I wonder when Ed will resign. Will he give himself the weekend?
He has surprised me and I suspect plenty of others during this campaign. I thought he would be a six week car crash, but he has actually done well. However, the bottom line is that despite having four years to make a mark he has failed to deliver a coherent, credible set of policies to put in front of the electorate. On top of which he has presided over Labour's total collapse in Scotland. That is not a prospectus for continued leadership after an election in which Labour will stand still in seat numbers, at best. So, farewell Ed - you fought a decent campaign, but you were a desperately poor leader.
You are too fatalistic, SO. Ed could easily be on his way to shake hands with the Queen in 48 hours.
You, Dan Hodges and Rogerdamus all predicting a Tory win is the worst news I've had all week!
we've got labourites thinking Ed's a gonner , and PB tories thinking he's next PM..
Babies are innocent children, people that behead others deserve extreme punishment
You equate killing babies and revelling in the act of describing it with punishing criminals. Prob best you see a psychiatrist sometime soon
Killing born babies is murder. Abortion isn't about babies, its about foetuses. Though the two sides of this debate will never see eye to eye.
What is the difference between a foetus and a baby, other than physical location? Should physical location really be the determining factor in whether a killing is murder or not?
What's the difference between a zygote or a foetus? What's the difference between an egg and a single ejaculate? Is menstruation murder? Is jacking one off?
A foetus is still part of the mother's body, a baby isn't
Because of the umbilical cord? Would you be ok with the termination of a baby outside the womb who has not had the cord yet cut?
This is simply scientifically inaccurate. The body of the foetus and the body of the mother are not the same body. Ask any doctor.
"A foetus is still part of the mother's body, a baby isn't"
An interesting view of developmental biology. leading to the question ... is it OK to abort a nine month old foetus, but only until the umbilical cord is cut?
I'm not joining this argument because it's about emotion more than anything else. Facts won't matter.
I don't recall any discussion about swingback this election.
Was it Rod Crosby who promoted the theory and what are his views this election?
BRING BACK SWINGBACK.
Rod hasn't been a big advocate of his amazing by-election swingback model this cycle, but it's showing Lab beating Con by 0.5%. It can't reasonably be expected to know that Lab have actually lost something like 20% in Scotland, so if like me you think the model is good but doesn't have magical powers, I think it makes sense to expect a Con lead of 1% or 2% or so.
Babies are innocent children, people that behead others deserve extreme punishment
You equate killing babies and revelling in the act of describing it with punishing criminals. Prob best you see a psychiatrist sometime soon
Killing born babies is murder. Abortion isn't about babies, its about foetuses. Though the two sides of this debate will never see eye to eye.
What is the difference between a foetus and a baby, other than physical location? Should physical location really be the determining factor in whether a killing is murder or not?
One is an independent living and born person. The other is not. Especially before 24 weeks which is the legal standard in the UK.
An early abortion has more in common with a menstrual cycle than murder.
I wonder when Ed will resign. Will he give himself the weekend?
He has surprised me and I suspect plenty of others during this campaign. I thought he would be a six week car crash, but he has actually done well. However, the bottom line is that despite having four years to make a mark he has failed to deliver a coherent, credible set of policies to put in front of the electorate. On top of which he has presided over Labour's total collapse in Scotland. That is not a prospectus for continued leadership after an election in which Labour will stand still in seat numbers, at best. So, farewell Ed - you fought a decent campaign, but you were a desperately poor leader.
You are too fatalistic, SO. Ed could easily be on his way to shake hands with the Queen in 48 hours.
You, Dan Hodges and Rogerdamus all predicting a Tory win is the worst news I've had all week!
I am not predicting a Tory win. I am predicting the Tories getting most seats. There's a big difference. It's surely the most logical outcome if the polls are right about Scotland. Just to stand still Labour will need 35 plus gains in England and Wales. To get most seats, 55 plus. To actually win, 80 plus. It is not going to happen.
Everyone apart from the SNP looks like having a pretty crappy night. But in relative terms, the Labour one will be crappier than the Tory one and that will be Ed's responsibility.
Babies are innocent children, people that behead others deserve extreme punishment
You equate killing babies and revelling in the act of describing it with punishing criminals. Prob best you see a psychiatrist sometime soon
Killing born babies is murder. Abortion isn't about babies, its about foetuses. Though the two sides of this debate will never see eye to eye.
What is the difference between a foetus and a baby, other than physical location? Should physical location really be the determining factor in whether a killing is murder or not?
What's the difference between a zygote or a foetus? What's the difference between an egg and a single ejaculate? Is menstruation murder? Is jacking one off?
A foetus is still part of the mother's body, a baby isn't
Because of the umbilical cord? Would you be ok with the termination of a baby outside the womb who has not had the cord yet cut?
This is simply scientifically inaccurate. The body of the foetus and the body of the mother are not the same body. Ask any doctor.
The relationship is symbiotic. An unborn foetus is a parasite.
I'm not joining this argument because it's about emotion more than anything else. Facts won't matter.
Quite. A quick google of "arguments for and against abortion" captures everything anyone on here is going to say ever. Waste of time and keystrokes trying to reconcile the two sides.
Sky News "State of the Parties" graphic is ignoring UKIPs by election wins and giving them "0 seats" as it stands
Even if they were trying to be biased it would be hard to justify that
By election gains have never featured in state of the parties set ups. There's no reason they should now just because UKIP won a couple of them
Why not just put the correct numbers up?
They are saying "Conservatives have 306 seats, so they need 20 more to win a majority".. when they don't have that many and 20 more wouldn't get them a majority, just a nonsense
Because the state of the parties at the last GE was as shown, by elections are an irrelevance as they are not fought during a national contest. On the bright side, you get to see UKIP gain Claction flash up Friday morning
So the figures are wrong, that's handy
Oh quit it. It's always been shown thusly. You wouldn't compare next years Premier League to this by putting up the table for Xmas.
Its wrong but its always been done this way., I get it.
There's a strange, eery sort of feel about PB.com today. Not a great deal of any substance ..... the calm before the storm I guess.
Very nervy... this is the most unpredictable election i've ever know. Anything could happen.
Well not quie "anything". The two major parties are likely to win around 550 seats between them and both are likely to win somewhere between 250 - 300 seats. But beyond that is in the lap of the Gods!
