''The East Dumbartonshire Star; the Plymouth and Southsea Express; The Herald; The Oxford Observer. To voters, these sound like plausible local newspapers. So when they read headlines like "Jo Swinson set to win" and "Gerald Vernon-Jackson set to win!" it has an impact. But, of course, these are not independent newspapers. They are Liberal Democrat leaflets dressed up as papers to make them more convincing.'' (from BBC)
Thats LD campaigning for you.
"Plymouth and Southsea Express" I see LibDems grasp of English geography is as sound as its commitment to keeping private conversations, private.
If CON % - LAB % = 2.25%, then seats won by each party in E & W will be equal according to UNS.
Just add your Scottish numbers separately.
Proof that UNS won't operate in England & Wales can be given by considering this question:
Is the swing in places like Manchester, Sheffield, London, Liverpool, etc. going to be larger than average for England & Wales? Answer: yes. Therefore no UNS.
2.25% brings the parties level, overall, assuming no Scottish losses for Labour.
Labour won 89 seats fewer in England and Wales than the Conservatives. They need a swing of 3.7% to draw level in England and Wales.
Just completed a panelbase survey which appears to be specifically for Scottish VI. Possible Scottish Eve of poll from them.
What a tiny pond the online pollsters are fishing in. Given the population size being polled at all should be a blue moon, black swan event, not something that happens twice in the first 14 posts in a thread (one of them "again").
Sunil's proposed thread is well overdue.
I've just done a YouGov voting intention poll too. It's my third one since the election campaign began.
I have done 3 too.
I have just completed my sixth.
This is, I think, a problem with daily online polls. Has there been any research into the concept of 'survey fatigue'?
Repetaedlt polling the same small band of respondents may severly distort the results.
The only change I have been able to record in the six I have done is to become ever more emphatic in my answers where that is possible.
I stopped doing them because there were so many and so tedious. I also do not see how they can avoid being packed full of tribalists and political nerds both of which groups do not resemble remotely the average jo!
If online polls are all as useless as some are trying to have us believe do you not think that they would have lost all credibility by now and the companies concerned might have changed their methodology
To my knowledge they change their methodology more often than a busy hooker changes her knickers on a busy w/e:) Yet there is no real sign that they have found the holy grail as yet. I think they do have some credibility but far less than most of the partisans on here attribute to them every time they produce a welcome result. Oh btw the last 2 YGs have shown Tory leads.
Does it help Nick Clegg, to get his private conversation leaked with David Cameron, saying that the PM told him, he can not win a majority ?
First story on the 1PM BBC NEWS.
I would have thought not.
This and the Danny Alexander stuff from last week just underline a massive lack of trust in the LDs. Surely there was a formal meeting before the campaign where everyone agreed that what went on in government should stay in government (for 30 years anyway)?
I agree , I do not like it,especially if if the leak has been officially authorised by Clegg. I hope Cameron does not feel the need to retaliate and leak other private conversations.
This is a particularly shabby piece of LibDem politicking.
By using the word, 'private', it is impossible for Cameron to respond. It may also be a lie; no such 'private' conversation took place and Cameron, again, is in an impossible position.
If he say's, 'No' to either the proposition of the conversation, then it simply invites the Many Rice Davis response.
I doubt any such conversation took place. I doubt Cameron every vouchsafed such an idea and that this is a deliberate LibDem lie.
You're making a strong case for it being a particularly effective piece of Lib Dem politicking.
Shabby was the word I used. If you think that lying about supposed 'private conversations' with a former political partner and current opponent is a particularly 'effective' piece of politicking then we really are very close to the bottom of the barrel.
I may not be at the bottom of the barrel but I think I can see it through a haze of self-righteousness.
Mr. Thompson, there was a story in the Mail about a week ago of a man being refused entry [by himself] to some sort of falconry place. Some, but not all, of the events were aimed at kids, and apparently that was the reason for his exclusion.
Just completed a panelbase survey which appears to be specifically for Scottish VI. Possible Scottish Eve of poll from them.
What a tiny pond the online pollsters are fishing in. Given the population size being polled at all should be a blue moon, black swan event, not something that happens twice in the first 14 posts in a thread (one of them "again").
Sunil's proposed thread is well overdue.
I've just done a YouGov voting intention poll too. It's my third one since the election campaign began.
I have done 3 too.
I have just completed my sixth.
This is, I think, a problem with daily online polls. Has there been any research into the concept of 'survey fatigue'?
Repetaedlt polling the same small band of respondents may severly distort the results.
The only change I have been able to record in the six I have done is to become ever more emphatic in my answers where that is possible.
