Fox Even if UKIP only win a fraction of the Out voters compared to the Yes voters the SNP won , they will increase their total next time if we vote In, especially a narrow In
No they won't. People in the UK are not obsessed with Europe in the way Scots are about their independence.
The 2020 election will not be about Europe.
I would suspect you are correct. I mean will we get a howling frothing mob of people voting ukip in the south of England safe in the knowledge that it would let in a pro EU labour SNP alliance? And all this after the country would have voted to stay in the EU? The brainpower of kipper cultists is best assessed by checking out the Speccy coffer house from time to time.
Felix Wrong on both counts I think. Many only voted Tory to get an EU referendum, they could quite easily switch to UKIP if that referendum does not produce an Out vote, Labour has far fewer potential Out voters going by the polls.
Any white working class voters for whom immigration was the primary concern will already have voted UKIP in 2015, if Burnham, educated at a St Helens comp and a northerner through and through, becomes leader that will be a big change from North London intellectual Ed. Polls also consistently showed Ed Miliband running behind his party, Cameron ran ahead of his
You keep quoting polls to support your case - ignoring the fact the the EU referendum had very little salience, and that polling failed to get the result right! I think Cameron is slowly but surely de-toxifying the party anyway. your reliance on Burnham as a potential game-changer is, how can I put it - brave. Anyway, you are clearly a Labour supporter intent on on ignoring what has just happened to your party, and I say more power to your elbow. It's all good for the Tories. I think an early night for me. Just remember your party is 99 seats behind the Tories - with little prospect of a Scottish recovery. Your party opposes all cuts to benefits, and thinks the voters are fooled when you call more spending, investment. You will no doubt accuse me of being a complacent Tory. I hope it makes you feel better. Sleep well.
Apparentyly in Erlam and Others vs Rahman the point may already be established that s106 can be used in connection with positive statements about oneself rather than being restricted to smears of opponents.
"Although s106 usually refers to statements made to the detriment of a candidate, the wording is wide enough to encompass a false statement made in favour of a candidate (for example that he was a substantial philanthropist or had been awarded a medal for bravery) which might affect his electoral chances, albeit positively rather than negatively." Erlam and Others v Rahman [2015] EWHC 1215 (QB), para 104
Felix I normally vote Tory or Liberal so this not said from a partisan Labour perspective. I remember full well the EU divisions of the Major government with its small majority and the many Tories who voted for the Referendum Party in 1997, many of those will have voted for Cameron in 2015 to get a referendum, they may not do so again if that referendum produces a narrow In. Polling showed Cameron would probably remain PM, just failed to predict he would get a majority. As for Labour, Burnham has actually said he will accept some spending cuts and as for Cameron he will not be leading the Tories in 2020 either, Scotland may see a small swingback but it has no impact on the Tory v Labour battlegrounds
Surely, in relation to Carmichael, the intention (whatever the actual wording) of the Act is
1) People making misleading remarks about a candidate 2) Those remarks being made to make that candidate look bad
It is a bit of a stretch to think that it should cover an individual candidate making a misleading remark about themselves to make themselves look good! Politicians mislead to make themselves look good all the time! So even if you think the Act can be twisted to cover Carmichael you are arguing semantics on the difference between a misleading statement and a lie.
For what it is worth I think "dear" is on the sexist side "women" certainly isn't. Neither is a "disgrace" as our host put it.
Also Mike if you think Salmond's "offence" whatever that may be is on the same universe as Carmichael's lie then Liberal defeast have robbed you of any semblence of a sense of perspective.
"dear" in isolation could be argued to be sexist in nature. However, "calm down dear" is a phrase from popular culture and however it's original portrayal in the advert (which again may be sexist especially given the celebrity used) it is now used in a general and non-sexist way being equally applicable to men or women.
In other words neither Cameron or Salmond has behaved inappropriately.
Interesting how the chart at the end shows there is no national newspaper that reflects the makeup of the electorate particularly well. As we all know people's newspaper readerships are very self-selective.
Lefties might hate this fact, but by a long shot the closest thing to a One Nation newspaper is actually The Sun. And the second-closest* is The Times. This is something I've often argued (can't recall if I have ever made a point of it on PB) on an anecdotal level, but it's nice to see some data that backs it up.
* On visual inspection anyway, the Times readership has a far too high Con lead over Lab and the UKIP vote is much too low, but unlike the Express (which I think comes second-closest to the Con lead at the election) it doesn't have UKIP above Labour.
The Greek PM seems to be banking everything on Greece's creditors thinking getting any money back is better than no money back. But most of them will surely have found some way to hedge their position somehow (in many cases such that Greece defaulting might be in their favour!)
I think it is a forgone conclusion that the Tories will be dominant this summer as the opposition is leaderless and in disarray, it doesn't say much about the future Tory/UKIP dynamic or the Tory/Labour dynamic.
I will give it a year before people settle in the new status quo.
However my research has uncovered a far better election predictor than opinion polls, it's consumer confidence, everytime consumer confidence is bellow -10 the government loses the election with 1997 being the only exception.
Surely, in relation to Carmichael, the intention (whatever the actual wording) of the Act is
1) People making misleading remarks about a candidate 2) Those remarks being made to make that candidate look bad
It is a bit of a stretch to think that it should cover an individual candidate making a misleading remark about themselves to make themselves look good! Politicians mislead to make themselves look good all the time!
Are you saying politicians don't mislead to make opponents look bad all the time?
Interesting how the chart at the end shows there is no national newspaper that reflects the makeup of the electorate particularly well. As we all know people's newspaper readerships are very self-selective.
Lefties might hate this fact, but by a long shot the closest thing to a One Nation newspaper is actually The Sun. And the second-closest* is The Times. This is something I've often argued (can't recall if I have ever made a point of it on PB) on an anecdotal level, but it's nice to see some data that backs it up.
* On visual inspection anyway, the Times readership has a far too high Con lead over Lab and the UKIP vote is much too low, but unlike the Express (which I think comes second-closest to the Con lead at the election) it doesn't have UKIP above Labour.
