my opinion, Libya and Syria were an utter disgrace. The problems in North Africa were greatly magnified when a disparate group of monarchists, pseudo-(Facebook) revolutionaries, former Gaddafi loyalists and Islamic fundamentalists were bombed to power by Cameron, Sarkozy and Obama on manufactured and construed grounds. Of course, this "coalition" was not tenable and the effects of this ill-conceived enterprise linger till today. Ironically, it was this "humanitarian" intervention that unleashed a real humanitarian disaster. Of course, Miliband can't capitalize on this because he was all in. But at least, he did put an end to Cameron's attempt to create another disaster in Syria although his support for unilateral action outside the framework of the UN is highly problematic.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    http://electionforecast.co.uk/

    Lab within 7 seats of most seats or 4 more gains from Con

    Current price 6.0

    Why?

    Because it's not going to happen.
    OK I see not worth a bet then

    just wondered
    Seems a very reasonable bet to me. The true odds can be nothing like 5/1 with most of the polls showing the two main parties neck and neck.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    Chris123 said:

    But at least, he did put an end to Cameron's attempt to move on to another disaster in Syria

    Unintentionally
  • PolruanPolruan Posts: 2,083
    Dadge said:

    From Sam Coates of the Times

    We find some Labour folk - even frontbenchers - harbour doubts about the legitimacy of coming 2nd in seats & votes but going into No10

    There are some Labour MPs who think Ed M can find any way at all of being PM, that's fine. It wd be his duty / there r European precedents

    Others think political cost of SNP backing wd be so high - both in England and Scotland - that Ed M shouldn't do it if too far behind Tories

    Tory spin alert. If Tories stay in power, they'll have to deal with SNP as well.
    Yeah, but when Ed speaks to the SNP on a bill-by-bill basis it's a constitutional outrage; it's only when a Tory minority government negotiates with other parties in the house in order to pursue a legislative programme that it's the normal operation of the British constitution. It's a tricky distinction to pin down, a little like some irregular verbs, but it's basically because the Tories have more votes, or more seats, or failing both of those, more newspapers.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    edited May 2015
    BlokeNHSF...UP UKIP ‏@Bnhsfup 30s30 seconds ago
    London Eye transformed into pie chart to reflect General Election chatter on Facebook http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/general-election-2015-london-eye-transformed-into-glowing-political-pie-chart-10220267.html

    And guess who's in the lead by quite a margin?
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    kle4 said:

    Unintentionally

    Diane Abbott told him which way to vote.

    Mind you, good practise for Nicola...
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    Wow

    BBC Scotland clips of the debate, a Willie Rennie statement cut into appluase from a different section of the show which prefaced a Nicola statement (IIRC it was applause for Nicola). BBC cut it as applause for the non-entity who shouldn't have been there.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,207
    SeanT said:

    SeanT said:

    Freggles said:

    What's frustrating is that if it weren't for the largely unforeseen SNP surge (hat tip to Antifrank and others) we would be headed for a small Labour majority, or at worst a Lab-Lib coalition.The wisdom of a lot of commentators who have said Ed can't win would be seriously called into question. But the fact is in the fight against the Tories he's doing much better than they all said.

    "Largely unforeseen"?

    *cough*

    As I said on this site, four days BEFORE the indyref - "following a narrow NO vote the SNP will benefit from a huge sympathy vote at the next GE, as patriotic Scots voters say a guilty sorry for voting NO"

    It was quite foreseeable. I foresaw it. Apparently DavidL did, too.
    You also foresaw a Yes win.
    and a No win and a Yes win and a No win ........................
    Greek GDP, Mark, Greek GDP.

    You forgot Mark assuring us there would be no recession.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,533
    edited May 2015
    Polruan said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Coming to this a bit late but segregation at a Labour party political meeting is an utter disgrace and one reason (more important in my mind than bits of stone) why Labour are unfit to be the government.

    No party which is willing to abandon its alleged principles of equality for all before the law in pursuit of votes from the most reactionary and illiberal of voters is fit to be in government in my view.

    As far as I can see, the people present are essentially part of a club, in which they are free to participate or not. The rules of that club appear to include segregated seating. Labour are trying to reach out to all of the electorate, including members of that club, and unless the rules of that club are illegal then it could be considered a bit rude to treat its members as pariahs to be excluded from the political debate (well, unless they're also SNP members).