I stopped doing them because there were so many and so tedious. I also do not see how they can avoid being packed full of tribalists and political nerds both of which groups do not resemble remotely the average jo!
If online polls are all as useless as some are trying to have us believe do you not think that they would have lost all credibility by now and the companies concerned might have changed their methodology
Because in the past there hasn't been much of a difference between the two types of polling. However this time one type is showing a 2.79 Con lead and the other a 0.88 Lab lead (3.67% difference). Clearly one type is wrong. Since online polls have self-selecting samples and phone ones are random samples it makes sense to go with the one which doesn't break the first rule of polling.
The evidence only come on Thursday night. I mean, that's really obvious, right?
Just completed a panelbase survey which appears to be specifically for Scottish VI. Possible Scottish Eve of poll from them.
What a tiny pond the online pollsters are fishing in. Given the population size being polled at all should be a blue moon, black swan event, not something that happens twice in the first 14 posts in a thread (one of them "again").
Sunil's proposed thread is well overdue.
I've just done a YouGov voting intention poll too. It's my third one since the election campaign began.
I have done 3 too.
I have just completed my sixth.
This is, I think, a problem with daily online polls. Has there been any research into the concept of 'survey fatigue'?
Repetaedlt polling the same small band of respondents may severly distort the results.
The only change I have been able to record in the six I have done is to become ever more emphatic in my answers where that is possible.
I stopped doing them because there were so many and so tedious. I also do not see how they can avoid being packed full of tribalists and political nerds both of which groups do not resemble remotely the average jo!
If online polls are all as useless as some are trying to have us believe do you not think that they would have lost all credibility by now and the companies concerned might have changed their methodology
Credibility has gone, methodology changes presumably in the pipeline pending how things look on Friday?
I don't want to add to your rattlement, but this is really not a partisan point. You have two sets of polls, phone and online, giving differing readings. One set self-confessedly breaks the very, very, very first rule of polling which is: select a RANDOM sample. The other doesn't. Which set do you go with?
Does it help Nick Clegg, to get his private conversation leaked with David Cameron, saying that the PM told him, he can not win a majority ?
First story on the 1PM BBC NEWS.
I would have thought not.
This and the Danny Alexander stuff from last week just underline a massive lack of trust in the LDs. Surely there was a formal meeting before the campaign where everyone agreed that what went on in government should stay in government (for 30 years anyway)?
I agree , I do not like it,especially if if the leak has been officially authorised by Clegg. I hope Cameron does not feel the need to retaliate and leak other private conversations.
This is a particularly shabby piece of LibDem politicking.
By using the word, 'private', it is impossible for Cameron to respond. It may also be a lie; no such 'private' conversation took place and Cameron, again, is in an impossible position.
If he say's, 'No' to either the proposition of the conversation, then it simply invites the Many Rice Davis response.
I doubt any such conversation took place. I doubt Cameron every vouchsafed such an idea and that this is a deliberate LibDem lie.
You're making a strong case for it being a particularly effective piece of Lib Dem politicking.
Shabby was the word I used. If you think that lying about supposed 'private conversations' with a former political partner and current opponent is a particularly 'effective' piece of politicking then we really are very close to the bottom of the barrel.
I don't understand why when the LDs got their wish of a coalition after how ever many years, they would rather complain about it than talk up it's achievements.
They've allowed Osborne to own the increase in the personal allowance for example, that was one of this government's best policies and was enacted pretty much as the LD manifesto suggested - but they would rather talk about the negatives of coalition than the positive outcomes produced by it.
Wonder where all the criticism is for Cancer Research UK's women-only Race For Life event.
Where are we drawing the line on gender segregation?
I believe most "women's" events like this can actually be entered by men if they want.
e.g "The Moon Walk" used to be an event targeted squarely at women, but lots of men got involved in it. It is still very women orientated and most of the men who get involved dress as women.
Wonder where all the criticism is for Cancer Research UK's women-only Race For Life event.
Where are we drawing the line on gender segregation?
I believe most "women's" events like this can actually be entered by men if they want.
e.g "The Moon Walk" used to be an event targeted squarely at women, but lots of men got involved in it.
RfL has had a lot of deserved criticism in the past for not allowing men - or even young boys - on it. The rules were apparently loosened slightly, but not that much afaik.
Apparently they think allowing men to enter would raise *less* money, by some weird calculation. Although they are willing to use men for volunteering at events.
Interesting...by "want", I mean if they demanded to. I wonder how legal that actually is if somebody challenged it? Normally shall we say good manner prevent people kicking up a fuss about such a charity event.