The election battle in London is set for a sensational climax, with all three of the biggest parties putting on support, an exclusive new poll reveals today.
Ed Miliband enters his final day of campaigning with Labour 13 points ahead among Londoners, according to research conducted by YouGov for the Evening Standard. Labour is up two points in a fortnight to hit 46 per cent — its best share since November 2013.
David Cameron’s Conservatives are up one point to 33 per cent, while Nick Clegg’s Liberal Democrats are up one point to be third with nine per cent.
The three parties’ gains come at the expense of Ukip and the Greens — both squeezed hard in the run-up to polling day, which could produce some surprise results in key battlegrounds.
Nigel Farage’s Ukip is down two points to eight — which could make all the difference in seats such as Croydon Central and Harrow East, where thousands of Ukippers hold the balance.
Natalie Bennett’s Greens have suffered the biggest squeeze, down two to stand at three per cent — the party’s lowest level since last August. That could make a crucial difference in seats such as Bermondsey & Old Southwark, where the Labour v Lib-Dem battle is on a knife-edge.
Labour’s poll lead, according to the research conducted from April 29 to May 1, is its biggest since last May when it had its best local election results for a generation. The result marks a swing of 5.5 per cent from the Conservatives since the 2010 election.
Amusingly my wife has changed her mind again and the Lib Dems have lost her vote.
Well done to our local (Lib Dem) Councillor whose efforts on Facebook have pushed her out of the Lib Dem column and into the blues.
Somewhat perverse.
The offending Councillor isn't standing for parliament and IIRC Bob Russell has personally helped your family.
He has indeed Jack - which is why my wife keeps changing her mind!
She does feel that we owe him, but she also hates the idea of ED as pm.
The Lib Dems have made some "interesting" claims on some of their leaflets / fake newspapers which she didn't like and yes, the actions of 1 or 2 local councilors are prejudicing her thoughts against the party.
I honestly have no idea which way she will go in the end.
I on the other hand have now decided to go blue (was wavering again after talking to Bob) - but still feel bloody guilty about it despite him voting to keep that ars%%%%%% of a speaker!
One son will (if he actually bothers) vote UKIP and 1 is a definite "none of the above"
Is anyone doing a poll on Friday? It would be interesting to see if there is any revulsion about the result which shifts views, or data on which possible coalition is preferred.
Good memories of the night of 1992's election. I was at an industry do at the Dorchester. The collective sense was Kinnock was going to win, so everyone basically viewed the night as the last supper before disaster. Boy oh boy did everyone drink that night.
Through the hangover the next morning, seeing Major had actually won was like a dream!
I had just turned 16. I stayed up till about 1am and went to bed still expecting Kinnock to squeak through and couldn't believe it when I woke, put my bedroom telly on and saw John Major all smiles at CCHQ. I distinctly remember the headline on Ceefax when I checked to make sure: "Tories bask in fourth term glory".
Babies are innocent children, people that behead others deserve extreme punishment
You equate killing babies and revelling in the act of describing it with punishing criminals. Prob best you see a psychiatrist sometime soon
Killing born babies is murder. Abortion isn't about babies, its about foetuses. Though the two sides of this debate will never see eye to eye.
What is the difference between a foetus and a baby, other than physical location? Should physical location really be the determining factor in whether a killing is murder or not?
What's the difference between a zygote or a foetus? What's the difference between an egg and a single ejaculate? Is menstruation murder? Is jacking one off?
A foetus is still part of the mother's body, a baby isn't
Because of the umbilical cord? Would you be ok with the termination of a baby outside the womb who has not had the cord yet cut?
This is simply scientifically inaccurate. The body of the foetus and the body of the mother are not the same body. Ask any doctor.
The relationship is symbiotic. An unborn foetus is a parasite.
Newborn babies are also entirely dependent on their parents. Peter Singer uses this as a justification for infanticide.
I wonder when Ed will resign. Will he give himself the weekend?
He has surprised me and I suspect plenty of others during this campaign. I thought he would be a six week car crash, but he has actually done well. However, the bottom line is that despite having four years to make a mark he has failed to deliver a coherent, credible set of policies to put in front of the electorate. On top of which he has presided over Labour's total collapse in Scotland. That is not a prospectus for continued leadership after an election in which Labour will stand still in seat numbers, at best. So, farewell Ed - you fought a decent campaign, but you were a desperately poor leader.
Having spent the last two weekends initiating a discussion with candidates in the street and gathering a crowd of listeners, I have been amazed at how gullible the public are and how ready they are to accept the glibbest and flimsiest of promises (or wish lists) that look good to them. Only when the snags and unlikelihood of it ever being achieved are pointed out do the scales fall from their eyes. So expect unexpected results followed by disappointments.
The election battle in London is set for a sensational climax, with all three of the biggest parties putting on support, an exclusive new poll reveals today.
Ed Miliband enters his final day of campaigning with Labour 13 points ahead among Londoners, according to research conducted by YouGov for the Evening Standard. Labour is up two points in a fortnight to hit 46 per cent — its best share since November 2013.
David Cameron’s Conservatives are up one point to 33 per cent, while Nick Clegg’s Liberal Democrats are up one point to be third with nine per cent.
The three parties’ gains come at the expense of Ukip and the Greens — both squeezed hard in the run-up to polling day, which could produce some surprise results in key battlegrounds.
Nigel Farage’s Ukip is down two points to eight — which could make all the difference in seats such as Croydon Central and Harrow East, where thousands of Ukippers hold the balance.
Natalie Bennett’s Greens have suffered the biggest squeeze, down two to stand at three per cent — the party’s lowest level since last August. That could make a crucial difference in seats such as Bermondsey & Old Southwark, where the Labour v Lib-Dem battle is on a knife-edge.
Labour’s poll lead, according to the research conducted from April 29 to May 1, is its biggest since last May when it had its best local election results for a generation. The result marks a swing of 5.5 per cent from the Conservatives since the 2010 election.
Is anyone doing a poll on Friday? It would be interesting to see if there is any revulsion about the result which shifts views, or data on which possible coalition is preferred.
"With so much potential tactical voting the overall national party vote shares won’t mean as much." Wrong! Cameron can't say publicly "Sure, LAB got more votes than us. But a lot of their voters don't actually like LAB and only voted for them because they wanted to keep my party out. So the fact that we got feewr votes is irrelevant."