    Think of the slippery slope argument... if we object to this, then cabinet ministers could start insisting on bringing female colleagues to back-channel policy negotiations in all-male private members clubs.
    LOL...you keep telling yourself that.

    You realise that for instance Harman has called for bans on private clubs that operate sex discrimination and refuse to attend events run by them. But the clubs she was targettng, there were no votes in it.

    You can't have it both ways. You can't be a party that screams from the rooftops about sexuality equality and talk about banning clubs that have sexist club rules, and then when the GE comes be happy to hold rallies and turn a blind eye to where it takes place to get the votes, and then go yeah but no its different....it would be rude to point out they are operating things like something from the last century.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,978
    Fewer than 100,000 votes in a handful of marginal constituencies - mostly currently held by the Liberal Democrats - are the key to a Conservative victory in this week’s election, David Cameron's advisers believe.

    The Conservatives have a list of 23 target seats, disclosed for the first time, which strategists are focusing their efforts on in the final days before the vote.

    The list includes the Liberal Democrat seats of Eastbourne, Bath, Chippenham and Cheadle. Vince Cable's Twickenham constituency and Ed Davey's Kingston and Surbiton seat are also on the internal Tory hit list.

    Lib Dem sources have conceded that the party’s support of a mansion tax on expensive properties is reducing support in affluent London suburbs - and Mr Clegg is expected to campaign in these areas today in a bid to avert the "decapitation" of some of the party's most high-profile figures.

    Just one Labour seat - Halifax - is required as a Conservative "gain" on election night although the plan requires Mr Cameron to hold current Tory constituencies amid growing Labour optimism that they will drive the governing party out in some areas.

    http://bit.ly/1zq5AAp
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Five down, 4 runs needed. Hmmm ...
  • BlueberryBlueberry Posts: 408

    who has been where today on labourdoorstp, updated version

    Balls: Pudsey
    Reeves: Pudsey
    Burnham: Great Yarmouth, Ipswich,
    Harriet: Stevenage
    Umunna: Croydon Central
    Khan along with BAME Labour: Harrow East, Ealing Central, Hampstead
    Twigg: Cannock Chase
    Perkins (Chesterfield): Stroud, Kingswood
    Abbott: Harrow East, Hamsptead, Ealing Central
    Lammy: Enfield Southgate, Edmonton
    Sheerman: Dewsbury
    Malthotra (Feltham): Ealing Central
    Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East): Gloucester
    John Cryer: Ilford North
    Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green): Hampstead
    Caerphilly MP and AM: Vale of Glamorgan
    Dromey: Halesowen
    Darling: Newton Mearns (wherever it is)
    Creasy: Enfield North

    Justine Miliband: Thurrock, Ilford North, Finchley, Ealing Central

    Jack McConnell: Cumbernauld & Co, Stirling, Fife (a few days ago they dragged out even Helen Liddell)

    John Middleton from Emmerdale: Pudsey

    General Secretary: Brentford

    Newham CLPs: Ilford North
    Leicester University Labour Club: Northampton North
    Unison GenSec: Cardiff Central

    Amazed so many are in Hampstead. Suggests they're seriously on the back foot?
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,387
    Sun Politics @SunPolitics · now
    YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Tories have a one-point lead: CON 34%, LAB 33%, LD 9%, UKIP 12%, GRN 5%
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @kevinleebennett: #EdStone creator revealed! http://t.co/pinKuZgehd
  • PaulMPaulM Posts: 613
    hunchman said:

    PaulM said:

    hunchman said:

    PaulM said:

    AndyJS said:

    Apparently the Tories think they have a chance of winning three seats in Scotland compared to zero for Labour. Not sure where the third one of those is going to come from...

    Presume the three would be Dumfrieshire, Berwickshire, and West Aberdeenshire
    DCT and WAK are nailed on snp gains. Its RBS or bust now.

    If it's nailed on you should jump on the 1/2 being offered by Hills on SNP winning DCT. They are 1/7 for WAK but given Ruth Davidson was up there last week maybe the Tories are seeing something else and 11/2 Tory win is the value bet.
    Well it's not as though there are a lot of target seats for her to visit is it? ! DCT labour voters rowing in behind the snp. That's clear from the ashcroft polls.
    Haha true enough. Maybe 1/2 SNP is the bet to take
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,978
    YouGov

    CON - 34% (-)
    LAB - 33% (-)
    UKIP - 12% (-1)
    LDEM - 9% (+1)
    GRN - 5% (-)
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @GrahamEardley: @BBCWestminHour panel discuss if the #EdStone is the Gillian Duffy moment of the #GE2015 campaign & what Lab donors will think of it?
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    Early and mid 90's English cricket returns,God help us when jimmy Anderson retires,our bowling looks ordinary.
  • oldpoliticsoldpolitics Posts: 455
    Scott_P said:

    @GrahamEardley: @BBCWestminHour panel discuss if the #EdStone is the Gillian Duffy moment of the #GE2015 campaign & what Lab donors will think of it?

