If the polls go up, Tories celebrate. If the polls go down, Tories celebrate.
Conclusion: They're a happy bunch, probably still celebrating May, but there's little evidence of cognition.
We're not celebrating. We're just not worried about polls five years from the next election when the opposition is a complete mess. As for lacking cognition, we're not the party that elected Jeremy Corbyn as their Prime Ministerial candidate.
I'm quite happy that Corbyn's Labour have yet to completely implode in the polls. If he were on 25% and falling then they'd want to get rid of him sooner! If he can say at 30% for a couple of years then, like Gordon and Ed before him, Corbyn is safe until the election.
IDS polled around 30 to 35%. It was coming third in the Brent East by election which did for him, he polled about what Howard got in 2005. Labour coming third in a by election behind UKIP would be the most likely catalyst for Corbyn's fall
The Tories and Labour have fundamentally different systems and, even more crucially, cultures relating to the removal of leaders.
In any case, Labour *did* come third behind UKIP in Newark and Miliband stayed.
Yes but that was rather different. It's one thing to stand aside and connive in an enemy of your enemy taking a seat you never stood a chance in; it's quite different going backwards in one where you started in second and which you held (admittedly on more favourable boundaries) only a few years earlier.
I'm not sure Mike can draw that conclusion. Respondents were only given the option to approve of one of the options (or signify their top priority). There may well be many who think the UK spends too much on aid but would like tax credits cut too.
Your Herculean spin to try and disguise the fact that cutting blue-collar workers' wages, is about as popular as the bubonic plague, is impressive.
Though this comment doesn't quite top a few weeks ago, when you said anyone who answered "Don't Know" to the question on tax credits really meant that they supported it.
Nope. I said they weren't bothered about it; a stance I maintain. Cutting tax credits is a storm in a teacup that will be long forgotten by 2020, except by those who remember it for political reasons.
"Podmore’s foundation pulled its funding from the charity in 2003 after expressing concerns to the Charity Commission."
And for the next 7 years, Labour did what precisely? Yeah, there are questions to answer for this Govt. But at least it has finally had the balls to close down these charlatans.
I'm not sure Mike can draw that conclusion. Respondents were only given the option to approve of one of the options (or signify their top priority). There may well be many who think the UK spends too much on aid but would like tax credits cut too.
Your Herculean spin to try and disguise the fact that cutting blue-collar workers' wages, is about as popular as the bubonic plague, is impressive.
Though this comment doesn't quite top a few weeks ago, when you said anyone who answered "Don't Know" to the question on tax credits really meant that they supported it.
Nope. I said they weren't bothered about it; a stance I maintain. Cutting tax credits is a storm in a teacup that will be long forgotten by 2020, except by those who remember it for political reasons.
Agreed. But for cuts already made with the support of the LDs then tax credits would be costing 40bn a year. They are actually costing 30bn. So with LD support we have seen 10bns of cuts to tax credits since 2010. (See David Smith, Sunday Times economics editor). These cuts are aimed at bringing the number of families with children in receipt of tax credits down from 6 to 5 out of 10. In 2010 it was 9 out of 10.
OT Times article: "increased CO2 in the atmosphere enhances plant growth" says "Tory peer Viscount Ridley, owner of the land on which England’s largest open-cast coal mine operates"
Maybe that is why they increase the CO2 levels in commercial glass houses for many crops, such as Tomatoes. I think (if memory serves my right) the optimum CO2 level for Tomatoes is 3x atmospheric concentration of CO2 (it may be x 2 - it was a long time ago!). In glasshouse crops they are unlikely to increase CO2 by any more than 600 ppm (parts per million).
With some crops increasing the CO2 levels can result in an increase growth rate of 20%, with ideal day length and other environmental factors tuned to perfection.
"Podmore’s foundation pulled its funding from the charity in 2003 after expressing concerns to the Charity Commission."
And for the next 7 years, Labour did what precisely? Yeah, there are questions to answer for this Govt. But at least it has finally had the balls to close down these charlatans.
TBH I think Conservative ministers have not exactly covered themselves in glory on this one!
"Podmore’s foundation pulled its funding from the charity in 2003 after expressing concerns to the Charity Commission."
And for the next 7 years, Labour did what precisely? Yeah, there are questions to answer for this Govt. But at least it has finally had the balls to close down these charlatans.
TBH I think Conservative ministers have not exactly covered themselves in glory on this one!
I might as well burn my Matt Hancock as next Chancellor of the Exchequer bet slip.
OT Times article: "increased CO2 in the atmosphere enhances plant growth" says "Tory peer Viscount Ridley, owner of the land on which England’s largest open-cast coal mine operates"
Maybe that is why they increase the CO2 levels in commercial glass houses for many crops, such as Tomatoes. I think (if memory serves my right) the optimum CO2 level for Tomatoes is 3x atmospheric concentration of CO2 (it may be x 2 - it was a long time ago!). In glasshouse crops they are unlikely to increase CO2 by any more than 600 ppm (parts per million).