Sky News "State of the Parties" graphic is ignoring UKIPs by election wins and giving them "0 seats" as it stands
Even if they were trying to be biased it would be hard to justify that
By election gains have never featured in state of the parties set ups. There's no reason they should now just because UKIP won a couple of them
Why not just put the correct numbers up?
They are saying "Conservatives have 306 seats, so they need 20 more to win a majority".. when they don't have that many and 20 more wouldn't get them a majority, just a nonsense
Because the state of the parties at the last GE was as shown, by elections are an irrelevance as they are not fought during a national contest. On the bright side, you get to see UKIP gain Claction flash up Friday morning
So the figures are wrong, that's handy
Oh quit it. It's always been shown thusly. You wouldn't compare next years Premier League to this by putting up the table for Xmas.
Its wrong but its always been done this way., I get it.
Its right, its called being consistent. By-elections are not the same as General Elections - you don't find many By-elections with anything like the turnout of a General Election.
You have to find one way and be consistent about it, otherwise you'd find broadcasters cherrypick whatever data suited their agenda. By looking at the state of play at the end of last General Election (or notional seats then if there's been boundary changes) you're consistent.
I wonder when Ed will resign. Will he give himself the weekend?
He has surprised me and I suspect plenty of others during this campaign. I thought he would be a six week car crash, but he has actually done well. However, the bottom line is that despite having four years to make a mark he has failed to deliver a coherent, credible set of policies to put in front of the electorate. On top of which he has presided over Labour's total collapse in Scotland. That is not a prospectus for continued leadership after an election in which Labour will stand still in seat numbers, at best. So, farewell Ed - you fought a decent campaign, but you were a desperately poor leader.
You are too fatalistic, SO. Ed could easily be on his way to shake hands with the Queen in 48 hours.
You, Dan Hodges and Rogerdamus all predicting a Tory win is the worst news I've had all week!
we've got labourites thinking Ed's a gonner , and PB tories thinking he's next PM..
What a bizzare election.
A pessimist is either proved correct or pleasantly proved wrong
The election battle in London is set for a sensational climax, with all three of the biggest parties putting on support, an exclusive new poll reveals today.
Ed Miliband enters his final day of campaigning with Labour 13 points ahead among Londoners, according to research conducted by YouGov for the Evening Standard. Labour is up two points in a fortnight to hit 46 per cent — its best share since November 2013.
David Cameron’s Conservatives are up one point to 33 per cent, while Nick Clegg’s Liberal Democrats are up one point to be third with nine per cent.
The three parties’ gains come at the expense of Ukip and the Greens — both squeezed hard in the run-up to polling day, which could produce some surprise results in key battlegrounds.
Nigel Farage’s Ukip is down two points to eight — which could make all the difference in seats such as Croydon Central and Harrow East, where thousands of Ukippers hold the balance.
Natalie Bennett’s Greens have suffered the biggest squeeze, down two to stand at three per cent — the party’s lowest level since last August. That could make a crucial difference in seats such as Bermondsey & Old Southwark, where the Labour v Lib-Dem battle is on a knife-edge.
Labour’s poll lead, according to the research conducted from April 29 to May 1, is its biggest since last May when it had its best local election results for a generation. The result marks a swing of 5.5 per cent from the Conservatives since the 2010 election.
That would be the equivalent of Lab 40%, Con 36%, if repeated nationally. Clearly, London's politics is very different to the rest of the UK.
Labour would gain six from the Conservatives, and three from the Lib Dems on UNS. The Conservatives would gain two from the Lib Dems. In reality, some of these seats will be very tough nuts to crack.
I wonder when Ed will resign. Will he give himself the weekend?
He has surprised me and I suspect plenty of others during this campaign. I thought he would be a six week car crash, but he has actually done well. However, the bottom line is that despite having four years to make a mark he has failed to deliver a coherent, credible set of policies to put in front of the electorate. On top of which he has presided over Labour's total collapse in Scotland. That is not a prospectus for continued leadership after an election in which Labour will stand still in seat numbers, at best. So, farewell Ed - you fought a decent campaign, but you were a desperately poor leader.
You are too fatalistic, SO. Ed could easily be on his way to shake hands with the Queen in 48 hours.
You, Dan Hodges and Rogerdamus all predicting a Tory win is the worst news I've had all week!
I am not predicting a Tory win. I am predicting the Tories getting most seats. There's a big difference. It's surely the most logical outcome if the polls are right about Scotland. Just to stand still Labour will need 35 plus gains in England and Wales. To get most seats, 55 plus. To actually win, 80 plus. It is not going to happen.
Everyone apart from the SNP looks like having a pretty crappy night. But in relative terms, the Labour one will be crappier than the Tory one and that will be Ed's responsibility.
It's not impossible that all three of the traditional main parties will lose net seats, but it's a fairly narrow range of Labour gains from the Tories that would make it happen. Probably around 20-30.
It would be a notable election stat if it comes to pass.
Babies are innocent children, people that behead others deserve extreme punishment
You equate killing babies and revelling in the act of describing it with punishing criminals. Prob best you see a psychiatrist sometime soon
Killing born babies is murder. Abortion isn't about babies, its about foetuses. Though the two sides of this debate will never see eye to eye.
What is the difference between a foetus and a baby, other than physical location? Should physical location really be the determining factor in whether a killing is murder or not?
What's the difference between a zygote or a foetus? What's the difference between an egg and a single ejaculate? Is menstruation murder? Is jacking one off?
A foetus is still part of the mother's body, a baby isn't
Because of the umbilical cord? Would you be ok with the termination of a baby outside the womb who has not had the cord yet cut?
This is simply scientifically inaccurate. The body of the foetus and the body of the mother are not the same body. Ask any doctor.
The relationship is symbiotic. An unborn foetus is a parasite.
Newborn babies are also entirely dependent on their parents. Peter Singer uses this as a justification for infanticide.
Bullshit. He uses it as justification for the lack of equivalence between killing a newborn and killing a rationale, thinking person. It's a philosophical distinction and absolutely not the same thing as your willfully-false and inflammatory interpretation.
Good memories of the night of 1992's election. I was at an industry do at the Dorchester. The collective sense was Kinnock was going to win, so everyone basically viewed the night as the last supper before disaster. Boy oh boy did everyone drink that night.
Through the hangover the next morning, seeing Major had actually won was like a dream!