    What's the relevance at this stage of what Labour donors think of it? We're past the point where marginal extra funds raised can be usefully deployed in this campaign...
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,035
    GIN1138 said:

    Sun Politics @SunPolitics · now
    YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Tories have a one-point lead: CON 34%, LAB 33%, LD 9%, UKIP 12%, GRN 5%

    YouGov beats the Windies by one minute!
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    famous win in the dusk for WI.
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    Since re-weighting, Labour hadn't been as low as 33 until last night.

    Two 33's is the worst since early March, when the Tories had 2-4 point leads.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    Blueberry said:

    who has been where today on labourdoorstp, updated version

    Balls: Pudsey
    Reeves: Pudsey
    Burnham: Great Yarmouth, Ipswich,
    Harriet: Stevenage
    Umunna: Croydon Central
    Khan along with BAME Labour: Harrow East, Ealing Central, Hampstead
    Twigg: Cannock Chase
    Perkins (Chesterfield): Stroud, Kingswood
    Abbott: Harrow East, Hamsptead, Ealing Central
    Lammy: Enfield Southgate, Edmonton
    Sheerman: Dewsbury
    Malthotra (Feltham): Ealing Central
    Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East): Gloucester
    John Cryer: Ilford North
    Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green): Hampstead
    Caerphilly MP and AM: Vale of Glamorgan
    Dromey: Halesowen
    Darling: Newton Mearns (wherever it is)
    Creasy: Enfield North

    Justine Miliband: Thurrock, Ilford North, Finchley, Ealing Central

    Jack McConnell: Cumbernauld & Co, Stirling, Fife (a few days ago they dragged out even Helen Liddell)

    John Middleton from Emmerdale: Pudsey

    General Secretary: Brentford

    Newham CLPs: Ilford North
    Leicester University Labour Club: Northampton North
    Unison GenSec: Cardiff Central

    Amazed so many are in Hampstead. Suggests they're seriously on the back foot?
    Surely not - is it just easy to get to or en route to several other places?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Shame that there's only three Tests, I hate 1-1 draws in a Test series.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591

    YouGov

    CON - 34% (-)
    LAB - 33% (-)
    UKIP - 12% (-1)
    LDEM - 9% (+1)
    GRN - 5% (-)

    A trend develops!
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @MattChorley: Not saying #edstone backfired but Tory fundraising emails have the subject "An 8ft-tall stone tablet?!" And "We're not making this up"
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,723
    edited May 2015
    Maybe it was the YouGov that moved Con Most Seats tonight?

    Everyone says YouGov has been static but Gadfly's graph shows Con position has improved with YouGov over the last few days.

    I know some say the YouGov "base position" is wrong but the movement is in Con direction irrespective of the base.
  • PurseybearPurseybear Posts: 766

    Shame that there's only three Tests, I hate 1-1 draws in a Test series.

    SIgn of the week ahead?
  • PurseybearPurseybear Posts: 766
    MikeL said:

    Maybe it was the YouGov that moved Con Most Seats tonight?

    Everyone says YouGov has been static but Gadfly's graph shows Con position has improved with YouGov over the last few days.

    I know some say the YouGov "base position" is wrong but the movement is in Con direction irrespective of the base.

    I wonder if something else is afoot in polls tomorrow?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,035

    Scott_P said:

    @GrahamEardley: @BBCWestminHour panel discuss if the #EdStone is the Gillian Duffy moment of the #GE2015 campaign & what Lab donors will think of it?

    What's the relevance at this stage of what Labour donors think of it? We're past the point where marginal extra funds raised can be usefully deployed in this campaign...
    Marginal for this election, no. But if there's another election soon, would you donate knowing that instead of leaflets and posters, your money was going to be spent on the leader's own headstone?
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,569
    I've spent 5 hours on the phone today, churning through the remaining people who are (a) on the phone and (b) canvassed as even slightly undecided. What really struck me is that conversations were just like the ones the previous month. Nobody mentioned benefits, or Scotland, or Ed's stone, or Cameron's football team(s) - it nearly always came down to the NHS, cuts and the economy. Most of the campaign seemed to have entirely passed them by.