With some crops increasing the CO2 levels can result in an increase growth rate of 20%.
I think the inappropriately named Logical Song was less interested in the proven science and more interested in the ad hominim attack.
Logical Fallacy would perhaps be a more accurate non de plume for him.
If the courts find Alastair Carmichael has been a very naughty boy the Lib Dems could go into the next election with only 3 notional holds and UKIP none.
The SNP could go in notionally defending every seat in Scotland, if they do take a by-election in O&S.
(Yes, I know 'defences' are a bit ambiguous when there's a by-election gain since the last election but there'd be no doubt that people would see the SNP as defending it, with the Lib Dems looking to 'regain').
On election night I reported Rochester and Strood as Con HOLD.
Felt it didn't convey the full majesty of that result.
"UKIPTPD evicted" would be more accurate?
I wanted to go for TPD has his arse kicked into the next millennium.
Pretty much everything I wanted to happen on election night happened bar the Tories being the second party in Scotland.
Tory Maj, Reckless loses, Cable loses, Balls loses, Farage loses were the highlights (apart from a plethora of winning bets)
I still think it is all a dream. Next Labour will elect Jeremy Corbyn as leader and I'll wake up.
You missed out Clegg wins. I think Farage's unresignation was the best, although that was not election night. Did Dimbleby actually burst into tears at any point?
OT Times article: "increased CO2 in the atmosphere enhances plant growth" says "Tory peer Viscount Ridley, owner of the land on which England’s largest open-cast coal mine operates"
Maybe that is why they increase the CO2 levels in commercial glass houses for many crops, such as Tomatoes. I think (if memory serves my right) the optimum CO2 level for Tomatoes is 3x atmospheric concentration of CO2 (it may be x 2 - it was a long time ago!). In glasshouse crops they are unlikely to increase CO2 by any more than 600 ppm (parts per million).
With some crops increasing the CO2 levels can result in an increase growth rate of 20%.
I think the inappropriately named Logical Song was less interested in the proven science and more interested in the ad hominim attack.
Logical Fallacy would perhaps be a more accurate non de plume for him.
It wasn't an attack it was just pointing out facts.
OT Times article: "increased CO2 in the atmosphere enhances plant growth" says "Tory peer Viscount Ridley, owner of the land on which England’s largest open-cast coal mine operates"
Maybe that is why they increase the CO2 levels in commercial glass houses for many crops, such as Tomatoes. I think (if memory serves my right) the optimum CO2 level for Tomatoes is 3x atmospheric concentration of CO2 (it may be x 2 - it was a long time ago!). In glasshouse crops they are unlikely to increase CO2 by any more than 600 ppm (parts per million).
With some crops increasing the CO2 levels can result in an increase growth rate of 20%, with ideal day length and other environmental factors tuned to perfection.
Yes, it's the case that CO2 levels would help plant growth.
"What is worse is that idiots like you believe the "mob rule" guff written by a cretin."
I'm talking generally. I was in a rather large one in Grosvenor Square in the sixties. Totally anti-productive and taken over by a few loons to make themselves feel better. Jezza was probably there and encouraging them.
I think you have a right to make your views known, and I've no problem with deeply held feelings but ... as John Lennon said ...
"But if you want money for people with minds that hate All I can tell you is brother you'll have to wait."
OT Times article: "increased CO2 in the atmosphere enhances plant growth" says "Tory peer Viscount Ridley, owner of the land on which England’s largest open-cast coal mine operates"
It does. And plants/ trees convert CO2 to oxygen. CO2 constitutes 4% of greenhouse gases. 'Man made' CO2 comprises under 4% of that. As the IPCC say, the biggest most important component of greenhouse gases is water vapour. But again as they admit, since it is impossible to measure and model they chose to ignore its effects.
It says a lot that a five point Tory lead while the news media has been about "Tory cuts to the poor" (which is misleading IMO but that's another issue). If a 5 point Tory lead following a Lords defeat over welfare reform is good news for Labour, what's bad news?
It says a lot that a five point Tory lead while the news media has been about "Tory cuts to the poor" (which is misleading IMO but that's another issue). If a 5 point Tory lead following a Lords defeat over welfare reform is good news for Labour, what's bad news?
Mr. Thompson, Mr. JEO, I agree that the Snooper's Charter seems demented, but isn't Cameron's frankly ignorant idiocy over wanting to ban encryption worse?
@TSE are you sure about Ceredigion? I thought it was to be merged with Preseli Pembrokeshire which is a Conservative stronghold. Added together, there would be about a 6000 Conservative majority in that seat.