I had just turned 16. I stayed up till about 1am and went to bed still expecting Kinnock to squeak through and couldn't believe it when I woke, put my bedroom telly on and saw John Major all smiles at CCHQ. I distinctly remember the headline on Ceefax when I checked to make sure: "Tories bask in fourth term glory".
Lovely.
I got so drunk on the Thursday night that I left work in the City at 5.30pm on the dot on the friday, and went home to bed, thus avoiding being bombed by the IRA 3 hours later. Knock down evidence of the life-prolonging effects of alcohol.
Sky News "State of the Parties" graphic is ignoring UKIPs by election wins and giving them "0 seats" as it stands
Even if they were trying to be biased it would be hard to justify that
By election gains have never featured in state of the parties set ups. There's no reason they should now just because UKIP won a couple of them
Why not just put the correct numbers up?
They are saying "Conservatives have 306 seats, so they need 20 more to win a majority".. when they don't have that many and 20 more wouldn't get them a majority, just a nonsense
Because the state of the parties at the last GE was as shown, by elections are an irrelevance as they are not fought during a national contest. On the bright side, you get to see UKIP gain Claction flash up Friday morning
So the figures are wrong, that's handy
Oh quit it. It's always been shown thusly. You wouldn't compare next years Premier League to this by putting up the table for Xmas.
Its wrong but its always been done this way., I get it.
Its right, its called being consistent. By-elections are not the same as General Elections - you don't find many By-elections with anything like the turnout of a General Election.
You have to find one way and be consistent about it, otherwise you'd find broadcasters cherrypick whatever data suited their agenda. By looking at the state of play at the end of last General Election (or notional seats then if there's been boundary changes) you're consistent.
Using the current state of play just seems common sense.. prob why it isn't used
I wonder when Ed will resign. Will he give himself the weekend?
He has surprised me and I suspect plenty of others during this campaign. I thought he would be a six week car crash, but he has actually done well. However, the bottom line is that despite having four years to make a mark he has failed to deliver a coherent, credible set of policies to put in front of the electorate. On top of which he has presided over Labour's total collapse in Scotland. That is not a prospectus for continued leadership after an election in which Labour will stand still in seat numbers, at best. So, farewell Ed - you fought a decent campaign, but you were a desperately poor leader.
You are too fatalistic, SO. Ed could easily be on his way to shake hands with the Queen in 48 hours.
You, Dan Hodges and Rogerdamus all predicting a Tory win is the worst news I've had all week!
we've got labourites thinking Ed's a gonner , and PB tories thinking he's next PM..
What a bizzare election.
I expected consistent Tory leads of 4-5% in the phone polls by now, and 1-2% in the online polls.
That hasn't happened, and we're now out of time, so I've changed my mind.
Babies are innocent children, people that behead others deserve extreme punishment
You equate killing babies and revelling in the act of describing it with punishing criminals. Prob best you see a psychiatrist sometime soon
Killing born babies is murder. Abortion isn't about babies, its about foetuses. Though the two sides of this debate will never see eye to eye.
What is the difference between a foetus and a baby, other than physical location? Should physical location really be the determining factor in whether a killing is murder or not?
What's the difference between a zygote or a foetus? What's the difference between an egg and a single ejaculate? Is menstruation murder? Is jacking one off?
A foetus is still part of the mother's body, a baby isn't
Because of the umbilical cord? Would you be ok with the termination of a baby outside the womb who has not had the cord yet cut?
This is simply scientifically inaccurate. The body of the foetus and the body of the mother are not the same body. Ask any doctor.
The relationship is symbiotic. An unborn foetus is a parasite.
Newborn babies are also entirely dependent on their parents. Peter Singer uses this as a justification for infanticide.
Bullshit. He uses it as justification for the lack of equivalence between killing a newborn and killing a rationale, thinking person. It's a philosophical distinction and absolutely not the same thing as your willfully-false and inflammatory interpretation.
The philosophical notion of Personhood leads to some rather uncomfortable conclusions.
I wonder when Ed will resign. Will he give himself the weekend?
He has surprised me and I suspect plenty of others during this campaign. I thought he would be a six week car crash, but he has actually done well. However, the bottom line is that despite having four years to make a mark he has failed to deliver a coherent, credible set of policies to put in front of the electorate. On top of which he has presided over Labour's total collapse in Scotland. That is not a prospectus for continued leadership after an election in which Labour will stand still in seat numbers, at best. So, farewell Ed - you fought a decent campaign, but you were a desperately poor leader.
You are too fatalistic, SO. Ed could easily be on his way to shake hands with the Queen in 48 hours.
You, Dan Hodges and Rogerdamus all predicting a Tory win is the worst news I've had all week!
I am not predicting a Tory win. I am predicting the Tories getting most seats. There's a big difference. It's surely the most logical outcome if the polls are right about Scotland. Just to stand still Labour will need 35 plus gains in England and Wales. To get most seats, 55 plus. To actually win, 80 plus. It is not going to happen.
Everyone apart from the SNP looks like having a pretty crappy night. But in relative terms, the Labour one will be crappier than the Tory one and that will be Ed's responsibility.
If the Tories don't win, and Dave can't stay as PM, then Ed will be PM. And he therefore won't resign this weekend.
Babies are innocent children, people that behead others deserve extreme punishment
You equate killing babies and revelling in the act of describing it with punishing criminals. Prob best you see a psychiatrist sometime soon
Killing born babies is murder. Abortion isn't about babies, its about foetuses. Though the two sides of this debate will never see eye to eye.
What is the difference between a foetus and a baby, other than physical location? Should physical location really be the determining factor in whether a killing is murder or not?
What's the difference between a zygote or a foetus? What's the difference between an egg and a single ejaculate? Is menstruation murder? Is jacking one off?
A foetus is still part of the mother's body, a baby isn't
Because of the umbilical cord? Would you be ok with the termination of a baby outside the womb who has not had the cord yet cut?
This is simply scientifically inaccurate. The body of the foetus and the body of the mother are not the same body. Ask any doctor.
The relationship is symbiotic. An unborn foetus is a parasite.
It is my understanding that a parasite has to be from another species. I do think it is quite sad that those arguing abortion up to birth have to start arguing that unborn babies are parasites and do not deserve the right to life as a result. Would you extend such logic to other humans with one-way dependency, such as newborn babies, or the disabled?