    By definition, these tend to be people less interested in politics, but some were genuinely keen to talk the issues through, sometimes for the first time as they'd only been bemusedly reading rival leaflets. By the end of the session I was pretty knackered, but quite apart from any votes won it felt worthwhile.
  • BlueberryBlueberry Posts: 408
    kle4 said:

    Blueberry said:

    who has been where today on labourdoorstp, updated version

    Balls: Pudsey
    Reeves: Pudsey
    Burnham: Great Yarmouth, Ipswich,
    Harriet: Stevenage
    Umunna: Croydon Central
    Khan along with BAME Labour: Harrow East, Ealing Central, Hampstead
    Twigg: Cannock Chase
    Perkins (Chesterfield): Stroud, Kingswood
    Abbott: Harrow East, Hamsptead, Ealing Central
    Lammy: Enfield Southgate, Edmonton
    Sheerman: Dewsbury
    Malthotra (Feltham): Ealing Central
    Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East): Gloucester
    John Cryer: Ilford North
    Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green): Hampstead
    Caerphilly MP and AM: Vale of Glamorgan
    Dromey: Halesowen
    Darling: Newton Mearns (wherever it is)
    Creasy: Enfield North

    Justine Miliband: Thurrock, Ilford North, Finchley, Ealing Central

    Jack McConnell: Cumbernauld & Co, Stirling, Fife (a few days ago they dragged out even Helen Liddell)

    John Middleton from Emmerdale: Pudsey

    General Secretary: Brentford

    Newham CLPs: Ilford North
    Leicester University Labour Club: Northampton North
    Unison GenSec: Cardiff Central

    Amazed so many are in Hampstead. Suggests they're seriously on the back foot?
    Surely not - is it just easy to get to or en route to several other places?
    I suppose so, but with contact time running out, you'd think they'd get somewhere more marginal.
  • PolruanPolruan Posts: 2,083

    Polruan said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Coming to this a bit late but segregation at a Labour party political meeting is an utter disgrace and one reason (more important in my mind than bits of stone) why Labour are unfit to be the government.

    No party which is willing to abandon its alleged principles of equality for all before the law in pursuit of votes from the most reactionary and illiberal of voters is fit to be in government in my view.

    As far as I can see, the people present are essentially part of a club, in which they are free to participate or not. The rules of that club appear to include segregated seating. Labour are trying to reach out to all of the electorate, including members of that club, and unless the rules of that club are illegal then it could be considered a bit rude to treat its members as pariahs to be excluded from the political debate (well, unless they're also SNP members).

    Think of the slippery slope argument... if we object to this, then cabinet ministers could start insisting on bringing female colleagues to back-channel policy negotiations in all-male private members clubs.
    LOL...you keep telling yourself that.

    You realise that for instance Harman has called for bans on private clubs that operate sex discrimination and refuse to attend events run by them. But the clubs she was targettng, there were no votes in it.

    You can't have it both ways. You can't be a party that screams from the rooftops about sexuality equality and talk about banning clubs that have sexist club rules, and then when the GE comes be happy to hold rallies and turn a blind eye to where it takes place to get the votes, and then go yeah but no its different....it would be rude to point out they are operating things like something from the last century.
    You do understand that political parties represent a range of views rather than unanimity on all issues, right? If the same person is screaming about single-sex clubs, and campaigning for votes in single-sex clubs, well, they're clearly a bit of a moron (and let's face it, Labour isn't the first or last political party to accept a quota of morons). On the other hand, if different people in a party value equality and religious freedom, and come to different answers about how you deal with the collision of those two principles, that doesn't seem particularly scandalous. I kind of assumed that most grown ups were used to dealing with incompatible priorities and trying to make sense of the boundary where they interfere with one another. And let's face it, when you add the priority of getting elected, it gets quite tricky...
  • peter_from_putneypeter_from_putney Posts: 6,956
    edited May 2015

    http://electionforecast.co.uk/

    Lab within 7 seats of most seats or 4 more gains from Con

    Current price 6.0

    Why?