There is a lot of muddied waters actually in many countries, where they can't actually legally enforce gender segregated events like that e.g across Europe men have entered women's poker tournaments and even though they say women only, they have no legal power to enforce it.
The segregated, largely muslim audience for a Labour rally, has finaly made it to the BBC via the underhand and unlikely rout of the Daily Politics:
Segregated audience
Daily Politics BBC Two Posted at 13:28
Asked if she was comfortable with segregated audiences she said: "It depends where these events are happening, and the context in which it occurred."
The Daily Express have also reported on the issue, click here for their story.
However, not many people will notice it as it's buried in the BBC Election Live blog.
Did they mention for purposes of balance the Round Table meeting only for Men and attended only by Tories, UKIP and the Lib Dems ?
Round Table is, I believe, a voluntary organisation for men. Had they been at a WI meeting the audience would have probably been all women.
Personally I have never understood why I would want to be a member of an organisation that excluded the other gender, but clearly some people find it appropriate.
I think the question to be asked is: was the Brum event in a mosque, or hosted by a mosque or Muslim religious organisation? If so there is a good argument for saying the Labour politicos were guests and therefore it was down to the mores of their hosts. However, if this is a Labour party event, run for, by and on behalf of the Labour party I think it's a different matter.
If it's a religious service then I would agree that it is only good manners to abide by the rules of the hosts e.g. I cover my hair and take off my shoes when I visit a mosque.
But a political rally / debate / meeting in a mosque is a secular event and I see no good reason why segregation should be acceptable at such an event, any more than it would be acceptable at a political lecture, particularly not for a party which wears its sex/gender equality heart so very much on its sleeve when attacking others on sex/gender issues. It's no use having pink vans to talk to women about the issues affecting them when the very first issue which affects women is not being thought of as equal and being treated differently and worse on account of one's sex.
At some point if there is a conflict between a belief that people should be treated equally and in women's rights and those communities who do not believe in women having equal rights, then you have to choose.
And before Surbiton jumps down my throat I responded to his question last night. I think it equally unacceptable for a hustings to be limited to one sex / group etc.
Since all adults have the vote all have a right to listen to candidates' views and all have the right to make their own decision as to their vote, without fear or favour and without pressure from anyone.
If CON % - LAB % = 2.25%, then seats won by each party in E & W will be equal according to UNS.
Just add your Scottish numbers separately.
Proof that UNS won't operate in England & Wales can be given by considering this question:
Is the swing in places like Manchester, Sheffield, London, Liverpool, etc. going to be larger than average for England & Wales? Answer: yes. Therefore no UNS.
2.25% brings the parties level, overall, assuming no Scottish losses for Labour.
Labour won 89 seats fewer in England and Wales than the Conservatives. They need a swing of 3.7% to draw level in England and Wales.
Is that a GB swing or an E&W swing. Very different.
I doubt if the swing in the cities you cite will be greater for the very reason that there are fewer LAB-CON marginals. All the polling suggests that there are a disproportionate number of LD-LAB switchers in the seats LAB is trying to take from the Tories. Also the LAB ground operation appears to be far superior.
Given that Mr Brand's best known political position is that people shouldn't vote, I don't see that his endorsement of a candidate/party a week before an election is likely to make any difference.
Wonder where all the criticism is for Cancer Research UK's women-only Race For Life event.
Where are we drawing the line on gender segregation?
I believe most "women's" events like this can actually be entered by men if they want.
e.g "The Moon Walk" used to be an event targeted squarely at women, but lots of men got involved in it.
RfL has had a lot of deserved criticism in the past for not allowing men - or even young boys - on it. The rules were apparently loosened slightly, but not that much afaik.
Apparently they think allowing men to enter would raise *less* money, by some weird calculation. Although they are willing to use men for volunteering at events.
There have always been men's and women's sporting events as women have very different physical capabilities. Although road running is mostly mixed but I think cross country still more likely to be segregated.
Just completed a panelbase survey which appears to be specifically for Scottish VI. Possible Scottish Eve of poll from them.
What a tiny pond the online pollsters are fishing in. Given the population size being polled at all should be a blue moon, black swan event, not something that happens twice in the first 14 posts in a thread (one of them "again").
Sunil's proposed thread is well overdue.
I've just done a YouGov voting intention poll too. It's my third one since the election campaign began.
I have done 3 too.
I have just completed my sixth.
This is, I think, a problem with daily online polls. Has there been any research into the concept of 'survey fatigue'?
Repetaedlt polling the same small band of respondents may severly distort the results.
The only change I have been able to record in the six I have done is to become ever more emphatic in my answers where that is possible.