Good memories of the night of 1992's election. I was at an industry do at the Dorchester. The collective sense was Kinnock was going to win, so everyone basically viewed the night as the last supper before disaster. Boy oh boy did everyone drink that night.
Through the hangover the next morning, seeing Major had actually won was like a dream!
I had just turned 16. I stayed up till about 1am and went to bed still expecting Kinnock to squeak through and couldn't believe it when I woke, put my bedroom telly on and saw John Major all smiles at CCHQ. I distinctly remember the headline on Ceefax when I checked to make sure: "Tories bask in fourth term glory".
Lovely.
They'd have been far better off losing that one in hindsight!
General limit in the UK (barring extraordinary circumstances) is 24 weeks. I think that's the most realistic and sensible balance.
Yes, post-natal abortion is a proposal in the joint party Elimination of Troll Bait white paper due for publication on Friday. The briefing paper says it's something to do with reducing the effectiveness of trolls on internet forums by ensuring the non-existence of targets.
Babies are innocent children, people that behead others deserve extreme punishment
You equate killing babies and revelling in the act of describing it with punishing criminals. Prob best you see a psychiatrist sometime soon
Killing born babies is murder. Abortion isn't about babies, its about foetuses. Though the two sides of this debate will never see eye to eye.
What is the difference between a foetus and a baby, other than physical location? Should physical location really be the determining factor in whether a killing is murder or not?
What's the difference between a zygote or a foetus? What's the difference between an egg and a single ejaculate? Is menstruation murder? Is jacking one off?
A foetus is still part of the mother's body, a baby isn't
Because of the umbilical cord? Would you be ok with the termination of a baby outside the womb who has not had the cord yet cut?
This is simply scientifically inaccurate. The body of the foetus and the body of the mother are not the same body. Ask any doctor.
The relationship is symbiotic. An unborn foetus is a parasite.
Newborn babies are also entirely dependent on their parents. Peter Singer uses this as a justification for infanticide.
Bullshit. He uses it as justification for the lack of equivalence between killing a newborn and killing a rationale, thinking person. It's a philosophical distinction and absolutely not the same thing as your willfully-false and inflammatory interpretation.
The philosophical notion of Personhood leads to some rather uncomfortable conclusions.
Sky News "State of the Parties" graphic is ignoring UKIPs by election wins and giving them "0 seats" as it stands
Even if they were trying to be biased it would be hard to justify that
By election gains have never featured in state of the parties set ups. There's no reason they should now just because UKIP won a couple of them
Why not just put the correct numbers up?
They are saying "Conservatives have 306 seats, so they need 20 more to win a majority".. when they don't have that many and 20 more wouldn't get them a majority, just a nonsense
Because the state of the parties at the last GE was as shown, by elections are an irrelevance as they are not fought during a national contest. On the bright side, you get to see UKIP gain Claction flash up Friday morning
So the figures are wrong, that's handy
Oh quit it. It's always been shown thusly. You wouldn't compare next years Premier League to this by putting up the table for Xmas.
Its wrong but its always been done this way., I get it.
Its right, its called being consistent. By-elections are not the same as General Elections - you don't find many By-elections with anything like the turnout of a General Election.
You have to find one way and be consistent about it, otherwise you'd find broadcasters cherrypick whatever data suited their agenda. By looking at the state of play at the end of last General Election (or notional seats then if there's been boundary changes) you're consistent.
Using the current state of play just seems common sense.. prob why it isn't used
Except that defections especially and by-elections to a lesser extent are not the state of play of General Election votes.
Take the instance of Witney in 2001. In 1997 Witney voted elected a Conservative (Shaun Woodward) with over 7000 majority.
In 1999 Shaun Woodward defected to Labour, who then relocated to St Helens for the next General Election rather than standing again in Witney.
In 2001 a certain David Cameron became the MP for Witney with a majority of about 8000 (an increase in majority of nearly 1000 but almost exactly the same result as last time).
Was that a Tory gain, or Tory hold. The media (rightly) regards that as a Tory hold as the electorate elected a Tory in the last election regardless of what Woodward then chose to do.
It doesn't make sense for the Greens to be on just 3% in London and yet on 5% overall as most polls of polls are showing, because London will be by far the Greens' best area.
Lab most seats is around 7/2. Admittedly it probably needs them to do a little better in Scotland than expected but I think there has been a hint of that in the last 48 hours.
Using the current state of play just seems common sense.. prob why it isn't used
No, it's not common sense at all. It would mean you are not comparing like with like. Imagine two very similar seats next door to each other, both won at the last GE by party X, which was the government party. One of them happened to have a by-election mid-term, and, as often happens, was won at the by-election by the opposition. When it comes to the next GE, if they both go back to the same party which won them last time, it's misleading to say that party X has made a 'gain' in the seat which held the by-election but not in the other, because this 'gain' is actually just a reflection of the random event of the by-election being held, not of progress by the party in one seat but not in the other.
Good memories of the night of 1992's election. I was at an industry do at the Dorchester. The collective sense was Kinnock was going to win, so everyone basically viewed the night as the last supper before disaster. Boy oh boy did everyone drink that night.
Through the hangover the next morning, seeing Major had actually won was like a dream!
I had just turned 16. I stayed up till about 1am and went to bed still expecting Kinnock to squeak through and couldn't believe it when I woke, put my bedroom telly on and saw John Major all smiles at CCHQ. I distinctly remember the headline on Ceefax when I checked to make sure: "Tories bask in fourth term glory".
Lovely.
They'd have been far better off losing that one in hindsight!
I think whoever 'wins' this one will be very quickly thinking the same.
Amusingly my wife has changed her mind again and the Lib Dems have lost her vote.
Well done to our local (Lib Dem) Councillor whose efforts on Facebook have pushed her out of the Lib Dem column and into the blues.
Somewhat perverse.
The offending Councillor isn't standing for parliament and IIRC Bob Russell has personally helped your family.
He has indeed Jack - which is why my wife keeps changing her mind!
She does feel that we owe him, but she also hates the idea of ED as pm.
The Lib Dems have made some "interesting" claims on some of their leaflets / fake newspapers which she didn't like and yes, the actions of 1 or 2 local councilors are prejudicing her thoughts against the party.
I honestly have no idea which way she will go in the end.