Indeed. It didn't particularly surprise me that Miliband went after News International to the extent that he did but I did wonder if he understood how many Labour or swing voters read their titles.
That old chestnut. I fear no-one will take your post seriously. The comparison is ridiculous. and designed merely to annoy.
However if you really believe that then you need to investigate how to get some help - and quick man! Oh and only a man could have written your faux pas post.
DH Yes, considering they won 3% in 2010 a step forward, but once the EU ref occurs that gives them a golden opportunity to eat into the Out vote
Nah. Peak Kipper.
They had their chance and blew it.
I've lost count of the number of times peak kipper has been confidently asserted here.
"That new Labour Party. Just a protest vote. They'll never beat the Liberals."
And they wouldn't have done had not Lloyd George and Asquith behaved like a pair of five year olds.
Now that is a fascinating alternative history question.
Judging from elsewhere in the Western world, I think it's almost inevitable that a genuinely socialist/social-democratic party would have broken through into the Top Two. I can see only two ways this would have happened eventually without being at the expense of the Liberal party. Perhaps the Liberals and Labour could have come "back together" in some kind of progressive alliance, or the more social-democratic wing of the Liberals might have shifted the party onto Labour's turf and nipped Labour's growth outside a few working class hotspots. Or maybe we could have ended up with the Liberals usurping the Tories as the party of the Centre or even (economically at least) Centre-Right.
Surely, in relation to Carmichael, the intention (whatever the actual wording) of the Act is
1) People making misleading remarks about a candidate 2) Those remarks being made to make that candidate look bad
It is a bit of a stretch to think that it should cover an individual candidate making a misleading remark about themselves to make themselves look good! Politicians mislead to make themselves look good all the time! So even if you think the Act can be twisted to cover Carmichael you are arguing semantics on the difference between a misleading statement and a lie.
On the other hand there is a law against wasting police time.
Interesting how the chart at the end shows there is no national newspaper that reflects the makeup of the electorate particularly well. As we all know people's newspaper readerships are very self-selective.
Lefties might hate this fact, but by a long shot the closest thing to a One Nation newspaper is actually The Sun. And the second-closest* is The Times. This is something I've often argued (can't recall if I have ever made a point of it on PB) on an anecdotal level, but it's nice to see some data that backs it up.
* On visual inspection anyway, the Times readership has a far too high Con lead over Lab and the UKIP vote is much too low, but unlike the Express (which I think comes second-closest to the Con lead at the election) it doesn't have UKIP above Labour.
Indeed. It didn't particularly surprise me that Miliband went after News International to the extent that he did but I did wonder if he understood how many Labour or swing voters read their titles.
I wonder how many people under 60 read newspapers. Apart from the free ones for commuters.
Interesting how the chart at the end shows there is no national newspaper that reflects the makeup of the electorate particularly well. As we all know people's newspaper readerships are very self-selective.
Lefties might hate this fact, but by a long shot the closest thing to a One Nation newspaper is actually The Sun. And the second-closest* is The Times. This is something I've often argued (can't recall if I have ever made a point of it on PB) on an anecdotal level, but it's nice to see some data that backs it up.
* On visual inspection anyway, the Times readership has a far too high Con lead over Lab and the UKIP vote is much too low, but unlike the Express (which I think comes second-closest to the Con lead at the election) it doesn't have UKIP above Labour.
Indeed. It didn't particularly surprise me that Miliband went after News International to the extent that he did but I did wonder if he understood how many Labour or swing voters read their titles.
I wonder how many people under 60 read newspapers. Apart from the free ones for commuters.
Judging from the increasingly desperate headlines, nobody at all reads newspapers.
MBEs Sun readers actually represent the nation as a whole, in 1997 30% of Sun readers voted Tory, 50% Labour, in 2015 more Sun readers voted Tory than Labour. The readership of all other papers votes the same as 1997, the Times, Telegraph, Mail and Express and FT readers Tory, the Guardian, Mirror, Independent and Star readers Labour
Burnham has also said he will take a tougher approach to welfare and immigration anyway, even if he does keep the 50% top tax rate for now
But all his words will fall away when he votes against every welfare change the government proposes. In fact I suspect the government will have some fun with clauses in even the most reasonable reforms which make it difficult for any leader to actually support.
For example Labour seem quite keen on area based benefit caps. So the government introduce a benefit cap of £23k, but that £23k is for London, accepting Labours suggestion, and making it even lower in other areas of the country....
The Greek PM seems to be banking everything on Greece's creditors thinking getting any money back is better than no money back. But most of them will surely have found some way to hedge their position somehow (in many cases such that Greece defaulting might be in their favour!)
An interesting thing is that Greece has the money to pay back the IMF but not the ECB.
If you exclude the bonds held by the ECB, Greece has no problem until the year 2022. And the nice thing is that the ECB bonds were not exchanged in that PSI in 2012, they were excluded and as such they are still under greek law, that means that the greek parliament can alter the terms of those bonds, getting rid of the problem.
If they do that then in theory the negotiations can continue for another 6-7 years, a nice can kicking.
DH Yes, considering they won 3% in 2010 a step forward, but once the EU ref occurs that gives them a golden opportunity to eat into the Out vote
Nah. Peak Kipper.
They had their chance and blew it.
I've lost count of the number of times peak kipper has been confidently asserted here.
"That new Labour Party. Just a protest vote. They'll never beat the Liberals."
And they wouldn't have done had not Lloyd George and Asquith behaved like a pair of five year olds.
Now that is a fascinating alternative history question.
Judging from elsewhere in the Western world, I think it's almost inevitable that a genuinely socialist/social-democratic party would have broken through into the Top Two. I can see only two ways this would have happened eventually without being at the expense of the Liberal party. Perhaps the Liberals and Labour could have come "back together" in some kind of progressive alliance, or the more social-democratic wing of the Liberals might have shifted the party onto Labour's turf and nipped Labour's growth outside a few working class hotspots. Or maybe we could have ended up with the Liberals usurping the Tories as the party of the Centre or even (economically at least) Centre-Right.