    Labour Most Seats best price is currently 5.6 with Betfair which equates to just less than 4.4/1 net of commission in old money. Good value though, nonetheless.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    kle4 said:

    YouGov

    CON - 34% (-)
    LAB - 33% (-)
    UKIP - 12% (-1)
    LDEM - 9% (+1)
    GRN - 5% (-)

    A trend develops!
    That's right. EICIPM.
  • ArtistArtist Posts: 1,893
    acf2310 said:

    Final Ashcroft National Poll is this Tuesday. The good Lord just replied to my Tweet...

    https://twitter.com/LordAshcroft/status/594958392919236611

    He'll be polling over a Bank Holiday then, which doesn't seem ideal.
  • weejonnieweejonnie Posts: 3,820
    chestnut said:

    Since re-weighting, Labour hadn't been as low as 33 until last night.

    Two 33's is the worst since early March, when the Tories had 2-4 point leads.

    Sleazy stoned labour on the slide.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,706
    Blueberry said:

    who has been where today on labourdoorstp, updated version

    Balls: Pudsey
    Reeves: Pudsey
    Burnham: Great Yarmouth, Ipswich,
    Harriet: Stevenage
    Umunna: Croydon Central
    Khan along with BAME Labour: Harrow East, Ealing Central, Hampstead
    Twigg: Cannock Chase
    Perkins (Chesterfield): Stroud, Kingswood
    Abbott: Harrow East, Hamsptead, Ealing Central
    Lammy: Enfield Southgate, Edmonton
    Sheerman: Dewsbury
    Malthotra (Feltham): Ealing Central
    Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East): Gloucester
    John Cryer: Ilford North
    Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green): Hampstead
    Caerphilly MP and AM: Vale of Glamorgan
    Dromey: Halesowen
    Darling: Newton Mearns (wherever it is)
    Creasy: Enfield North

    Justine Miliband: Thurrock, Ilford North, Finchley, Ealing Central

    Jack McConnell: Cumbernauld & Co, Stirling, Fife (a few days ago they dragged out even Helen Liddell)

    John Middleton from Emmerdale: Pudsey

    General Secretary: Brentford

    Newham CLPs: Ilford North
    Leicester University Labour Club: Northampton North
    Unison GenSec: Cardiff Central

    Amazed so many are in Hampstead. Suggests they're seriously on the back foot?
    Il ford North target 83
    Pudsey target 26
    Ealing Central target 56


    Suggests they're going for biggest party.
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108

    I've spent 5 hours on the phone today, churning through the remaining people who are (a) on the phone and (b) canvassed as even slightly undecided. What really struck me is that conversations were just like the ones the previous month. Nobody mentioned benefits, or Scotland, or Ed's stone, or Cameron's football team(s) - it nearly always came down to the NHS, cuts and the economy. Most of the campaign seemed to have entirely passed them by.

    By definition, these tend to be people less interested in politics, but some were genuinely keen to talk the issues through, sometimes for the first time as they'd only been bemusedly reading rival leaflets. By the end of the session I was pretty knackered, but quite apart from any votes won it felt worthwhile.

    So you spoke to 60 people. 60 people who didn't tell your canvassers to bugger off. And you think you have an idea of how the election will go?
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069

    http://electionforecast.co.uk/

    Lab within 7 seats of most seats or 4 more gains from Con

    Current price 6.0

    Why?

    Because Ed is Crap.

    I believe it has been mentioned/factored in.
    there's plenty of room on the obelisk to add "Ed was Crap" on there after thursday....
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    Front page of Times is big news. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, back Con Minority.

    https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/594980032927379458
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    surbiton said:

    kle4 said:

    YouGov

    CON - 34% (-)
    LAB - 33% (-)
    UKIP - 12% (-1)
    LDEM - 9% (+1)
    GRN - 5% (-)

    A trend develops!
    That's right. EICIPM.
    That trend hasn't developed, it's, well, been set in stone for quite some time, barring some kind of rogue bulldozer from the other lot. No, this is the trend of potentially Tories most seats.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830

    MikeL said:

    Maybe it was the YouGov that moved Con Most Seats tonight?

    Everyone says YouGov has been static but Gadfly's graph shows Con position has improved with YouGov over the last few days.

    I know some say the YouGov "base position" is wrong but the movement is in Con direction irrespective of the base.

    I wonder if something else is afoot in polls tomorrow?
    I thought we weren't getting any polls tomorrow (bank holiday)?
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,569

    http://electionforecast.co.uk/

    Lab within 7 seats of most seats or 4 more gains from Con

    Current price 6.0

    Why?