I on the other hand have now decided to go blue (was wavering again after talking to Bob) - but still feel bloody guilty about it despite him voting to keep that ars%%%%%% of a speaker!
One son will (if he actually bothers) vote UKIP and 1 is a definite "none of the above"
No one said that the voters had to be rational about exercising their franchise.
SNP have fought by far the best campaign and will reap the rewards accordingly. They might hit the big FIVE O.
The Tory rhetoric in this election is probably the finish of the union if they win. If they lose the Cameron goes and the union is finished with bonkers Boris.
If he gets half a chance Milliband will deal with the SNP or if that gets to embarrassing someone else will. Milliband has received credit in this campaign for basically just tripping but not falling over on loiuve television. Strategically his campaign has been totally inept. His blurting nonsense in the TV debate has taken him from heavy odds on to be Prime Minister to no better than evens.
The Fib Dems are unlikely to be a factor if they lose a substantial number of seats because the rest will just want to survive. Clegg will likely hold on but then be removed while Danny Alexander is toast and will supply the moment of the evening which most reasonable people will celebrate. He will then join the Tories where he belongs and next time stand for a south of England seat.
Complete piffle about Danny Alexander, he is not a Conservative but he comes across as a very decent guy, when your Scottish heads are above the parapet working with Eddie you will become unpopular very quickly just like the Liberals.
Alexander comes across like the lying weaselly creep that he is. Self seeking uselesss numpty.
I'm sure in person you are a perfectly nice person,k.
Gawd we've had some outlandish predictions on here recently but that one takes the biscuit. .
Strangely most of the keyboard commandos I've met in real life don't come across anywhere as mouthy, as they do on line.
Talking about yourself?
Do you graphically describe abortions to people who ask you to stop using them as a metaphor in real life too? Nice guy
The election battle in London is set for a sensational climax, with all three of the biggest parties putting on support, an exclusive new poll reveals today.
Ed Miliband enters his final day of campaigning with Labour 13 points ahead among Londoners, according to research conducted by YouGov for the Evening Standard. Labour is up two points in a fortnight to hit 46 per cent — its best share since November 2013.
David Cameron’s Conservatives are up one point to 33 per cent, while Nick Clegg’s Liberal Democrats are up one point to be third with nine per cent.
The three parties’ gains come at the expense of Ukip and the Greens — both squeezed hard in the run-up to polling day, which could produce some surprise results in key battlegrounds.
Nigel Farage’s Ukip is down two points to eight — which could make all the difference in seats such as Croydon Central and Harrow East, where thousands of Ukippers hold the balance.
Natalie Bennett’s Greens have suffered the biggest squeeze, down two to stand at three per cent — the party’s lowest level since last August. That could make a crucial difference in seats such as Bermondsey & Old Southwark, where the Labour v Lib-Dem battle is on a knife-edge.
Labour’s poll lead, according to the research conducted from April 29 to May 1, is its biggest since last May when it had its best local election results for a generation. The result marks a swing of 5.5 per cent from the Conservatives since the 2010 election.
That would be the equivalent of Lab 40%, Con 36%, if repeated nationally. Clearly, London's politics is very different to the rest of the UK.
Labour would gain six from the Conservatives, and three from the Lib Dems on UNS. The Conservatives would gain two from the Lib Dems. In reality, some of these seats will be very tough nuts to crack.
London is now Labour ground-zero. I wouldn't be surprised if they cleaned up.
The only thing that can save the Tories now in some of those seats is turnout. I'm not holding my breath.
I wonder when Ed will resign. Will he give himself the weekend?
He has surprised me and I suspect plenty of others during this campaign. I thought he would be a six week car crash, but he has actually done well. However, the bottom line is that despite having four years to make a mark he has failed to deliver a coherent, credible set of policies to put in front of the electorate. On top of which he has presided over Labour's total collapse in Scotland. That is not a prospectus for continued leadership after an election in which Labour will stand still in seat numbers, at best. So, farewell Ed - you fought a decent campaign, but you were a desperately poor leader.
Ah cheer up you old bugger.
I thought the Tories might pull a bit clear in the final couple of weeks. It hasn't happened. Every time the Tories looked to pull away, the Labour share firmed up.
The Tories *may* get most seats, but not by much. And certainly by not enough.
I'm much more hopeful now that Cameron and his cronies are close to being justifiably defenestrated.
Miliband is not beholden to the rightwing press and it'll slosh around in impotent fits of anger while he puts his loose Labour / SNP arrangement together in the commons.
Owen Jones@OwenJones84·2 mins2 minutes ago The Tories only have a shot in this election because of a campaign of fear and smear. I wonder how their supporters privately feel about it
Mr. G, they'll take their tax revenue with them. And jobs.
There is always work for the industrious Morris, and the sooner we liberate the working men and women of the UK from global corporate yoke, the sooner we can forge ahead, together. Small businesses and small people are the backbone of a small and enduring state.
A large number of small businesses rely on trade with the larger corporations. So let's remove all aircraft, arms, vehicle and steel, manufacture plus oil and gas companies from the UK, as well as large retailers and banks - are you suggesting going back to the time when every village had its own farmer, bootmaker, butcher, etc?
Just caught sight of Nicola Sturgeon on telly and I immediately thought that in fifteen years she'll be the spitting image of Angela Merkel.
Or is it just me?
She's one of those disconcerting women who appear to have no lips. Even Maggie had the lips of Marilyn Monroe (and the eyes of Caligula - if Mitterand is to be believed). As a general rule in life don't trust people who don't like dogs or who don't have lips.
Owen Jones@OwenJones84·2 mins2 minutes ago The Tories only have a shot in this election because of a campaign of fear and smear. I wonder how their supporters privately feel about it
Pot calling the kettle black there. That muppet lacks all self-awareness.
Babies are innocent children, people that behead others deserve extreme punishment
You equate killing babies and revelling in the act of describing it with punishing criminals. Prob best you see a psychiatrist sometime soon
Killing born babies is murder. Abortion isn't about babies, its about foetuses. Though the two sides of this debate will never see eye to eye.
What is the difference between a foetus and a baby, other than physical location? Should physical location really be the determining factor in whether a killing is murder or not?
What's the difference between a zygote or a foetus? What's the difference between an egg and a single ejaculate? Is menstruation murder? Is jacking one off?