The most likely scenario is your second one. Had LG managed to gain the leadership of the Liberals in 1916 rather than just becoming PM, there'd still have been a wartime coalition but undivided, he (and the Liberals) would almost certainly have won, prompting a shift in his party to the left. Labour would either have remained under their wing or been pushed to the far left.
It's possible that some Liberals from the right of the party might have broken off (again) and found their way over to the Tories but unlikely in any meaningful number. Why would they if they were happy to put up with the sort of policies the Liberals put forward from 1908-14?
Interesting how the chart at the end shows there is no national newspaper that reflects the makeup of the electorate particularly well. As we all know people's newspaper readerships are very self-selective.
Lefties might hate this fact, but by a long shot the closest thing to a One Nation newspaper is actually The Sun. And the second-closest* is The Times. This is something I've often argued (can't recall if I have ever made a point of it on PB) on an anecdotal level, but it's nice to see some data that backs it up.
* On visual inspection anyway, the Times readership has a far too high Con lead over Lab and the UKIP vote is much too low, but unlike the Express (which I think comes second-closest to the Con lead at the election) it doesn't have UKIP above Labour.
Indeed. It didn't particularly surprise me that Miliband went after News International to the extent that he did but I did wonder if he understood how many Labour or swing voters read their titles.
I wonder how many people under 60 read newspapers. Apart from the free ones for commuters.
Judging from the increasingly desperate headlines, nobody at all reads newspapers.
I usually get the Metro when I commute but only for the sudoku's. Apart from that I think the last time I bought a newspaper was the Independent sometime in 2008 I think.
I know nothing about Wisbech - can anyone throw light on it?
Toby the Tram Engine in the Thomas the Tank Engine series was based on a Wisbech tram engine.
Wisbech, always known as the capital of the Fens. Although 13 miles inland used to be an important port, and in earlier times was the centre of the opium trade (Fenmen commonly taking opium to counteract the harsh conditions of the farm labouring population. Nowadays about one third of the population from Eastern Europe or Portugal
DH Yes, considering they won 3% in 2010 a step forward, but once the EU ref occurs that gives them a golden opportunity to eat into the Out vote
Nah. Peak Kipper.
They had their chance and blew it.
I've lost count of the number of times peak kipper has been confidently asserted here.
"That new Labour Party. Just a protest vote. They'll never beat the Liberals."
And they wouldn't have done had not Lloyd George and Asquith behaved like a pair of five year olds.
Now that is a fascinating alternative history question.
Judging from elsewhere in the Western world, I think it's almost inevitable that a genuinely socialist/social-democratic party would have broken through into the Top Two. I can see only two ways this would have happened eventually without being at the expense of the Liberal party. Perhaps the Liberals and Labour could have come "back together" in some kind of progressive alliance, or the more social-democratic wing of the Liberals might have shifted the party onto Labour's turf and nipped Labour's growth outside a few working class hotspots. Or maybe we could have ended up with the Liberals usurping the Tories as the party of the Centre or even (economically at least) Centre-Right.
The most likely scenario is your second one. Had LG managed to gain the leadership of the Liberals in 1916 rather than just becoming PM, there'd still have been a wartime coalition but undivided, he (and the Liberals) would almost certainly have won, prompting a shift in his party to the left. Labour would either have remained under their wing or been pushed to the far left.
It's possible that some Liberals from the right of the party might have broken off (again) and found their way over to the Tories but unlikely in any meaningful number. Why would they if they were happy to put up with the sort of policies the Liberals put forward from 1908-14?
It is interesting to note that WWI caused the destruction of the major liberal parties not only in Britain but also in France, Italy and Japan. The SDP was already the dominant party in Germany before WWI and although the SFIO was close to that position in France it hadn't yet dislodged the french liberals. It is interesting that liberal parties survived as governing parties only in western countries that had minimum participation in the world wars.
Indeed. It didn't particularly surprise me that Miliband went after News International to the extent that he did but I did wonder if he understood how many Labour or swing voters read their titles.
There was never any point competing over the Independent or Guardian votes. There's not enough of them, and after the transition from Cleggasm to Cleggvulsion, they were going to lean heavily Labour anyway.
I don't often read the Sun unless I find it lying about on a train carriage (not a chap for gallivanting about in First Class) but, like the Mail, I've always found it a seriously well-produced piece of commercial product. But unlike the Mail, or the Mirror and the Guardian I've been particularly impressed by how the writer seems to assume that I, the reader, am just an utterly normal bloke. Not the siege mentality that I am a common member of some blighted minority (funny how the Guardian and Mail are both so good at this, albeit the identity of the dark and oppressive forces is rarely the same - unless it's a politician or a banker).
Also no assumption I'm interested in any old fancy-dancy artsy-fartsy minority pursuit - the Guardian and the "highbrow" right-wing papers seem to think I care about any passing bloody ballet or poetry scandal, or the latest social mores or juicy gossip from the London dinner parties I've never gone attended in my life (nor known anyone who does). The dinner party circuit is small albeit influential; poets deemed worthy of column inches often sell no more than a few hundred copies of their work per year; ballet audiences are vanishingly small compared to the West End and pale in comparison to Big Event TV; in comparison the circulation of the newspaper, in the hundreds of thousands, is often far larger than the entire cultural market segment they are discussing. Sheer weight of numbers suggests that it's a wild statistical improbability that as a reader of their publication I'd actually give two hoots. But "proper" newspapers feel they have to cover this stuff, perhaps because in the massively unrepresentative circles journos (or more likely, editors and big name columinists) move in it's felt to be "important". Even the TV sections are often filled with extensive coverage of niche shows with tiny viewerships (how many people really watch The Wire, or Breaking Bad, or BBC4 arts documentaries? - not a lot if the official figures are believed).
The Sun makes far fewer assumptions about who I am or how weird and minority my tastes might be, and doesn't seem to passively condemn the reader for their lack of cultural capital, or their mainstream and insufficiently eclectic tastes. They just seem to assume I have a minor obsession with Simon Cowell - but based on the TV ratings and the high popularity of online articles about the chap at other websites, that suggests they're simply bang on the money about what normal folk are like.