    Because Ed is Crap.

    I believe it has been mentioned/factored in.
    Why is EICIPM odds on?
    Because the electoral system favours Labour over the Tories.

    I might do another thread on electoral reform to educate/remind PBers.
    Not really. It's because the Tories have no plausible allies. The LibDems who they're busy decapitating? The SNP who they're portraying as thieves and who are bound by party policy not to support them? Unless one thinks they could polevault to a majority themselves, it's hard to see any way that Cameron can stay in office.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549

    http://electionforecast.co.uk/

    Lab within 7 seats of most seats or 4 more gains from Con

    Current price 6.0

    Why?

    Because Ed is Crap.

    I believe it has been mentioned/factored in.
    Why is EICIPM odds on?
    Because the electoral system favours Labour over the Tories.

    I might do another thread on electoral reform to educate/remind PBers.
    Excuses coming out already !
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,533
    edited May 2015
    Polruan said:



    You do understand that political parties represent a range of views rather than unanimity on all issues, right? If the same person is screaming about single-sex clubs, and campaigning for votes in single-sex clubs, well, they're clearly a bit of a moron (and let's face it, Labour isn't the first or last political party to accept a quota of morons). On the other hand, if different people in a party value equality and religious freedom, and come to different answers about how you deal with the collision of those two principles, that doesn't seem particularly scandalous. I kind of assumed that most grown ups were used to dealing with incompatible priorities and trying to make sense of the boundary where they interfere with one another. And let's face it, when you add the priority of getting elected, it gets quite tricky...

    You are just embarrassing yourself now.

    Face it, Labour held a rally where they left their principles at the door to accommodate a group of people who have a very backward and incompatible view of how men and women are not to be treated equally.

    You are the one who brought up, well its a bit like a club, and would be rude to get involved in their affairs. It was official Labour policy to do so. It was official Labour policy to try and outlaw exactly the kind of situation where..

    "affect mixed-sex clubs where women have lower membership status than men. "
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830

    Front page of Times is big news. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, back Con Minority.

    https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/594980032927379458

    Not surprised. I think it'll be a Con minority too, and then a second election in the autumn. Can't see a Con-Lib deal again, I don't UKIP or DUP votes will be enough to last for long, either.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    Blueberry said:

    who has been where today on labourdoorstp, updated version

    Balls: Pudsey
    Reeves: Pudsey
    Burnham: Great Yarmouth, Ipswich,
    Harriet: Stevenage
    Umunna: Croydon Central
    Khan along with BAME Labour: Harrow East, Ealing Central, Hampstead
    Twigg: Cannock Chase
    Perkins (Chesterfield): Stroud, Kingswood
    Abbott: Harrow East, Hamsptead, Ealing Central
    Lammy: Enfield Southgate, Edmonton
    Sheerman: Dewsbury
    Malthotra (Feltham): Ealing Central
    Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East): Gloucester
    John Cryer: Ilford North
    Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green): Hampstead
    Caerphilly MP and AM: Vale of Glamorgan
    Dromey: Halesowen
    Darling: Newton Mearns (wherever it is)
    Creasy: Enfield North

    Justine Miliband: Thurrock, Ilford North, Finchley, Ealing Central

    Jack McConnell: Cumbernauld & Co, Stirling, Fife (a few days ago they dragged out even Helen Liddell)

    John Middleton from Emmerdale: Pudsey

    General Secretary: Brentford

    Newham CLPs: Ilford North
    Leicester University Labour Club: Northampton North
    Unison GenSec: Cardiff Central

    Amazed so many are in Hampstead. Suggests they're seriously on the back foot?
    How many of the Tory 23 targets have top Tories visited today?

    Or are they on the back foot?
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Polruan said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Coming to this a bit late but segregation at a Labour party political meeting is an utter disgrace and one reason (more important in my mind than bits of stone) why Labour are unfit to be the government.

    No party which is willing to abandon its alleged principles of equality for all before the law in pursuit of votes from the most reactionary and illiberal of voters is fit to be in government in my view.

    As far as I can see, the people present are essentially part of a club, in which they are free to participate or not. The rules of that club appear to include segregated seating. Labour are trying to reach out to all of the electorate, including members of that club, and unless the rules of that club are illegal then it could be considered a bit rude to treat its members as pariahs to be excluded from the political debate (well, unless they're also SNP members).