A foetus is still part of the mother's body, a baby isn't
Because of the umbilical cord? Would you be ok with the termination of a baby outside the womb who has not had the cord yet cut?
This is simply scientifically inaccurate. The body of the foetus and the body of the mother are not the same body. Ask any doctor.
The relationship is symbiotic. An unborn foetus is a parasite.
Newborn babies are also entirely dependent on their parents. Peter Singer uses this as a justification for infanticide.
Bullshit. He uses it as justification for the lack of equivalence between killing a newborn and killing a rationale, thinking person. It's a philosophical distinction and absolutely not the same thing as your willfully-false and inflammatory interpretation.
It's not a false interpretation. Singer has indeed argued that infanticide should be lawful in limited circumstances.
Just caught sight of Nicola Sturgeon on telly and I immediately thought that in fifteen years she'll be the spitting image of Angela Merkel.
Or is it just me?
She's one of those disconcerting women who appear to have no lips. Even Maggie had the lips of Marilyn Monroe (and the eyes of Caligula - if Mitterand is to be believed). As a general rule in life don't trust people who don't like dogs or who don't have lips.
Let's just hope she was never photographed at an East German naturist resort in her youth then
Sky News "State of the Parties" graphic is ignoring UKIPs by election wins and giving them "0 seats" as it stands
Even if they were trying to be biased it would be hard to justify that
won a couple of them
Why not just put the correct numbers up?
20 more wouldn't get them a majority, just a nonsense
Because the state of the parties at the last GE was as shown, by elections are an irrelevance as they are not fought during a national contest. On the bright side, you get to see UKIP gain Claction flash up Friday morning
So the figures are wrong, that's handy
Oh quit it. It's always been shown thusly. You wouldn't compare next years Premier League to this by putting up the table for Xmas.
Its wrong but its always been done this way., I get it.
Its right, its called being consistent. By-elections are not the same as General Elections - you don't find many By-elections with anything like the turnout of a General Election.
You have to find one way and be consistent about it, otherwise you'd find broadcasters cherrypick whatever data suited their agenda. By looking at the state of play at the end of last General Election (or notional seats then if there's been boundary changes) you're consistent.
Using the current state of play just seems common sense.. prob why it isn't used
Except that defections especially and by-elections to a lesser extent are not the state of play of General Election votes.
Take the instance of Witney in 2001. In 1997 Witney voted elected a Conservative (Shaun Woodward) with over 7000 majority.
In 1999 Shaun Woodward defected to Labour, who then relocated to St Helens for the next General Election rather than standing again in Witney.
In 2001 a certain David Cameron became the MP for Witney with a majority of about 8000 (an increase in majority of nearly 1000 but almost exactly the same result as last time).
Was that a Tory gain, or Tory hold. The media (rightly) regards that as a Tory hold as the electorate elected a Tory in the last election regardless of what Woodward then chose to do.
Not the way I would see it, I'd call it a Tory gain. Not important enough to argue about all day, we are allowed to disagree
Owen Jones@OwenJones84·2 mins2 minutes ago The Tories only have a shot in this election because of a campaign of fear and smear. I wonder how their supporters privately feel about it
I can confidently say that Conservative supporters are almost as embarrassed by it as Owen Jones is at Labour's campaign fear and smear over the NHS.
Babies are innocent children, people that behead others deserve extreme punishment
You equate killing babies and revelling in the act of describing it with punishing criminals. Prob best you see a psychiatrist sometime soon
Killing born babies is murder. Abortion isn't about babies, its about foetuses. Though the two sides of this debate will never see eye to eye.
What is the difference between a foetus and a baby, other than physical location? Should physical location really be the determining factor in whether a killing is murder or not?
What's the difference between a zygote or a foetus? What's the difference between an egg and a single ejaculate? Is menstruation murder? Is jacking one off?
A foetus is still part of the mother's body, a baby isn't
Because of the umbilical cord? Would you be ok with the termination of a baby outside the womb who has not had the cord yet cut?
This is simply scientifically inaccurate. The body of the foetus and the body of the mother are not the same body. Ask any doctor.
The relationship is symbiotic. An unborn foetus is a parasite.
Newborn babies are also entirely dependent on their parents. Peter Singer uses this as a justification for infanticide.
Bullshit. He uses it as justification for the lack of equivalence between killing a newborn and killing a rationale, thinking person. It's a philosophical distinction and absolutely not the same thing as your willfully-false and inflammatory interpretation.
It's not a false interpretation. Singer has indeed argued that infanticide should be lawful in limited circumstances.
Medically justfied euthanasia in extreme situations. You were one small step from implying that Singer would happily go around slaying babies because they are dependent on their mothers. Disingenuous at best.
Owen Jones@OwenJones84·2 mins2 minutes ago The Tories only have a shot in this election because of a campaign of fear and smear. I wonder how their supporters privately feel about it
I can confidently say that Conservative supporters are almost as embarrassed by it as Owen Jones is at Labour's campaign fear and smear over the NHS.
labour is righteous whistle blowing and genuine concern raising as to ishues and efics.
I wonder when Ed will resign. Will he give himself the weekend?
He has surprised me and I suspect plenty of others during this campaign. I thought he would be a six week car crash, but he has actually done well. However, the bottom line is that despite having four years to make a mark he has failed to deliver a coherent, credible set of policies to put in front of the electorate. On top of which he has presided over Labour's total collapse in Scotland. That is not a prospectus for continued leadership after an election in which Labour will stand still in seat numbers, at best. So, farewell Ed - you fought a decent campaign, but you were a desperately poor leader.
Ah cheer up you old bugger.
I thought the Tories might pull a bit clear in the final couple of weeks. It hasn't happened. Every time the Tories looked to pull away, the Labour share firmed up.
The Tories *may* get most seats, but not by much. And certainly by not enough.
I'm much more hopeful now that Cameron and his cronies are close to being justifiably defenestrated.
Miliband is not beholden to the rightwing press and it'll slosh around in impotent fits of anger while he puts his loose Labour / SNP arrangement together in the commons.
The next election will then be 5 years hence.
We'll see. But I'd be very surprised. And I am not sure that it would be a pleasant one. I do not see what incentive the SNP has for not causing as much trouble as possible for a Labour-led government. The bottom line is that the SNP is a nationalist party that has the creation of an international frontier between Scotland and England as its single priority. Supporting a Labour government would make that much harder to do.