Surely the key factor in the rise of Labour and socialist parties was the introduction of universal suffrage in 1918 which meant the entirety of the working class could vote for the first time and at a time when there were more working class voters than middle class voters
Very good except that the Poll Tax "write off" was theoretical as only a mere pittance was being collected and the "write off" had been carried out in England years ago. The reason was that most of the debtors were dead. Oh and the £400 million "underspend" was mostly loan not spending entitlement and what wasn't spent is carried over to fianance this year's budget.
notme not unreasonable given the cost of living elsewhere, but he has said he will accept some not all benefit cuts so it depends where they fall, not all benefit cuts will be popular with voters anyway eg cuts to carers allowances and welfare for the disabled
The Greek PM seems to be banking everything on Greece's creditors thinking getting any money back is better than no money back. But most of them will surely have found some way to hedge their position somehow (in many cases such that Greece defaulting might be in their favour!)
An interesting thing is that Greece has the money to pay back the IMF but not the ECB.
If you exclude the bonds held by the ECB, Greece has no problem until the year 2022. And the nice thing is that the ECB bonds were not exchanged in that PSI in 2012, they were excluded and as such they are still under greek law, that means that the greek parliament can alter the terms of those bonds, getting rid of the problem.
If they do that then in theory the negotiations can continue for another 6-7 years, a nice can kicking.
I think the Greeks owe the IMF the equivalent of 14 or 15% of GDP, so I'm not sure they can fully afford to pay them off.
DH Yes, considering they won 3% in 2010 a step forward, but once the EU ref occurs that gives them a golden opportunity to eat into the Out vote
Nah. Peak Kipper.
They had their chance and blew it.
I've lost count of the number of times peak kipper has been confidently asserted here.
"That new Labour Party. Just a protest vote. They'll never beat the Liberals."
And they wouldn't have done had not Lloyd George and Asquith behaved like a pair of five year olds.
Now that is a fascinating alternative history question.
Judging from elsewhere in the Western world, I think it's almost inevitable that a genuinely socialist/social-democratic party would have broken through into the Top Two. I can see only two ways this would have happened eventually without being at the expense of the Liberal party. Perhaps the Liberals and Labour could have come "back together" in some kind of progressive alliance, or the more social-democratic wing of the Liberals might have shifted the party onto Labour's turf and nipped Labour's growth outside a few working class hotspots. Or maybe we could have ended up with the Liberals usurping the Tories as the party of the Centre or even (economically at least) Centre-Right.
The most likely scenario is your second one. Had LG managed to gain the leadership of the Liberals in 1916 rather than just becoming PM, there'd still have been a wartime coalition but undivided, he (and the Liberals) would almost certainly have won, prompting a shift in his party to the left. Labour would either have remained under their wing or been pushed to the far left.
It's possible that some Liberals from the right of the party might have broken off (again) and found their way over to the Tories but unlikely in any meaningful number. Why would they if they were happy to put up with the sort of policies the Liberals put forward from 1908-14?
That is my inclination also, though in some countries the rightwards drift actually happened... one could even make a case that the Conservative Party in Britain has in many ways been colonised by the Liberal Unionists who merged into it.
PBs will remember Dr Eoin Clarke, Labour's world champion village idiot who embarrassed Andy Burnham last week.
In the last govt he spent 1-2 years publishing all kinds of untrue allegations about Private Health Companies, and had to formally withdraw it all. He also character assassinated Health Ministers.
Soubry went for him for a legal apology, unlike Jeremy Hunt AFAIK.
I think she'll go for Salmond at a time that is convenient.
Reflecting on the GE it is remarkable that Cornwall is entirely Conservative. Cornishmen ( and women ) must be turning in their graves. It can't be because Dave takes his holidays there; second homes might have some effect; but it is mostly down to the incompetence of the local Lib Dems. As evidence you only need to look at the election of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Devon and Cornwall. There were three candidates who were Lib Dems ( but two standing as Independents after they failed to be selected as the LD candidate). Together they got over 37,000 votes compared to 34,000 for the winning Conservative. I assume the two Independents were expelled from the party despite one being the leader of a local council. There was clearly no one with sufficient clout to knock heads together. Oh for a David Penhaligan - or even a John Pardoe.
That old chestnut. I fear no-one will take your post seriously. The comparison is ridiculous. and designed merely to annoy.
However if you really believe that then you need to investigate how to get some help - and quick man! Oh and only a man could have written your faux pas post.
Bit by bit, it'll wear away at the relationship between Sturgeon and Salmond because even though it hasn't been used on her yet, it'll be thrown at her to the point where it really grates. It's poisonous. Divide and conquer.
I've lost count of the number of times peak kipper has been confidently asserted here.
"That new Labour Party. Just a protest vote. They'll never beat the Liberals."
And they wouldn't have done had not Lloyd George and Asquith behaved like a pair of five year olds.
Now that is a fascinating alternative history question.
Judging from elsewhere in the Western world, I think it's almost inevitable that a genuinely socialist/social-democratic party would have broken through into the Top Two. I can see only two ways this would have happened eventually without being at the expense of the Liberal party. Perhaps the Liberals and Labour could have come "back together" in some kind of progressive alliance, or the more social-democratic wing of the Liberals might have shifted the party onto Labour's turf and nipped Labour's growth outside a few working class hotspots. Or maybe we could have ended up with the Liberals usurping the Tories as the party of the Centre or even (economically at least) Centre-Right.
The most likely scenario is your second one. Had LG managed to gain the leadership of the Liberals in 1916 rather than just becoming PM, there'd still have been a wartime coalition but undivided, he (and the Liberals) would almost certainly have won, prompting a shift in his party to the left. Labour would either have remained under their wing or been pushed to the far left.
It's possible that some Liberals from the right of the party might have broken off (again) and found their way over to the Tories but unlikely in any meaningful number. Why would they if they were happy to put up with the sort of policies the Liberals put forward from 1908-14?