EDIT - I was wrong. It would be a 5,000 majority, but Labour would be in second.
I've looked at that now and I disagree with it. His assumption is highly suspect: 'The Lib Dems would probably manage to retain a seat based on their current Ceredigion.' But the current Ceredigion would have been obliterated, merged with the Preseli area. The Liberal Democrats have no strength in North Pembrokeshire. The suggestion that they could hold a marginal like Ceredigion added to a safe Conservative seat (formerly a Conservative/Labour marginal) does not work mathematically.* So actually, on his figures the Lib Dems are down to three.
*It might just have been enough had the merger been with Brecon and Radnor, but that wouldn't have met the population requirements.
You can now see why the Tories want 600 seats. It has little to do with savings. After all, we have had more than 600 seats for god knows how many years. And secondly, why is cutting the number of people's representatives a good idea ?
The whole purpose of reducing the number of seats is that it effectively almost ensures that 90% of seats will have to be adjusted. It does not affect Labour that much but certainly will affect the smaller parties where they would not necessarily have the same level of support in the neighbouring seats.
Also, a seat today with the same number of voters as the average will not necessarily get through unscathed since neighbouring seats may need to be adjusted.
No. But a good try never the less. It was to save money and was skewerd by the LDs. However it now has a totally unexpected consequence in that it presents a golden opportunity for Momentum to deselect MPs they do not like.
No. But a good try never the less. It was to save money and was skewerd by the LDs. However it now has a totally unexpected consequence in that it presents a golden opportunity for Momentum to deselect MPs they do not like.
All of them? That would be a very long list - practically all of them except Trickett, Corbyn, Mcdonnell, Abbot, Smith and, er...
@TSE are you sure about Ceredigion? I thought it was to be merged with Preseli Pembrokeshire which is a Conservative stronghold. Added together, there would be about a 6000 Conservative majority in that seat.
EDIT - I was wrong. It would be a 5,000 majority, but Labour would be in second.
I've looked at that now and I disagree with it. His assumption is highly suspect: 'The Lib Dems would probably manage to retain a seat based on their current Ceredigion.' But the current Ceredigion would have been obliterated, merged with the Preseli area. The Liberal Democrats have no strength in North Pembrokeshire. The suggestion that they could hold a marginal like Ceredigion added to a safe Conservative seat (formerly a Conservative/Labour marginal) does not work mathematically.* So actually, on his figures the Lib Dems are down to three.
*It might just have been enough had the merger been with Brecon and Radnor, but that wouldn't have met the population requirements.
You can now see why the Tories want 600 seats. It has little to do with savings. After all, we have had more than 600 seats for god knows how many years. And secondly, why is cutting the number of people's representatives a good idea ?
The whole purpose of reducing the number of seats is that it effectively almost ensures that 90% of seats will have to be adjusted. It does not affect Labour that much but certainly will affect the smaller parties where they would not necessarily have the same level of support in the neighbouring seats.
Also, a seat today with the same number of voters as the average will not necessarily get through unscathed since neighbouring seats may need to be adjusted.
No. But a good try never the less. It was to save money and was skewerd by the LDs. However it now has a totally unexpected consequence in that it presents a golden opportunity for Momentum to deselect MPs they do not like.
If the courts find Alastair Carmichael has been a very naughty boy the Lib Dems could go into the next election with only 3 notional holds and UKIP none.
Surely Orkney would still be considered a Lib Dem hold? What happened in Oldham and Saddleworth - was that considered a 'Labour win' or 'Labour hold' this time around?
Oldham was always a Lab hold. The Lib Dems never took the seat.
This Oldham by election throws up the unhappy prospect of some quite nasty campaigning. I hope my speculation is wrong.
I expect we'll see a traditional pattern of Labour gradually cutting the Tories poll lead, then overtaking them with Lab's lead peaking mid Parliament before Swing-Back occurs from 2018 to 2020 leading to another Con win in May 2020 (all assuming Lab sticks with Jezza of course)
F1: P1 underway (started at 4pm, actually). Damp track initially and reportedly slippery on both wet and damp patches, but that's often the case with new circuits.
No. But a good try never the less. It was to save money and was skewerd by the LDs. However it now has a totally unexpected consequence in that it presents a golden opportunity for Momentum to deselect MPs they do not like.
All of them? That would be a very long list - practically all of them except Trickett, Corbyn, Mcdonnell, Abbot, Smith and, er...
They will no doubt show the instruments of torture to the malliable ones and that will be enough. There will be 50 less seats so you would think 25 would have to go. But the whole process will be used to make the targeted ones lives a misery. How many will simply not bother and give up?