Using the current state of play just seems common sense.. prob why it isn't used
No, it's not common sense at all. It would mean you are not comparing like with like. Imagine two very similar seats next door to each other, both won at the last GE by party X, which was the government party. One of them happened to have a by-election mid-term, and, as often happens, was won at the by-election by the opposition. When it comes to the next GE, if they both go back to the same party which won them last time, it's misleading to say that party X has made a 'gain' in the seat which held the by-election but not in the other, because this 'gain' is actually just a reflection of the random event of the by-election being held, not of progress by the party in one seat but not in the other.
It is complete common sense which is possibly why the political anoraks think it is wrong
Comments
Mr. Slackbladder, have to wait and see how the numbers go.
https://twitter.com/raisethegame/status/595875503967490048
What a bizzare election.
This is simply scientifically inaccurate. The body of the foetus and the body of the mother are not the same body. Ask any doctor.
"A foetus is still part of the mother's body, a baby isn't"
An interesting view of developmental biology. leading to the question ... is it OK to abort a nine month old foetus, but only until the umbilical cord is cut?
I'm not joining this argument because it's about emotion more than anything else. Facts won't matter.
5.5 swing Con/Lab since 2010
46/33/9/8/3
An early abortion has more in common with a menstrual cycle than murder.
92% return if the #jockalypse happens
27% return if Lab manage to hold half their seats
I really don't understand why I didn't put a lot, lot more on it.
Everyone apart from the SNP looks like having a pretty crappy night. But in relative terms, the Labour one will be crappier than the Tory one and that will be Ed's responsibility.
Can't get more up to date than that.
Ed Miliband enters his final day of campaigning with Labour 13 points ahead among Londoners, according to research conducted by YouGov for the Evening Standard. Labour is up two points in a fortnight to hit 46 per cent — its best share since November 2013.
David Cameron’s Conservatives are up one point to 33 per cent, while Nick Clegg’s Liberal Democrats are up one point to be third with nine per cent.
The three parties’ gains come at the expense of Ukip and the Greens — both squeezed hard in the run-up to polling day, which could produce some surprise results in key battlegrounds.
Nigel Farage’s Ukip is down two points to eight — which could make all the difference in seats such as Croydon Central and Harrow East, where thousands of Ukippers hold the balance.
Natalie Bennett’s Greens have suffered the biggest squeeze, down two to stand at three per cent — the party’s lowest level since last August. That could make a crucial difference in seats such as Bermondsey & Old Southwark, where the Labour v Lib-Dem battle is on a knife-edge.
Labour’s poll lead, according to the research conducted from April 29 to May 1, is its biggest since last May when it had its best local election results for a generation. The result marks a swing of 5.5 per cent from the Conservatives since the 2010 election.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/labour-races-to-13point-london-lead-as-smaller-rivals-feel-the-squeeze-10228407.html
I feel like investing some more money there.
She does feel that we owe him, but she also hates the idea of ED as pm.
The Lib Dems have made some "interesting" claims on some of their leaflets / fake newspapers which she didn't like and yes, the actions of 1 or 2 local councilors are prejudicing her thoughts against the party.
I honestly have no idea which way she will go in the end.
I on the other hand have now decided to go blue (was wavering again after talking to Bob) - but still feel bloody guilty about it despite him voting to keep that ars%%%%%% of a speaker!
One son will (if he actually bothers) vote UKIP and 1 is a definite "none of the above"
Thanks Calum.
Lovely.
Lynton Crosby apparently projecting 300 seats for Tories - more than touching distance with LDs and DUP.
Wrong! Cameron can't say publicly "Sure, LAB got more votes than us. But a lot of their voters don't actually like LAB and only voted for them because they wanted to keep my party out. So the fact that we got feewr votes is irrelevant."
Outside of wonkland, this is pretty obvious.
You have to find one way and be consistent about it, otherwise you'd find broadcasters cherrypick whatever data suited their agenda. By looking at the state of play at the end of last General Election (or notional seats then if there's been boundary changes) you're consistent.
Labour would gain six from the Conservatives, and three from the Lib Dems on UNS. The Conservatives would gain two from the Lib Dems. In reality, some of these seats will be very tough nuts to crack.
General limit in the UK (barring extraordinary circumstances) is 24 weeks. I think that's the most realistic and sensible balance.
It would be a notable election stat if it comes to pass.
Labour gain: Brentford + Isleworth, Hendon, Enfield North, Croydon Central, Finchley + Golders Green, Ealing + Acton
Con hold: Battersea, Ilford North, Enfield Southgate, Harrow East
Or is it just me?
That hasn't happened, and we're now out of time, so I've changed my mind.
North, South and West were close.
Take the instance of Witney in 2001. In 1997 Witney voted elected a Conservative (Shaun Woodward) with over 7000 majority.
In 1999 Shaun Woodward defected to Labour, who then relocated to St Helens for the next General Election rather than standing again in Witney.
In 2001 a certain David Cameron became the MP for Witney with a majority of about 8000 (an increase in majority of nearly 1000 but almost exactly the same result as last time).
Was that a Tory gain, or Tory hold. The media (rightly) regards that as a Tory hold as the electorate elected a Tory in the last election regardless of what Woodward then chose to do.
Whats going on.
Patrick O'Flynn retweeted
Suzanne Evans@SuzanneEvans1·21 mins21 minutes ago
Phone canvassing in Ramsgate with @Nigel_Farage and @oflynnmep #GoPurple #GE2015
The only thing that can save the Tories now in some of those seats is turnout. I'm not holding my breath.
I thought the Tories might pull a bit clear in the final couple of weeks. It hasn't happened. Every time the Tories looked to pull away, the Labour share firmed up.
The Tories *may* get most seats, but not by much. And certainly by not enough.
I'm much more hopeful now that Cameron and his cronies are close to being justifiably defenestrated.
Miliband is not beholden to the rightwing press and it'll slosh around in impotent fits of anger while he puts his loose Labour / SNP arrangement together in the commons.
The next election will then be 5 years hence.
Owen Jones@OwenJones84·2 mins2 minutes ago
The Tories only have a shot in this election because of a campaign of fear and smear. I wonder how their supporters privately feel about it
Mr. Scrapheap, unsurprising. If Farage loses that will become the entire UKIP story of the night for most people.
tory is fear and smear