It is interesting to note that WWI caused the destruction of the major liberal parties not only in Britain but also in France, Italy and Japan. The SDP was already the dominant party in Germany before WWI and although the SFIO was close to that position in France it hadn't yet dislodged the french liberals. It is interesting that liberal parties survived as governing parties only in western countries that had minimum participation in the world wars.
Indeed.
I'm currently reading A Line in the Sand by James Barr, about the 'mandate' era in the Middle East (which I'd recommend, by the way). Despite the blunders and stupidities of the administrations, so many of the problems have their roots in WWI. That pointless bloody conflict was the biggest disaster to afflict global civilisation since the Mongol invasions.
Interesting how the chart at the end shows there is no national newspaper that reflects the makeup of the electorate particularly well. As we all know people's newspaper readerships are very self-selective.
Lefties might hate this fact, but by a long shot the closest thing to a One Nation newspaper is actually The Sun. And the second-closest* is The Times. This is something I've often argued (can't recall if I have ever made a point of it on PB) on an anecdotal level, but it's nice to see some data that backs it up.
* On visual inspection anyway, the Times readership has a far too high Con lead over Lab and the UKIP vote is much too low, but unlike the Express (which I think comes second-closest to the Con lead at the election) it doesn't have UKIP above Labour.
Indeed. It didn't particularly surprise me that Miliband went after News International to the extent that he did but I did wonder if he understood how many Labour or swing voters read their titles.
Relatedly, just look at those weightings on the survey (n=92,945!)...
Sun readers 5,187 ---> 18,458 Guardian readers 14,169 ---> 3,437
Interesting how the chart at the end shows there is no national newspaper that reflects the makeup of the electorate particularly well. As we all know people's newspaper readerships are very self-selective.
Lefties might hate this fact, but by a long shot the closest thing to a One Nation newspaper is actually The Sun. And the second-closest* is The Times. This is something I've often argued (can't recall if I have ever made a point of it on PB) on an anecdotal level, but it's nice to see some data that backs it up.
* On visual inspection anyway, the Times readership has a far too high Con lead over Lab and the UKIP vote is much too low, but unlike the Express (which I think comes second-closest to the Con lead at the election) it doesn't have UKIP above Labour.
Indeed. It didn't particularly surprise me that Miliband went after News International to the extent that he did but I did wonder if he understood how many Labour or swing voters read their titles.
Relatedly, just look at those weightings on the survey (n=92,945!)...
Sun readers 5,187 ---> 18,458 Guardian readers 14,169 ---> 3,437
I wonder if there are similar misrepresentations in terms of readership of the Mail, Telegraph and Independent. That would provide a very simple solution to the pollsters on how to fix their current polling problems.
It would also indicate why Scottish polling was accurate and the English picture so broken.
Even the TV sections are often filled with extensive coverage of niche shows with tiny viewerships (how many people really watch The Wire, or Breaking Bad, or BBC4 arts documentaries? - not a lot if the official figures are believed).
I seemed to remember the BBC did show the Wire at one point, but it was like BBC at 1am or something stupid. Breaking Bad, was first shown by C5, but the rating was so utterly appalling, they dropped all the rights to the remaining seasons and they were never shown on UK telly (terrestrial or satellite).
Surely the key factor in the rise of Labour and socialist parties was the introduction of universal suffrage in 1918 which meant the entirety of the working class could vote for the first time and at a time when there were more working class voters than middle class voters
True, but plenty of working class voters were already voting before 1918 and were voting for Liberal, Lib-Lab or Unionist candidates.
1918 would have been a very different election had LG gone into it at the head of a united Liberal party and fighting the election as such, rather than heading one faction which was allied to the Tories while a discredited Asquith split the vote. Labour had been pacifist during and into the war. Without an opening in the market, they may well have suffered grievously in 1918 for it. 1922/3 might have been more of an opportunity but if Labour had been pushed well to the left, they'd likely be struggling with a taint of association with events in Russia.
Apparently Nick Gibb has "come out" this week. Which raises a strange question for me: why did have I (seemingly) always quietly assumed he was gay? Was it something he said once?
Apparently Nick Gibb has "come out" this week. Which raises a strange question for me: why did have I (seemingly) always quietly assumed he was gay? Was it something he said once?
"Nick Gibb has been with his partner, Michael Simmonds, for 29 years but until last week he had never told his family or friends that he was gay."
Apparently Nick Gibb has "come out" this week. Which raises a strange question for me: why did have I (seemingly) always quietly assumed he was gay? Was it something he said once?
"Nick Gibb has been with his partner, Michael Simmonds, for 29 years but until last week he had never told his family or friends that he was gay."
Crickey that is very long time to keep that private, not that it is really any of our business, but he has given an interview in the Times.
By 'come out' you mean blah blah look at me? If he has been with the same man for 29 years there wont be a single person who even slightly knows him who will not know already.
Apparently Nick Gibb has "come out" this week. Which raises a strange question for me: why did have I (seemingly) always quietly assumed he was gay? Was it something he said once?
"Nick Gibb has been with his partner, Michael Simmonds, for 29 years but until last week he had never told his family or friends that he was gay."
Crickey that is very long time to keep that private, not that it is really any of our business, but he has given an interview in the Times.
Given my age it is perhaps unsurprising that I've known plenty of people "come out" during their teens - in different ways - but I will endevour to read Mr Gibb's full account tomorrow: what, after so long, makes you feel this is the time?
Needless to say I would not have mentioned it had he not given his interview to the Times.
Apparently Nick Gibb has "come out" this week. Which raises a strange question for me: why did have I (seemingly) always quietly assumed he was gay? Was it something he said once?
"Nick Gibb has been with his partner, Michael Simmonds, for 29 years but until last week he had never told his family or friends that he was gay."
Crickey that is very long time to keep that private, not that it is really any of our business, but he has given an interview in the Times.
By 'come out' you mean blah blah look at me? If he has been with the same man for 29 years there wont be a single person who even slightly knows him who will not know already.