Thank you Mike and all the others who welcomed me, thoroughly enjoyed it. Have read a lot of threads on PB in the past you build up a mental picture of some of the posters. I have to say 'Ave It was not as I expected at all. An amusing chap though, in real life as well as on this blog.
Mr. Jessop, perhaps an indication of the Mail's view on Cameron and the approach they'll take (especially over the EU)?
Oakeshott's laughable. If they want a political journalist called Isabel, they should've gone for Hardman.
You have to pity the poor political hacks at the Mail who do the job properly - being overlooked for a gossip columnist who gives up their sources at the first whiff of cordite.
Mr. Jessop, perhaps an indication of the Mail's view on Cameron and the approach they'll take (especially over the EU)?
Oakeshott's laughable. If they want a political journalist called Isabel, they should've gone for Hardman.
You have to pity the poor political hacks at the Mail who do the job properly - being overlooked for a gossip columnist who gives up their sources at the first whiff of cordite.
Mr. Jessop, perhaps an indication of the Mail's view on Cameron and the approach they'll take (especially over the EU)?
Oakeshott's laughable. If they want a political journalist called Isabel, they should've gone for Hardman.
You have to pity the poor political hacks at the Mail who do the job properly - being overlooked for a gossip columnist who gives up their sources at the first whiff of cordite.
Well she will breeze in and be their line manager - can't imagine she will get many exclusives from no 10 - seems self harming for the Mail.
Mr. Jessop, perhaps an indication of the Mail's view on Cameron and the approach they'll take (especially over the EU)?
Oakeshott's laughable. If they want a political journalist called Isabel, they should've gone for Hardman.
You have to pity the poor political hacks at the Mail who do the job properly - being overlooked for a gossip columnist who gives up their sources at the first whiff of cordite.
Well she will breeze in and be their line manager - can't imagine she will get many exclusives from no 10 - seems self harming for the Mail.
As if Number 10 is going to boycott the newspaper that tickles middle Britain's tummy.
Mr. Jessop, perhaps an indication of the Mail's view on Cameron and the approach they'll take (especially over the EU)?
Oakeshott's laughable. If they want a political journalist called Isabel, they should've gone for Hardman.
You have to pity the poor political hacks at the Mail who do the job properly - being overlooked for a gossip columnist who gives up their sources at the first whiff of cordite.
Well she will breeze in and be their line manager - can't imagine she will get many exclusives from no 10 - seems self harming for the Mail.
As if Number 10 is going to boycott the newspaper that tickles middle Britain's tummy.
Mr. Antifrank, could Cameron not simply talk to someone else? Given her laughable approach to sources, it'd be more of a surprise if he talked to her than if he didn't.
Mr. Jessop, perhaps an indication of the Mail's view on Cameron and the approach they'll take (especially over the EU)?
Oakeshott's laughable. If they want a political journalist called Isabel, they should've gone for Hardman.
You have to pity the poor political hacks at the Mail who do the job properly - being overlooked for a gossip columnist who gives up their sources at the first whiff of cordite.
Well she will breeze in and be their line manager - can't imagine she will get many exclusives from no 10 - seems self harming for the Mail.
As if Number 10 is going to boycott the newspaper that tickles middle Britain's tummy.
Who mentioned a boycott ? Don't be daft.
Number 10 needs the Mail a lot more than the Mail needs Number 10.
Mr. Jessop, perhaps an indication of the Mail's view on Cameron and the approach they'll take (especially over the EU)?
Oakeshott's laughable. If they want a political journalist called Isabel, they should've gone for Hardman.
You have to pity the poor political hacks at the Mail who do the job properly - being overlooked for a gossip columnist who gives up their sources at the first whiff of cordite.
Well she will breeze in and be their line manager - can't imagine she will get many exclusives from no 10 - seems self harming for the Mail.
As if Number 10 is going to boycott the newspaper that tickles middle Britain's tummy.
Mr. Jessop, perhaps an indication of the Mail's view on Cameron and the approach they'll take (especially over the EU)?
Oakeshott's laughable. If they want a political journalist called Isabel, they should've gone for Hardman.
You have to pity the poor political hacks at the Mail who do the job properly - being overlooked for a gossip columnist who gives up their sources at the first whiff of cordite.
Well she will breeze in and be their line manager - can't imagine she will get many exclusives from no 10 - seems self harming for the Mail.
As if Number 10 is going to boycott the newspaper that tickles middle Britain's tummy.
Who mentioned a boycott ? Don't be daft.
Number 10 needs the Mail a lot more than the Mail needs Number 10.
Mr. Jessop, perhaps an indication of the Mail's view on Cameron and the approach they'll take (especially over the EU)?
Oakeshott's laughable. If they want a political journalist called Isabel, they should've gone for Hardman.
You have to pity the poor political hacks at the Mail who do the job properly - being overlooked for a gossip columnist who gives up their sources at the first whiff of cordite.