    Think of the slippery slope argument... if we object to this, then cabinet ministers could start insisting on bringing female colleagues to back-channel policy negotiations in all-male private members clubs.
    People like Cyclefree and others who feel so strongly about this, do they have the same opinion when such "segregation" is practised by Orthodox Jews - or does this criticism only apply to Muslims.
  • jahodgesjahodges Posts: 12
    "A trend develops!"

    Not really. There was a Sun on Sunday poll last night putting Labour 1% ahead.
  • It looks as if the approx 8 additional seats to which the Tories were properly entitled had not the LibDems reneged on the agreed terms of the coalition, could prove decisive. Shouldn't Boundary Commissions recommendations come into force irrespective of party politics to avoid unfair distortions such as we now see existing?
  • oldpoliticsoldpolitics Posts: 455
    Blueberry said:

    who has been where today on labourdoorstp, updated version

    Balls: Pudsey
    Reeves: Pudsey
    Burnham: Great Yarmouth, Ipswich,
    Harriet: Stevenage
    Umunna: Croydon Central
    Khan along with BAME Labour: Harrow East, Ealing Central, Hampstead
    Twigg: Cannock Chase
    Perkins (Chesterfield): Stroud, Kingswood
    Abbott: Harrow East, Hamsptead, Ealing Central
    Lammy: Enfield Southgate, Edmonton
    Sheerman: Dewsbury
    Malthotra (Feltham): Ealing Central
    Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East): Gloucester
    John Cryer: Ilford North
    Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green): Hampstead
    Caerphilly MP and AM: Vale of Glamorgan
    Dromey: Halesowen
    Darling: Newton Mearns (wherever it is)
    Creasy: Enfield North

    Justine Miliband: Thurrock, Ilford North, Finchley, Ealing Central

    Jack McConnell: Cumbernauld & Co, Stirling, Fife (a few days ago they dragged out even Helen Liddell)

    John Middleton from Emmerdale: Pudsey

    General Secretary: Brentford

    Newham CLPs: Ilford North
    Leicester University Labour Club: Northampton North
    Unison GenSec: Cardiff Central

    Amazed so many are in Hampstead. Suggests they're seriously on the back foot?
    Or that it has the most Labour members anywhere in London and being seen there is useful in any, you know, votes that may be happening in the near future.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,723
    NickP is right about one thing - people on here get obsessed by trivia - nobody decides to vote on the basis of Cameron's football team or Miliband's stone.

    If you are worried that Miliband will wreck the economy or that Cameron will cut your benefits you are not going to care less about any of this nonsense.

    It's just childish banter.
  • DadgeDadge Posts: 2,052

    Front page of Times is big news. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, back Con Minority.

    https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/594980032927379458

    What are the odds that the Times have just made this up? Which senior Labour MPs would say these things to the Times?
  • oldpoliticsoldpolitics Posts: 455

    Blueberry said:

    who has been where today on labourdoorstp, updated version

    Balls: Pudsey
    Reeves: Pudsey
    Burnham: Great Yarmouth, Ipswich,
    Harriet: Stevenage
    Umunna: Croydon Central
    Khan along with BAME Labour: Harrow East, Ealing Central, Hampstead
    Twigg: Cannock Chase
    Perkins (Chesterfield): Stroud, Kingswood
    Abbott: Harrow East, Hamsptead, Ealing Central
    Lammy: Enfield Southgate, Edmonton
    Sheerman: Dewsbury
    Malthotra (Feltham): Ealing Central
    Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East): Gloucester
    John Cryer: Ilford North
    Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green): Hampstead
    Caerphilly MP and AM: Vale of Glamorgan
    Dromey: Halesowen
    Darling: Newton Mearns (wherever it is)
    Creasy: Enfield North

    Justine Miliband: Thurrock, Ilford North, Finchley, Ealing Central

    Jack McConnell: Cumbernauld & Co, Stirling, Fife (a few days ago they dragged out even Helen Liddell)

    John Middleton from Emmerdale: Pudsey

    General Secretary: Brentford

    Newham CLPs: Ilford North
    Leicester University Labour Club: Northampton North
    Unison GenSec: Cardiff Central

    Amazed so many are in Hampstead. Suggests they're seriously on the back foot?
    Or that it has the most Labour members anywhere in London and being seen there is useful in any, you know, votes that may be happening in the near future.
    Although looking, you say "so many", I count two?
This discussion has been closed.