I stopped doing them because there were so many and so tedious. I also do not see how they can avoid being packed full of tribalists and political nerds both of which groups do not resemble remotely the average jo!
If online polls are all as useless as some are trying to have us believe do you not think that they would have lost all credibility by now and the companies concerned might have changed their methodology
Because in the past there hasn't been much of a difference between the two types of polling. However this time one type is showing a 2.79 Con lead and the other a 0.88 Lab lead (3.67% difference). Clearly one type is wrong. Since online polls have self-selecting samples and phone ones are random samples it makes sense to go with the one which doesn't break the first rule of polling.
Alternatively, the Tories are about 1% ahead and both are right, well within the margin of error, but with an apparent consistent bias.
Wonder where all the criticism is for Cancer Research UK's women-only Race For Life event.
Where are we drawing the line on gender segregation?
I believe most "women's" events like this can actually be entered by men if they want.
e.g "The Moon Walk" used to be an event targeted squarely at women, but lots of men got involved in it.
RfL has had a lot of deserved criticism in the past for not allowing men - or even young boys - on it. The rules were apparently loosened slightly, but not that much afaik.
Apparently they think allowing men to enter would raise *less* money, by some weird calculation. Although they are willing to use men for volunteering at events.
There have always been men's and women's sporting events as women have very different physical capabilities. Although road running is mostly mixed but I think cross country still more likely to be segregated.
Yes why can't women enter the men's 100m? Whats wrong with men running in pink jockstraps (no smear intended Dair) in aid if testicular cancer charities?
But segregating men and women in a political event is crass. And Labour a go big on wimmins equality and also are going to go big on anti islamophobia. Tripple crass.
What's the spread on PB people that admit losing overall on election betting?
Over the years I've often read on here about PB posters making lots of money - but almost never does anyone admit to losing money.
However - I also remember an awful lot of bets being tipped on here (by posters who I think would generally be highly regarded) which have turned out to be losers.
The sorts of places this might help Labour are already pretty much in the bag for them - LD/Lab marginals with a strong green presence (Bristol W, Sheffield Central)
Can't see it helping out too much in your typical small town Tory-Lab marginal (Chester etc, though I think lab wins this one)
Wonder where all the criticism is for Cancer Research UK's women-only Race For Life event.
Where are we drawing the line on gender segregation?
I believe most "women's" events like this can actually be entered by men if they want.
e.g "The Moon Walk" used to be an event targeted squarely at women, but lots of men got involved in it.
RfL has had a lot of deserved criticism in the past for not allowing men - or even young boys - on it. The rules were apparently loosened slightly, but not that much afaik.
Apparently they think allowing men to enter would raise *less* money, by some weird calculation. Although they are willing to use men for volunteering at events.
There have always been men's and women's sporting events as women have very different physical capabilities. Although road running is mostly mixed but I think cross country still more likely to be segregated.
There are plenty of races where men and women take part - all the Parkruns, for instance.
What's the spread on PB people that admit losing overall on election betting?
Over the years I've often read on here about PB posters making lots of money - but almost never does anyone admit to losing money.
However - I also remember an awful lot of bets being tipped on here (by posters who I think would generally be highly regarded) which have turned out to be losers.
Funny eh?
My Lib Dem book is a mess due to following various "over" tips, nothing too large done mind. Who was responsible for the 41-50 tip way back ?
What's the spread on PB people that admit losing overall on election betting?
Over the years I've often read on here about PB posters making lots of money - but almost never does anyone admit to losing money.
However - I also remember an awful lot of bets being tipped on here (by posters who I think would generally be highly regarded) which have turned out to be losers.
Funny eh?
My Lib Dem book is a mess due to following various "over" tips, nothing too large done mind. Who was responsible for the 41-50 tip way back ?
Wonder where all the criticism is for Cancer Research UK's women-only Race For Life event.
Where are we drawing the line on gender segregation?
I believe most "women's" events like this can actually be entered by men if they want.
e.g "The Moon Walk" used to be an event targeted squarely at women, but lots of men got involved in it.
RfL has had a lot of deserved criticism in the past for not allowing men - or even young boys - on it. The rules were apparently loosened slightly, but not that much afaik.
Apparently they think allowing men to enter would raise *less* money, by some weird calculation. Although they are willing to use men for volunteering at events.
There have always been men's and women's sporting events as women have very different physical capabilities. Although road running is mostly mixed but I think cross country still more likely to be segregated.
Yes why can't women enter the men's 100m?
I think it's a practical thing, especially in longer track races the women would end up being lapped and you would have two races in one event to try to keep track of. Road running is generally mixed apart from at elite level (such as the Olympics) but cross country still seems to separate out men and women at club level.