Well she will breeze in and be their line manager - can't imagine she will get many exclusives from no 10 - seems self harming for the Mail.
As if Number 10 is going to boycott the newspaper that tickles middle Britain's tummy.
Who mentioned a boycott ? Don't be daft.
Number 10 needs the Mail a lot more than the Mail needs Number 10.
First question at big press PM conference - will it be the Editor at large of the Mail or virtually anyone else in the room ?
Mr. Jessop, perhaps an indication of the Mail's view on Cameron and the approach they'll take (especially over the EU)?
Oakeshott's laughable. If they want a political journalist called Isabel, they should've gone for Hardman.
You have to pity the poor political hacks at the Mail who do the job properly - being overlooked for a gossip columnist who gives up their sources at the first whiff of cordite.
Well she will breeze in and be their line manager - can't imagine she will get many exclusives from no 10 - seems self harming for the Mail.
As if Number 10 is going to boycott the newspaper that tickles middle Britain's tummy.
Who mentioned a boycott ? Don't be daft.
Number 10 needs the Mail a lot more than the Mail needs Number 10.
First question at big press PM conference - will it be the Editor at large of the Mail or virtually anyone else in the room ?
Hardly ideal is it for the next 4 years ?
Dave replies with "Well Isabel, I've heard a rumour about you, from a single source..."
Mr. Jessop, perhaps an indication of the Mail's view on Cameron and the approach they'll take (especially over the EU)?
Oakeshott's laughable. If they want a political journalist called Isabel, they should've gone for Hardman.
You have to pity the poor political hacks at the Mail who do the job properly - being overlooked for a gossip columnist who gives up their sources at the first whiff of cordite.
Well she will breeze in and be their line manager - can't imagine she will get many exclusives from no 10 - seems self harming for the Mail.
As if Number 10 is going to boycott the newspaper that tickles middle Britain's tummy.
Who mentioned a boycott ? Don't be daft.
Number 10 needs the Mail a lot more than the Mail needs Number 10.
First question at big press PM conference - will it be the Editor at large of the Mail or virtually anyone else in the room ?
Hardly ideal is it for the next 4 years ?
Dave replies with "Well Isabel, I've heard a rumour about you, from a single source..."
Mr. Jessop, perhaps an indication of the Mail's view on Cameron and the approach they'll take (especially over the EU)?
Oakeshott's laughable. If they want a political journalist called Isabel, they should've gone for Hardman.
You have to pity the poor political hacks at the Mail who do the job properly - being overlooked for a gossip columnist who gives up their sources at the first whiff of cordite.
Well she will breeze in and be their line manager - can't imagine she will get many exclusives from no 10 - seems self harming for the Mail.
As if Number 10 is going to boycott the newspaper that tickles middle Britain's tummy.
Who mentioned a boycott ? Don't be daft.
Number 10 needs the Mail a lot more than the Mail needs Number 10.
First question at big press PM conference - will it be the Editor at large of the Mail or virtually anyone else in the room ?
Hardly ideal is it for the next 4 years ?
Buckets of shit poured over the Prime Minister's head on the front of the Mail once a week for the next four years? I know which one is likely to be suffering worse in its core activity and it ain't the Mail.
Mr. Jessop, perhaps an indication of the Mail's view on Cameron and the approach they'll take (especially over the EU)?
Oakeshott's laughable. If they want a political journalist called Isabel, they should've gone for Hardman.
You have to pity the poor political hacks at the Mail who do the job properly - being overlooked for a gossip columnist who gives up their sources at the first whiff of cordite.
Well she will breeze in and be their line manager - can't imagine she will get many exclusives from no 10 - seems self harming for the Mail.
As if Number 10 is going to boycott the newspaper that tickles middle Britain's tummy.
Who mentioned a boycott ? Don't be daft.
Number 10 needs the Mail a lot more than the Mail needs Number 10.
First question at big press PM conference - will it be the Editor at large of the Mail or virtually anyone else in the room ?
Hardly ideal is it for the next 4 years ?
Buckets of shit poured over the Prime Minister's head on the front of the Mail once a week for the next four years? I know which one is likely to be suffering worse in its core activity and it ain't the Mail.
That seems to be happening anyway. Sorry if I've demeaned your favourite daily read antifrank but really it seems a bizarre choice made only to annoy no 10.
Then, with respect, the Lib Dems should have allowed the boundary changes through when they still had a say in the process. Killing them off in the last parliament turned out to be unhelpful in the long run and didn't even help them save seats in the short term.
Lib Dems blocked the parliamentary boundary changes because the Conservatives scuttled House of Lords reform.
Well, it was what they used as an excuse for something they were desperate to do in what turned out to be a doomed attempt to save some seats.