I've known people whose family take it as a shock, and others who - at least outwardly - are not at all surprised. I'll circumvent the paywall tomorrow and take a proper look.
AndyJS I think the next election could be Burnham v Osborne with Burnham winning, Boris v Kendall or Cooper I would think Boris could pull off, but I can't see him being leader now
AndyJS I think the next election could be Burnham v Osborne with Burnham winning, Boris v Kendall or Cooper I would think Boris could pull off, but I can't see him being leader now
I really don't rate Boris as a leader. He'd make a good DPM, but as PM his bubble would burst and he'd struggle to pick up the pieces. I'm certainly not going to vote for him if it ever comes to that. (My preference is Javid, but Osborne would be better than Boris in the run-off.)
dh Maybe, but the increases in the vote had been incremental, most of the 19th century reforms had just increased the vote to most middle class voters and some working class voters, the 1918 reforms gave all working class votes the vote
Apparently Nick Gibb has "come out" this week. Which raises a strange question for me: why did have I (seemingly) always quietly assumed he was gay? Was it something he said once?
"Nick Gibb has been with his partner, Michael Simmonds, for 29 years but until last week he had never told his family or friends that he was gay."
Crickey that is very long time to keep that private, not that it is really any of our business, but he has given an interview in the Times.
Given my age it is perhaps unsurprising that I've known plenty of people "come out" during their teens - in different ways - but I will endevour to read Mr Gibb's full account tomorrow: what, after so long, makes you feel this is the time?
Needless to say I would not have mentioned it had he not given his interview to the Times.
Isnt "coming out" as gay, a bit like getting a myspace friend request? A bit last century and no one really cares.
Apparently Nick Gibb has "come out" this week. Which raises a strange question for me: why did have I (seemingly) always quietly assumed he was gay? Was it something he said once?
"Nick Gibb has been with his partner, Michael Simmonds, for 29 years but until last week he had never told his family or friends that he was gay."
Crickey that is very long time to keep that private, not that it is really any of our business, but he has given an interview in the Times.
Given my age it is perhaps unsurprising that I've known plenty of people "come out" during their teens - in different ways - but I will endevour to read Mr Gibb's full account tomorrow: what, after so long, makes you feel this is the time?
Needless to say I would not have mentioned it had he not given his interview to the Times.
Isnt "coming out" as gay, a bit like getting a myspace friend request? A bit last century and no one really cares.
Depends what you mean... my LGBT friends have all had that time they've told particular people that's been meaningiful to them. But they are disproportionately young: Mr Gibb must be in the minority now.
notme Apparently 'They have avoided going to parties as a couple, never attended family dinners together and spent every Christmas apart.' Quite a secret, but their business, Michael Simmonds is chief executive of populus of course so a new power couple for the next Stonewall awards
TWR Neither Javid nor Osborne have Boris' charisma, or even Cameron's for that matter, nor are particularly telegenic, they are good backroom administrators, not the frontman in my view
TWR Neither Javid nor Osborne have Boris' charisma, or even Cameron's for that matter, nor are particularly telegenic, they are good backroom administrators, not the frontman in my view
Boris is all style and no substance - I cannpt picture him at the home office, or the foreign office; many of the things he says he "gets away with" and that can only last so long.
dh Maybe, but the increases in the vote had been incremental, most of the 19th century reforms had just increased the vote to most middle class voters and some working class voters, the 1918 reforms gave all working class votes the vote
It didn't give it to women but then the Suffragettes didn't care about that.
Even the TV sections are often filled with extensive coverage of niche shows with tiny viewerships (how many people really watch The Wire, or Breaking Bad, or BBC4 arts documentaries? - not a lot if the official figures are believed).
I seemed to remember the BBC did show the Wire at one point, but it was like BBC at 1am or something stupid. Breaking Bad, was first shown by C5, but the rating was so utterly appalling, they dropped all the rights to the remaining seasons and they were never shown on UK telly (terrestrial or satellite).
Those figures surprise me. In the US, Breaking Bad built gradually into a very strong performer for a cable show:
"Breaking Bad premiered on Jan. 20, 2008, to a modest 1.41 million viewers. The show only cracked the 2 million mark on one occasion during the first four seasons, but critical acclaim and a streaming deal with Netflix saw more and more viewers get turned on to the drama.
"The first part of the fifth and final season returned to a then record of 2.93 million viewers in July 2012. Little more than a year later, that number nearly doubled when the recent Aug. 11 return saw a surge to 5.92 million.
"Each of the final four episodes set new records, with the show first topping 6 million on Sept. 15 when it resolved a much-talked-about cliffhanger."
The final episode was a spectacular (for cable) 10.3 millions at the original view time.
The Wire had low ratings in the US, finishing below the 1 million mark live, but was downloaded heavily.
Apparently Nick Gibb has "come out" this week. Which raises a strange question for me: why did have I (seemingly) always quietly assumed he was gay? Was it something he said once?
"Nick Gibb has been with his partner, Michael Simmonds, for 29 years but until last week he had never told his family or friends that he was gay."
Crickey that is very long time to keep that private, not that it is really any of our business, but he has given an interview in the Times.
Given my age it is perhaps unsurprising that I've known plenty of people "come out" during their teens - in different ways - but I will endevour to read Mr Gibb's full account tomorrow: what, after so long, makes you feel this is the time?
Needless to say I would not have mentioned it had he not given his interview to the Times.
Isnt "coming out" as gay, a bit like getting a myspace friend request? A bit last century and no one really cares.
Coming Out is a life-long process, not a single event, because every time one meets or gets to know new people one has to make a decision about when, whether, and how to tell them. These days it's easy and often done by osmosis or telepathy, but in earlier decades it could be more significant. I told my parents that I was gay at 7:20pm on Friday 3rd April 1987 (just after "The Archers").
Apparently Nick Gibb has "come out" this week. Which raises a strange question for me: why did have I (seemingly) always quietly assumed he was gay? Was it something he said once?