Just saw Eddie Izzard walking along Princes Street with Mark Lazarowicz and leafletters.
Bit of a media stunt then, given he's more likely to meet voters from other constituencies there. If he wanted to meet real voters he'd be down in Leith.
Those WI women were happy to do that calender, and have a man take the photos. Trying to compare this political meeting where the women were crudely segregated with say the WI or Round Table is pathetic. Labour betrayed such principals as they have. Certainly all the ones they pretend to us they have.
I see that the Royal Baby name has passed the committee stage. One name after the granddad, one after the grandmother and one after the great-grandmother.
Wonder where all the criticism is for Cancer Research UK's women-only Race For Life event.
Where are we drawing the line on gender segregation?
I believe most "women's" events like this can actually be entered by men if they want.
e.g "The Moon Walk" used to be an event targeted squarely at women, but lots of men got involved in it.
RfL has had a lot of deserved criticism in the past for not allowing men - or even young boys - on it. The rules were apparently loosened slightly, but not that much afaik.
Apparently they think allowing men to enter would raise *less* money, by some weird calculation. Although they are willing to use men for volunteering at events.
There have always been men's and women's sporting events as women have very different physical capabilities. Although road running is mostly mixed but I think cross country still more likely to be segregated.
There are plenty of races where men and women take part - all the Parkruns, for instance.
Grr, they're a run not a race, and all lower case.
I have done 114 but missed this weekend due to drinking too much on Friday :-( But made up for it with a decent (for me) 10k on Sunday.
Although often multi-terrain I think they come under the general heading of "road running", although I have heard that cross-country is gaining popularity due to people starting off-road running at parkruns. But it does seem to be a strange little world mostly based around competitive club leagues, rather than all-comers events like road races.
Cameron 'will try to cling to power even if coalition loses majority'
Labour fears Tories will try to form government with Lib Dems and Democratic Unionists and to claim a minority Labour government would have no legitimacy
A few recent examples of bets very widely tipped on here:
- Lab most seats at anything above evens as it's a "coin toss". Now available at 5.5.
- Con most votes / Lab most seats - at approx 4 or 5. Now available at 12.5.
- "Any other Govt / Coalition" - at approx 6. Now available at 12.5.
Of course any of the above bets could still win. But they have not proved to be good bets given that far, far better prices are now available.
"Any other Govt / Coalition" - at approx 6. Now available at 12.5.
This has been a lay/ Do not back ever since the SNP rejected coalition with Labour tbh. I said so at the time.
- Con most votes / Lab most seats - at approx 4 or 5. Now available at 12.5. - Scotland changed this tip dramatically, anyone backing this after the SNP surge needed their brains checking, indeed I laid it on the exchange after the surge.
The Con/Lab seats price at 5.5 is value on the Labour side but I munched a fair bit at 1.5 still - It may still well happen though, 5.5 is value.
Mr. Eagles, if the Conservatives don't win most seats, Cameron's time is done. If they do, it's only sensible for them to try and stay in office, and to have first crack at it.
Cameron 'will try to cling to power even if coalition loses majority'
Labour fears Tories will try to form government with Lib Dems and Democratic Unionists and to claim a minority Labour government would have no legitimacy
Just done a long You Gov survey. One of the questions was the biggest issue facing the Country.. Just for fun /half seriously I wrote "the Threat of a Labour Govt", and was then asked how Labour would handle the threat of a Labour Govt.. v badly was all I could venture as a reply!
Thank God they didn't name her Diana. That would have been like putting the blackspot on her.
And now - as there is nothing of interest to say about a 2-day old baby - other than for her parents, of course - there is nothing more we need hear of her for some time.
Always more fun to refer to wins. I've only got the one electoral bet, on the Greens retaining fewer than 20% of deposits (I think). Didn't get the cracking odds, but 5/2 will not be cause for complaint, if it comes in.
Got a couple on the next Conservative leader (probably Justine Greening, could be Priti Patel).
Just done a long You Gov survey. One of the questions was the biggest issue facing the Country.. Just for fun /half seriously I wrote "the Threat of a Labour Govt", and was then asked how Labour would handle the threat of a Labour Govt.. v badly was all I could venture as a reply!
More bizarrely, milord Scriven's tweet is worded thus "So Cameron has taken to lying on Tory Maj." He seems to be accusing of lying about whether there will be a majority or not, not that he told Clegg that. Well... how can you lie about an event in the future that is undetermined? I could tell you Arsenal will win the Cup Final, if they lose it was hardly a lie.