I'm fairly sure I remember a report that said that on the revised boundaries, they'd have been down to four, so in that sense they were successful. i don't know which the four were. Presumably Farron and Carmichael would be two.
Although having 4 wouldn't have given them any less influence than 8...
Mr. Jessop, perhaps an indication of the Mail's view on Cameron and the approach they'll take (especially over the EU)?
Oakeshott's laughable. If they want a political journalist called Isabel, they should've gone for Hardman.
You have to pity the poor political hacks at the Mail who do the job properly - being overlooked for a gossip columnist who gives up their sources at the first whiff of cordite.
Well she will breeze in and be their line manager - can't imagine she will get many exclusives from no 10 - seems self harming for the Mail.
As if Number 10 is going to boycott the newspaper that tickles middle Britain's tummy.
Who mentioned a boycott ? Don't be daft.
Number 10 needs the Mail a lot more than the Mail needs Number 10.
First question at big press PM conference - will it be the Editor at large of the Mail or virtually anyone else in the room ?
Hardly ideal is it for the next 4 years ?
Buckets of shit poured over the Prime Minister's head on the front of the Mail once a week for the next four years? I know which one is likely to be suffering worse in its core activity and it ain't the Mail.
That seems to be happening anyway. Sorry if I've demeaned your favourite daily read antifrank but really it seems a bizarre choice made only to annoy no 10.
I don't read the Mail - sensationalist newspapers that write in a shrill and partial manner to stir up the anger of the readers aren't really my thing.
I can well see, however, why Isabel Oakeshott might do very well there. The Mail's purpose is not to get the Conservatives re-elected. Its purpose is to maximise its circulation.
Ukip to target Jeremy Corbyn's 'disdain for monarchy and military' in by-election battle Sources tell Telegraph that Mr Corbyn will be repeatedly characterised as unpatriotic in a bid to win over working class Labour supporters
His criticism of the Falklands War, links to Sinn Fein and controversial new advisers will all be brought up on the door step in what could prove a highly personalised campaign.
Not much change from the GE as I expected, however if the rate of the gap closing with Comres shows on other pollsters we might be due to the first Labour lead in the polls, which will be a surprise to me as I had ruled it out long ago barring a major disaster or crisis.
Turning to 2016, as I warned last night, we won't have many GOP debates left since the candidates want to cancel them and do their own stuff after the CNBC one, today the first casualty:
Fewer debates or none at all mean that Trump gets complete domination of national media, though other candidates will try the old advertising and local media method, essentially it's back to the pre-2008 campaign style.
Ukip to target Jeremy Corbyn's 'disdain for monarchy and military' in by-election battle Sources tell Telegraph that Mr Corbyn will be repeatedly characterised as unpatriotic in a bid to win over working class Labour supporters
His criticism of the Falklands War, links to Sinn Fein and controversial new advisers will all be brought up on the door step in what could prove a highly personalised campaign.
F1: tyres are soft/medium, same as US. Qualifying may be wet, race should be dry.
Mr Dancer, my weather forecast differs, says that the next couple of days may both have showers.
An interesting place Mexico, the altitude means that the cars run Monaco levels of downforce but travel at Monza speeds on the long main straight. The lack of run off areas around the track suggests a safety car might be a good bet for the race, especially if qualy is in the rain and the grid ends up more muddled than usual.
Engine change penalties will see the McLarens both start from right at the back. Mercedes both had issues in P1 with overheating rear brakes, Rosberg's managed to fail completely and catch fire!
Ukip to target Jeremy Corbyn's 'disdain for monarchy and military' in by-election battle Sources tell Telegraph that Mr Corbyn will be repeatedly characterised as unpatriotic in a bid to win over working class Labour supporters
His criticism of the Falklands War, links to Sinn Fein and controversial new advisers will all be brought up on the door step in what could prove a highly personalised campaign.
Ukip to target Jeremy Corbyn's 'disdain for monarchy and military' in by-election battle Sources tell Telegraph that Mr Corbyn will be repeatedly characterised as unpatriotic in a bid to win over working class Labour supporters
His criticism of the Falklands War, links to Sinn Fein and controversial new advisers will all be brought up on the door step in what could prove a highly personalised campaign.
Hm... not sure where that would leave UKIP nationally. It would be a bit playing to the Little England shouty stereotype of hte party as painted by its opponents.
Ukip to target Jeremy Corbyn's 'disdain for monarchy and military' in by-election battle Sources tell Telegraph that Mr Corbyn will be repeatedly characterised as unpatriotic in a bid to win over working class Labour supporters
His criticism of the Falklands War, links to Sinn Fein and controversial new advisers will all be brought up on the door step in what could prove a highly personalised campaign.
Frankly, I'm boss eyed that any Labourite doesn't see this as fatal stuff.
