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.
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.
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...?)
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.
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
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.
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...?)
@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.
@janemerrick23: Delia Smith backing Labour feels like bigger deal than Coogan. Probably bcos she has broader Middle England appeal + not a Leveson obsessive
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
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.
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.
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).
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).
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.
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).
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.
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.
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 .
'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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
@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...
@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?
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.
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...
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.
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?
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.
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.
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. "
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Comments
Still beating England though...
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.
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...?)
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
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1f6PlK5ig7p1I9aqfMzV6AMBKKX8TPvEuqoPakoX2W_M/edit
2015 targets:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1iE8RU4rVmDmtRhjo1Ws3Om3IjrmgUVSbcW-tO7cY-RE/edit#gid=0
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
@janemerrick23: Delia Smith backing Labour feels like bigger deal than Coogan. Probably bcos she has broader Middle England appeal + not a Leveson obsessive
'And in cricket, cricket is what matters most.'
What an incredible revelation.
Much to the amusement of the players balcony the announcement was made in typical pompous tones
Thanks for those. Haven't quite worked out how best to stick the data together but I'll share anything interesting I find.
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.
For the Windies I think you need to go back to the 80s as to when they were last at their prime.
https://twitter.com/MiriamBrett/status/594972088412327936
Lab within 7 seats of most seats or 4 more gains from Con
Current price 6.0
Why?
I believe it has been mentioned/factored in.
Why?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CEHGBjrWAAIUNNo.jpg
just wondered
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).
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 .
Follow
Tweets MPs Delete
@deletedbyMPs
DT @JackDromeyMP: RT @mariamkhan29: This is #LabourTogether - No question the rally was segregate... http://pltw.ps/_ko4v9DK
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.
If for no other reason than it's Willie Bain.
I might do another thread on electoral reform to educate/remind PBers.
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?
Mind you, good practise for Nicola...
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.
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.
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
YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Tories have a one-point lead: CON 34%, LAB 33%, LD 9%, UKIP 12%, GRN 5%
CON - 34% (-)
LAB - 33% (-)
UKIP - 12% (-1)
LDEM - 9% (+1)
GRN - 5% (-)
Two 33's is the worst since early March, when the Tories had 2-4 point leads.
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.
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.
Pudsey target 26
Ealing Central target 56
Suggests they're going for biggest party.
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/594980032927379458
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. "
Or are they on the back foot?
Not really. There was a Sun on Sunday poll last night putting Labour 1% ahead.
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.