"Nick Gibb has been with his partner, Michael Simmonds, for 29 years but until last week he had never told his family or friends that he was gay."
A Large, flat, pink rubber coin used as galactic currency. As described by Douglas Adams in 'The Resteraunt at the end of the Universe' "The exchange rate of 8 Ningys to one Galactic PU is simple enough. However, since a Ningy is a triangular rubber-coin ,6800 miles along each side, no one has ever collected enough to own one PU. Besides which, if you did ever own enough, you would have a great deal of trouble exchanging them, as most banks refuse to deal in small change."
A Large, flat, pink rubber coin used as galactic currency. As described by Douglas Adams in 'The Resteraunt at the end of the Universe' "The exchange rate of 8 Ningys to one Galactic PU is simple enough. However, since a Ningy is a triangular rubber-coin ,6800 miles along each side, no one has ever collected enough to own one PU. Besides which, if you did ever own enough, you would have a great deal of trouble exchanging them, as most banks refuse to deal in small change."
It's a Ningi, not a Ningy. And the technical term is a 'Triganic Pu'
Apparently Nick Gibb has "come out" this week. Which raises a strange question for me: why did have I (seemingly) always quietly assumed he was gay? Was it something he said once?
"Nick Gibb has been with his partner, Michael Simmonds, for 29 years but until last week he had never told his family or friends that he was gay."
Crickey that is very long time to keep that private, not that it is really any of our business, but he has given an interview in the Times.
Given my age it is perhaps unsurprising that I've known plenty of people "come out" during their teens - in different ways - but I will endevour to read Mr Gibb's full account tomorrow: what, after so long, makes you feel this is the time?
Needless to say I would not have mentioned it had he not given his interview to the Times.
Isnt "coming out" as gay, a bit like getting a myspace friend request? A bit last century and no one really cares.
Coming Out is a life-long process, not a single event, because every time one meets or gets to know new people one has to make a decision about when, whether, and how to tell them. These days it's easy and often done by osmosis or telepathy, but in earlier decades it could be more significant. I told my parents that I was gay at 7:20pm on Friday 3rd April 1987 (just after "The Archers").
These days I recon most LGBT kids are outed at (or before) puberty, on facebook.
You simply cant successfully hide your thoughts (or your teenage porn collection) any more. It's probably a healthy thing for society in the long run - but immensely difficult for those kids (and their parents). Anyway, massive credit to Nick Gibb being open about this stuff - It really is one of the most profoundly moral things that a public figure can do in this day and age. Terrifying, nonetheless - especially if your parents are still alive.
Comments
The brainpower of kipper cultists is best assessed by checking out the Speccy coffer house from time to time.
It's the same as Byrne leaving that stupid note in 2010.
Sturgeon needs to knife him, quickly.
http://www.scottishconstitutionalfutures.org/OpinionandAnalysis/ViewBlogPost/tabid/1767/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/5663/Heather-Green-The-Alistair-Carmichael-Election-Petition-the-Leak-the-Lie-and-Legal-Remedies.aspx
"Although s106 usually refers to statements made to the detriment of a candidate, the wording is wide enough to encompass a false statement made in favour of a candidate (for example that he was a substantial philanthropist or had been awarded a medal for bravery) which might affect his electoral chances, albeit positively rather than negatively." Erlam and Others v Rahman [2015] EWHC 1215 (QB), para 104
1) People making misleading remarks about a candidate
2) Those remarks being made to make that candidate look bad
It is a bit of a stretch to think that it should cover an individual candidate making a misleading remark about themselves to make themselves look good! Politicians mislead to make themselves look good all the time! So even if you think the Act can be twisted to cover Carmichael you are arguing semantics on the difference between a misleading statement and a lie.
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/blogs/peter-kellner/general-election-2015-how-britain-really-voted
Interesting how the chart at the end shows there is no national newspaper that reflects the makeup of the electorate particularly well. As we all know people's newspaper readerships are very self-selective.
Lefties might hate this fact, but by a long shot the closest thing to a One Nation newspaper is actually The Sun. And the second-closest* is The Times. This is something I've often argued (can't recall if I have ever made a point of it on PB) on an anecdotal level, but it's nice to see some data that backs it up.
* On visual inspection anyway, the Times readership has a far too high Con lead over Lab and the UKIP vote is much too low, but unlike the Express (which I think comes second-closest to the Con lead at the election) it doesn't have UKIP above Labour.
I will give it a year before people settle in the new status quo.
However my research has uncovered a far better election predictor than opinion polls, it's consumer confidence, everytime consumer confidence is bellow -10 the government loses the election with 1997 being the only exception.
www.parliament.uk/business/news/2015/june/nominations-open-for-select-committee-chairs
That old chestnut. I fear no-one will take your post seriously. The comparison is ridiculous. and designed merely to annoy.
However if you really believe that then you need to investigate how to get some help - and quick man! Oh and only a man could have written your faux pas post.
Judging from elsewhere in the Western world, I think it's almost inevitable that a genuinely socialist/social-democratic party would have broken through into the Top Two. I can see only two ways this would have happened eventually without being at the expense of the Liberal party. Perhaps the Liberals and Labour could have come "back together" in some kind of progressive alliance, or the more social-democratic wing of the Liberals might have shifted the party onto Labour's turf and nipped Labour's growth outside a few working class hotspots. Or maybe we could have ended up with the Liberals usurping the Tories as the party of the Centre or even (economically at least) Centre-Right.
Apart from the free ones for commuters.
For example Labour seem quite keen on area based benefit caps. So the government introduce a benefit cap of £23k, but that £23k is for London, accepting Labours suggestion, and making it even lower in other areas of the country....
If you exclude the bonds held by the ECB, Greece has no problem until the year 2022. And the nice thing is that the ECB bonds were not exchanged in that PSI in 2012, they were excluded and as such they are still under greek law, that means that the greek parliament can alter the terms of those bonds, getting rid of the problem.
If they do that then in theory the negotiations can continue for another 6-7 years, a nice can kicking.