Quite. I can't quite decide whether they really don't see it, or are pretending not to see it, or are just desperate to find silver linings in clouds which are entirely lining-free.
Of course the PB Tories flagged this up long before Corbyn was chosen. What more can we do to provide helpful advice?
Mr. Jessop, perhaps an indication of the Mail's view on Cameron and the approach they'll take (especially over the EU)?
Oakeshott's laughable. If they want a political journalist called Isabel, they should've gone for Hardman.
You have to pity the poor political hacks at the Mail who do the job properly - being overlooked for a gossip columnist who gives up their sources at the first whiff of cordite.
Well she will breeze in and be their line manager - can't imagine she will get many exclusives from no 10 - seems self harming for the Mail.
As if Number 10 is going to boycott the newspaper that tickles middle Britain's tummy.
Who mentioned a boycott ? Don't be daft.
Number 10 needs the Mail a lot more than the Mail needs Number 10.
First question at big press PM conference - will it be the Editor at large of the Mail or virtually anyone else in the room ?
Hardly ideal is it for the next 4 years ?
Dave replies with "Well Isabel, I've heard a rumour about you, from a single source..."
Surely her reputation as a journalist is shot to pieces after she took Ashcroft's silver, who in their right mind would ever give her a story now?
Ukip to target Jeremy Corbyn's 'disdain for monarchy and military' in by-election battle Sources tell Telegraph that Mr Corbyn will be repeatedly characterised as unpatriotic in a bid to win over working class Labour supporters
His criticism of the Falklands War, links to Sinn Fein and controversial new advisers will all be brought up on the door step in what could prove a highly personalised campaign.
Mr. Jessop, perhaps an indication of the Mail's view on Cameron and the approach they'll take (especially over the EU)?
Oakeshott's laughable. If they want a political journalist called Isabel, they should've gone for Hardman.
You have to pity the poor political hacks at the Mail who do the job properly - being overlooked for a gossip columnist who gives up their sources at the first whiff of cordite.
Well she will breeze in and be their line manager - can't imagine she will get many exclusives from no 10 - seems self harming for the Mail.
As if Number 10 is going to boycott the newspaper that tickles middle Britain's tummy.
Who mentioned a boycott ? Don't be daft.
Number 10 needs the Mail a lot more than the Mail needs Number 10.
First question at big press PM conference - will it be the Editor at large of the Mail or virtually anyone else in the room ?
Hardly ideal is it for the next 4 years ?
Dave replies with "Well Isabel, I've heard a rumour about you, from a single source..."
Surely her reputation as a journalist is shot to pieces after she took Ashcroft's silver, who in their right mind would ever give her a story now?
Mr. Thompson, Mr. JEO, I agree that the Snooper's Charter seems demented, but isn't Cameron's frankly ignorant idiocy over wanting to ban encryption worse?
I thought that had been demonstrated to be a myth/misinterpretation of what was proposed?
Mr. Thompson, my understanding was that Cameron wanted (or wants) encryption to have a backdoor [ahem] built-in so that security services (or hackers...) could break encryption at will. Which is rather like having doors with human-sized catflaps in case there's a problem with the lock.
Mr. Thompson, my understanding was that Cameron wanted (or wants) encryption to have a backdoor [ahem] built-in so that security services (or hackers...) could break encryption at will. Which is rather like having doors with human-sized catflaps in case there's a problem with the lock.
Mr. Jessop, perhaps an indication of the Mail's view on Cameron and the approach they'll take (especially over the EU)?
Oakeshott's laughable. If they want a political journalist called Isabel, they should've gone for Hardman.
You have to pity the poor political hacks at the Mail who do the job properly - being overlooked for a gossip columnist who gives up their sources at the first whiff of cordite.
Well she will breeze in and be their line manager - can't imagine she will get many exclusives from no 10 - seems self harming for the Mail.
As if Number 10 is going to boycott the newspaper that tickles middle Britain's tummy.
Who mentioned a boycott ? Don't be daft.
Number 10 needs the Mail a lot more than the Mail needs Number 10.
First question at big press PM conference - will it be the Editor at large of the Mail or virtually anyone else in the room ?
Hardly ideal is it for the next 4 years ?
Buckets of shit poured over the Prime Minister's head on the front of the Mail once a week for the next four years? I know which one is likely to be suffering worse in its core activity and it ain't the Mail.
That seems to be happening anyway. Sorry if I've demeaned your favourite daily read antifrank but really it seems a bizarre choice made only to annoy no 10.
I don't read the Mail - sensationalist newspapers that write in a shrill and partial manner to stir up the anger of the readers aren't really my thing.
I can well see, however, why Isabel Oakeshott might do very well there. The Mail's purpose is not to get the Conservatives re-elected. Its purpose is to maximise its circulation.