Yeah, but if you tell me that you believe they *can* win, that's a statement about the present. So if Cameron really believes the Tories can't get a majority, he's lying when he says he does.
But a lie is only bad if it harms someone. How this alleged lie does that is something that reports on the matter have declined to explain.
Wonder where all the criticism is for Cancer Research UK's women-only Race For Life event.
Where are we drawing the line on gender segregation?
I believe most "women's" events like this can actually be entered by men if they want.
e.g "The Moon Walk" used to be an event targeted squarely at women, but lots of men got involved in it.
RfL has had a lot of deserved criticism in the past for not allowing men - or even young boys - on it. The rules were apparently loosened slightly, but not that much afaik.
Apparently they think allowing men to enter would raise *less* money, by some weird calculation. Although they are willing to use men for volunteering at events.
There have always been men's and women's sporting events as women have very different physical capabilities. Although road running is mostly mixed but I think cross country still more likely to be segregated.
There are good reasons for segregating competitors, but not for segregating spectators.
More bizarrely, milord Scriven's tweet is worded thus "So Cameron has taken to lying on Tory Maj." He seems to be accusing of lying about whether there will be a majority or not, not that he told Clegg that. Well... how can you lie about an event in the future that is undetermined? I could tell you Arsenal will win the Cup Final, if they lose it was hardly a lie.
Yeah, but if you tell me that you believe they *can* win, that's a statement about the present. So if Cameron really believes the Tories can't get a majority, he's lying when he says he does.
But a lie is only bad if it harms someone. How this alleged lie does that is something that reports on the matter have declined to explain.
Either way it's not very credible that he doesn't believe it's possible. The chance of a significant UKIP squeeze on polling day is enough to give hope whatever the state of the polls.
If it has to be bloody Miliband, rolling this sentence around the tongue surely qualifies as a toothsome consolation prize: "the Fixed Term Parliaments Act would mean torture for Ed Miliband" - Sean Swan, Telegraph. http://tinyurl.com/nnxv6xr
BBC reporting that Jim Murphy is campaigning in Glasgow with comedian Eddie Izzard..!
Hmmm. - Not the luckiest talisman I’d have thought.
getting a real barracking as well , and whinging that it must be the SNP, what a plank.
As I'm following various BT hacks and supporters my Twitter went into a BT Project Fear Meltdown when Jim and Eddie were shouted at by 4 protestors. Having tracked down the footage as far as I can tell the main pushing and shoving was being done by SLAB activists, who were manhandling some chap with a loudhailer:
All I can say is before Twittering condemnation of violence on the streets of Glasgow best to view the evidence first, I guess the BT/MSM mantra of why let the facts get in the way of a story is alive and well.
These guys have obviously never been on a night out in Glasgow or better still attended an Orange Lodge march, then they could form a better view of what constitutes violence on the streets of Glasgow.
Those WI women were happy to do that calender, and have a man take the photos. Trying to compare this political meeting where the women were crudely segregated with say the WI or Round Table is pathetic. Labour betrayed such principals as they have. Certainly all the ones they pretend to us they have.
Unless you're a bookie. Ladbrokes in the DT saying that they've taken more money in the last 48 hours on the baby's name than on the election, and that Charlotte was backed in to favourite by the time of the announcement. Fingers crossed they'll be losing a little more cash come Friday morning!
BBC reporting that Jim Murphy is campaigning in Glasgow with comedian Eddie Izzard..!
Hmmm. - Not the luckiest talisman I’d have thought.
getting a real barracking as well , and whinging that it must be the SNP, what a plank.
As I'm following various BT hacks and supporters my Twitter went into a BT Project Fear Meltdown when Jim and Eddie were shouted at by 4 protestors. Having tracked down the footage as far as I can tell the main pushing and shoving was being done by SLAB activists, who were manhandling some chap with a loudhailer:
All I can say is before Twittering condemnation of violence on the streets of Glasgow best to view the evidence first, I guess the BT/MSM mantra of why let the facts get in the way of a story is alive and well.
These guys have obviously never been on a night out in Glasgow or better still attended an Orange Lodge march, then they could form a better view of what constitutes violence on the streets of Glasgow.
More bizarrely, milord Scriven's tweet is worded thus "So Cameron has taken to lying on Tory Maj." He seems to be accusing of lying about whether there will be a majority or not, not that he told Clegg that. Well... how can you lie about an event in the future that is undetermined? I could tell you Arsenal will win the Cup Final, if they lose it was hardly a lie.
Yeah, but if you tell me that you believe they *can* win, that's a statement about the present. So if Cameron really believes the Tories can't get a majority, he's lying when he says he does.