Prestwick £40m
Dundee V&A extra £10m
Gaelic Road signs £26m
Gaelic TV £17m
Underspend £444m
Austerity SNP Style.
It's possible that some Liberals from the right of the party might have broken off (again) and found their way over to the Tories but unlikely in any meaningful number. Why would they if they were happy to put up with the sort of policies the Liberals put forward from 1908-14?
Apart from that I think the last time I bought a newspaper was the Independent sometime in 2008 I think.
The SDP was already the dominant party in Germany before WWI and although the SFIO was close to that position in France it hadn't yet dislodged the french liberals.
It is interesting that liberal parties survived as governing parties only in western countries that had minimum participation in the world wars.
I don't often read the Sun unless I find it lying about on a train carriage (not a chap for gallivanting about in First Class) but, like the Mail, I've always found it a seriously well-produced piece of commercial product. But unlike the Mail, or the Mirror and the Guardian I've been particularly impressed by how the writer seems to assume that I, the reader, am just an utterly normal bloke. Not the siege mentality that I am a common member of some blighted minority (funny how the Guardian and Mail are both so good at this, albeit the identity of the dark and oppressive forces is rarely the same - unless it's a politician or a banker).
Also no assumption I'm interested in any old fancy-dancy artsy-fartsy minority pursuit - the Guardian and the "highbrow" right-wing papers seem to think I care about any passing bloody ballet or poetry scandal, or the latest social mores or juicy gossip from the London dinner parties I've never gone attended in my life (nor known anyone who does). The dinner party circuit is small albeit influential; poets deemed worthy of column inches often sell no more than a few hundred copies of their work per year; ballet audiences are vanishingly small compared to the West End and pale in comparison to Big Event TV; in comparison the circulation of the newspaper, in the hundreds of thousands, is often far larger than the entire cultural market segment they are discussing. Sheer weight of numbers suggests that it's a wild statistical improbability that as a reader of their publication I'd actually give two hoots. But "proper" newspapers feel they have to cover this stuff, perhaps because in the massively unrepresentative circles journos (or more likely, editors and big name columinists) move in it's felt to be "important". Even the TV sections are often filled with extensive coverage of niche shows with tiny viewerships (how many people really watch The Wire, or Breaking Bad, or BBC4 arts documentaries? - not a lot if the official figures are believed).
The Sun makes far fewer assumptions about who I am or how weird and minority my tastes might be, and doesn't seem to passively condemn the reader for their lack of cultural capital, or their mainstream and insufficiently eclectic tastes. They just seem to assume I have a minor obsession with Simon Cowell - but based on the TV ratings and the high popularity of online articles about the chap at other websites, that suggests they're simply bang on the money about what normal folk are like.
Very good except that the Poll Tax "write off" was theoretical as only a mere pittance was being collected and the "write off" had been carried out in England years ago. The reason was that most of the debtors were dead. Oh and the £400 million "underspend" was mostly loan not spending entitlement and what wasn't spent is carried over to fianance this year's budget.
The rest of it are just things you don't like!
PBs will remember Dr Eoin Clarke, Labour's world champion village idiot who embarrassed Andy Burnham last week.
In the last govt he spent 1-2 years publishing all kinds of untrue allegations about Private Health Companies, and had to formally withdraw it all. He also character assassinated Health Ministers.
Soubry went for him for a legal apology, unlike Jeremy Hunt AFAIK.
I think she'll go for Salmond at a time that is convenient.
Bit by bit, it'll wear away at the relationship between Sturgeon and Salmond because even though it hasn't been used on her yet, it'll be thrown at her to the point where it really grates. It's poisonous. Divide and conquer.
I'm currently reading A Line in the Sand by James Barr, about the 'mandate' era in the Middle East (which I'd recommend, by the way). Despite the blunders and stupidities of the administrations, so many of the problems have their roots in WWI. That pointless bloody conflict was the biggest disaster to afflict global civilisation since the Mongol invasions.
Sun readers 5,187 ---> 18,458
Guardian readers 14,169 ---> 3,437
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/owc2a5orpr/Establishment_Extra_Variables_Website.pdf
It would also indicate why Scottish polling was accurate and the English picture so broken.
1918 would have been a very different election had LG gone into it at the head of a united Liberal party and fighting the election as such, rather than heading one faction which was allied to the Tories while a discredited Asquith split the vote. Labour had been pacifist during and into the war. Without an opening in the market, they may well have suffered grievously in 1918 for it. 1922/3 might have been more of an opportunity but if Labour had been pushed well to the left, they'd likely be struggling with a taint of association with events in Russia.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4461887.ece
Crickey that is very long time to keep that private, not that it is really any of our business, but he has given an interview in the Times.
Needless to say I would not have mentioned it had he not given his interview to the Times.
"Breaking Bad premiered on Jan. 20, 2008, to a modest 1.41 million viewers. The show only cracked the 2 million mark on one occasion during the first four seasons, but critical acclaim and a streaming deal with Netflix saw more and more viewers get turned on to the drama.
"The first part of the fifth and final season returned to a then record of 2.93 million viewers in July 2012. Little more than a year later, that number nearly doubled when the recent Aug. 11 return saw a surge to 5.92 million.
"Each of the final four episodes set new records, with the show first topping 6 million on Sept. 15 when it resolved a much-talked-about cliffhanger."
The final episode was a spectacular (for cable) 10.3 millions at the original view time.
The Wire had low ratings in the US, finishing below the 1 million mark live, but was downloaded heavily.
Women 21 to 30 in 1928
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/b1e23ee2-ac19-4efe-906b-ba85dbd08a1e
I remember watching this in 2010 but thanks to David Boothroyd for finding it again.
And the technical term is a 'Triganic Pu'
You simply cant successfully hide your thoughts (or your teenage porn collection) any more. It's probably a healthy thing for society in the long run - but immensely difficult for those kids (and their parents). Anyway, massive credit to Nick Gibb being open about this stuff - It really is one of the most profoundly moral things that a public figure can do in this day and age. Terrifying, nonetheless - especially if your parents are still alive.
We're here, we're queer and all that jazz.