The problem us that using that criteria you would be hard pressed to find many papers to read at all. The Telegraph and Independent both seem to be adopting that tactic from their respective flanks as do the Guardian and Times to a lesser extent. Sensationalism tied to overt partisanship seems to be the basic modus operandi of all papers these days.
I would agree however that here are degrees and the Mail seems to have taken the technique to an extreme .
Comments
But welcome all the same ....
And for the next 7 years, Labour did what precisely? Yeah, there are questions to answer for this Govt. But at least it has finally had the balls to close down these charlatans.
But for cuts already made with the support of the LDs then tax credits would be costing 40bn a year. They are actually costing 30bn. So with LD support we have seen 10bns of cuts to tax credits since 2010. (See David Smith, Sunday Times economics editor).
These cuts are aimed at bringing the number of families with children in receipt of tax credits down from 6 to 5 out of 10.
In 2010 it was 9 out of 10.
With some crops increasing the CO2 levels can result in an increase growth rate of 20%, with ideal day length and other environmental factors tuned to perfection.
Logical Fallacy would perhaps be a more accurate non de plume for him.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2015/08/02/next-chancellor-after-osborne-betting/
I think Farage's unresignation was the best, although that was not election night. Did Dimbleby actually burst into tears at any point?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/police-to-be-given-powers-to-view-everyones-entire-internet-history-a6714581.html
Would love to hear someone defending this, because right now it's the worst piece of domestic policy I've seen my party support in the last decade.
Best wishes to you too.
"What is worse is that idiots like you believe the "mob rule" guff written by a cretin."
I'm talking generally. I was in a rather large one in Grosvenor Square in the sixties. Totally anti-productive and taken over by a few loons to make themselves feel better. Jezza was probably there and encouraging them.
I think you have a right to make your views known, and I've no problem with deeply held feelings but ... as John Lennon said ...
"But if you want money for people with minds that hate
All I can tell you is brother you'll have to wait."
Us turnips don't vote for loons.
CO2 constitutes 4% of greenhouse gases. 'Man made' CO2 comprises under 4% of that.
As the IPCC say, the biggest most important component of greenhouse gases is water vapour. But again as they admit, since it is impossible to measure and model they chose to ignore its effects.
However it now has a totally unexpected consequence in that it presents a golden opportunity for Momentum to deselect MPs they do not like.
'.I think if he had been an Exec at Murdochs company his name would have been on BBC News and the Guardian front page everyday.'
If Chris Huhne was still in parliament he would have called in the police by now.!
SNP 34 Con 25 Lab 24
So journalism, like politics, is an occupation where utter failure does not seem to harm careers ...
Oakeshott's laughable. If they want a political journalist called Isabel, they should've gone for Hardman.
I don't read anything bylined Platell, she's just horrid - and so is Jan Moir. The Mail seems to specialise in harpies.
EDIT was Miscow another one of theirs? She's gruesome.
It's close. 52-48 to stay.
Hardly ideal is it for the next 4 years ?
Hi mate, nice to meet you last night... Let me know your email and I will send that program for your perusal
I can well see, however, why Isabel Oakeshott might do very well there. The Mail's purpose is not to get the Conservatives re-elected. Its purpose is to maximise its circulation.
Turning to 2016, as I warned last night, we won't have many GOP debates left since the candidates want to cancel them and do their own stuff after the CNBC one, today the first casualty:
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/258673-rnc-pulls-out-of-nbc-debate
Fewer debates or none at all mean that Trump gets complete domination of national media, though other candidates will try the old advertising and local media method, essentially it's back to the pre-2008 campaign style.
Not a fan of tub thumping "British is best" stuff, but I think appealing to Tories to vote UKIP in order to embarrass Labour is a wise move
An interesting place Mexico, the altitude means that the cars run Monaco levels of downforce but travel at Monza speeds on the long main straight. The lack of run off areas around the track suggests a safety car might be a good bet for the race, especially if qualy is in the rain and the grid ends up more muddled than usual.
Engine change penalties will see the McLarens both start from right at the back. Mercedes both had issues in P1 with overheating rear brakes, Rosberg's managed to fail completely and catch fire!
Edit: welcome to @MalcolmDunn
Well see if it works, Corbyn's enemies will be looking closely.
Hm... not sure where that would leave UKIP nationally. It would be a bit playing to the Little England shouty stereotype of hte party as painted by its opponents.
Of course the PB Tories flagged this up long before Corbyn was chosen. What more can we do to provide helpful advice?
I suspect it will be more based on his views on immigration will it not? Obviously they can't say that.
Interesting on the altitude, and potential for a safety car.
I wonder if that altitude factor helps Williams.
I would agree however that here are degrees and the Mail seems to have taken the technique to an extreme .