But a lie is only bad if it harms someone. How this alleged lie does that is something that reports on the matter have declined to explain.
Clearly the Tories *can* win. But with three days to go it looks unlikely that there will be a sufficient late swing and/or polling inaccuracy for that to happen. So you can say that the Tories can win a majority, and at the same time say that that is unlikely to happen.
More bizarrely, milord Scriven's tweet is worded thus "So Cameron has taken to lying on Tory Maj." He seems to be accusing of lying about whether there will be a majority or not, not that he told Clegg that. Well... how can you lie about an event in the future that is undetermined? I could tell you Arsenal will win the Cup Final, if they lose it was hardly a lie.
Yeah, but if you tell me that you believe they *can* win, that's a statement about the present. So if Cameron really believes the Tories can't get a majority, he's lying when he says he does.
But a lie is only bad if it harms someone. How this alleged lie does that is something that reports on the matter have declined to explain.
Either way it's not very credible that he doesn't believe it's possible. The chance of a significant UKIP squeeze on polling day is enough to give hope whatever the state of the polls.
Didn't Cameron when interviewed by Robinson say they 'were working hard for majority or if need be largest party' etc sort of thing? He specifically said that if there are coalition talks he would not put EU referendum into the mix. In answering that way he is clearly recognising that there may be a minority govt or coalition and that one might be Tory. I think I'll take the horses mouth rather than a twisted hearsay. The EU is just another reason not to vote LD, no matter which seat. Cameron's point is the risk of no referendum is why we should vote Tory. Indeed its pretty plain that if you are worried about Lab/SNP or worried about no referendum, you should vote Tory.
Talking of Pong and names I am reminded of my former boss's secretary. He was the FD in our Hong Kong office and his secretary was called Fanny Pong. Really! She had no idea her name was funny to the English. :-)
Thank God they didn't name her Diana. That would have been like putting the blackspot on her.
And now - as there is nothing of interest to say about a 2-day old baby - other than for her parents, of course - there is nothing more we need hear of her for some time.
Comments
Labour won 89 seats fewer in England and Wales than the Conservatives. They need a swing of 3.7% to draw level in England and Wales.
They've allowed Osborne to own the increase in the personal allowance for example, that was one of this government's best policies and was enacted pretty much as the LD manifesto suggested - but they would rather talk about the negatives of coalition than the positive outcomes produced by it.
e.g "The Moon Walk" used to be an event targeted squarely at women, but lots of men got involved in it. It is still very women orientated and most of the men who get involved dress as women.
Amazing annualised return right there.
http://raceforlife.cancerresearchuk.org/why-is-race-a-women-only-event/index.html
Ah:
http://raceforlife.cancerresearchuk.org/why-is-race-a-women-only-event/index.html
Apparently they think allowing men to enter would raise *less* money, by some weird calculation. Although they are willing to use men for volunteering at events.
There is a lot of muddied waters actually in many countries, where they can't actually legally enforce gender segregated events like that e.g across Europe men have entered women's poker tournaments and even though they say women only, they have no legal power to enforce it.
But a political rally / debate / meeting in a mosque is a secular event and I see no good reason why segregation should be acceptable at such an event, any more than it would be acceptable at a political lecture, particularly not for a party which wears its sex/gender equality heart so very much on its sleeve when attacking others on sex/gender issues. It's no use having pink vans to talk to women about the issues affecting them when the very first issue which affects women is not being thought of as equal and being treated differently and worse on account of one's sex.
At some point if there is a conflict between a belief that people should be treated equally and in women's rights and those communities who do not believe in women having equal rights, then you have to choose.
And before Surbiton jumps down my throat I responded to his question last night. I think it equally unacceptable for a hustings to be limited to one sex / group etc.
Since all adults have the vote all have a right to listen to candidates' views and all have the right to make their own decision as to their vote, without fear or favour and without pressure from anyone.
I doubt if the swing in the cities you cite will be greater for the very reason that there are fewer LAB-CON marginals. All the polling suggests that there are a disproportionate number of LD-LAB switchers in the seats LAB is trying to take from the Tories. Also the LAB ground operation appears to be far superior.
Sunil Prasannan @Sunil_P2 4m4 minutes ago
Super-ELBOW for April, Phone polls ONLY
Con 34.7 (+0.4)
Lab 32.5 (-0.2)
UKIP 11.1 (-1.1)
LD 8.9 (+1.1)
Grn 6.0 (-0.3)
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/595227883448205312
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/05/us/politics/carly-fiorina-2016-presidential-bid.html
You're going to have to adjust for me saying I was planning on voting Lib Dem.
But I changed my mind following Lib Dem perfidy.
Named I hope.
@patrickwintour: @MSmithsonPB ...Charlotte Elizabeth Diana Nicola Clegg.
But segregating men and women in a political event is crass. And Labour a go big on wimmins equality and also are going to go big on anti islamophobia. Tripple crass.
In other breaking news, Elvis is dead.
'What's the spread on PB people that admit losing overall on election betting?'
We only hear about people winning.
However - I also remember an awful lot of bets being tipped on here (by posters who I think would generally be highly regarded) which have turned out to be losers.
Funny eh?
Can't see it helping out too much in your typical small town Tory-Lab marginal (Chester etc, though I think lab wins this one)
Combination of Ed Stone and Princess Charlotte, but is Ed Stone a Cheltenham on course bookie?
I tipped Lib Dems net gains at this election.
Trying to compare this political meeting where the women were crudely segregated with say the WI or Round Table is pathetic.
Labour betrayed such principals as they have. Certainly all the ones they pretend to us they have.
One name after the granddad, one after the grandmother and one after the great-grandmother.
- Lab most seats at anything above evens as it's a "coin toss". Now available at 5.5.
- Con most votes / Lab most seats - at approx 4 or 5. Now available at 12.5.
- "Any other Govt / Coalition" - at approx 6. Now available at 12.5.
Of course any of the above bets could still win. But they have not proved to be good bets given that far, far better prices are now available.
I have done 114 but missed this weekend due to drinking too much on Friday :-( But made up for it with a decent (for me) 10k on Sunday.
Although often multi-terrain I think they come under the general heading of "road running", although I have heard that cross-country is gaining popularity due to people starting off-road running at parkruns. But it does seem to be a strange little world mostly based around competitive club leagues, rather than all-comers events like road races.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32583432
Didn't he swop his vote and vote differently?
Labour fears Tories will try to form government with Lib Dems and Democratic Unionists and to claim a minority Labour government would have no legitimacy
http://bit.ly/1K7UrEO
This has been a lay/ Do not back ever since the SNP rejected coalition with Labour tbh. I said so at the time.
- Con most votes / Lab most seats - at approx 4 or 5. Now available at 12.5. - Scotland changed this tip dramatically, anyone backing this after the SNP surge needed their brains checking, indeed I laid it on the exchange after the surge.
The Con/Lab seats price at 5.5 is value on the Labour side but I munched a fair bit at 1.5 still - It may still well happen though, 5.5 is value.
Very weak Gov't but I'd expect Conservatives to try.
Whether the Lib Dems want to be part of such a weak arrangement is another matter, but it is perfectly legitimate.
One of the questions was the biggest issue facing the Country.. Just for fun /half seriously I wrote "the Threat of a Labour Govt", and was then asked how Labour would handle the threat of a Labour Govt.. v badly was all I could venture as a reply!
And now - as there is nothing of interest to say about a 2-day old baby - other than for her parents, of course - there is nothing more we need hear of her for some time.
If you don't, no more Depeche Mode themed nighthawks.
Got a couple on the next Conservative leader (probably Justine Greening, could be Priti Patel).
But a lie is only bad if it harms someone. How this alleged lie does that is something that reports on the matter have declined to explain.
http://tinyurl.com/nnxv6xr
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32580153
All I can say is before Twittering condemnation of violence on the streets of Glasgow best to view the evidence first, I guess the BT/MSM mantra of why let the facts get in the way of a story is alive and well.
These guys have obviously never been on a night out in Glasgow or better still attended an Orange Lodge march, then they could form a better view of what constitutes violence on the streets of Glasgow.
I have £20 to win £54 profit on Labour in Ilford North,
and £10 to win £160 on Labour from the 1st one going of the following (Bristol West)
Kettering
Enfield Southgate
Glasgow Central
Watford
Great Yarmouth
Thanet South
Loughborough
Cambridge
Ilford North
Brighton Pavilion
Bristol West
Anyone care to work out if Sunil needs to vote Labour or Tory from this lot xD ?
Has anyone told the SNP?
Bad bad bad choice of name.
Pong's P/L on Royal Baby II;
-£78.52
Fingers crossed they'll be losing a little more cash come Friday morning!
https://twitter.com/WingsScotland/status/595235989888499712
I think I'll take the horses mouth rather than a twisted hearsay.
The EU is just another reason not to vote LD, no matter which seat. Cameron's point is the risk of no referendum is why we should vote Tory.
Indeed its pretty plain that if you are worried about Lab/SNP or worried about no referendum, you should vote Tory.