Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » This week’s PB/Polling Matters Podcast explores what it’s l
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » This week’s PB/Polling Matters Podcast explores what it’s like being a losing candidate
On this week’s edition of the PB / Polling Matters podcast we explore what it’s like running for parliament. Keiran speaks to two unsuccessful candidates from 2015 and asks about their experiences, the pressures they faced and why they thought Labour lost.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
On topic: I quite admire people who stand for parliament. There's no way I'd have the guts to put myself into the firing line, even if I thought I was in any capable of doing the job.
Anyway, glad it came back to life, even if it's a one-off, as I suspect my silence during an F1 weekend might cause a sigh of relief as wallets are not lightened by errant tips raised eyebrow here or there.
https://youtu.be/CuQl1bKlzVM
The 2015 Labour Party candidate for Suffolk Coastal looks about 14 - or am just getting old?
http://polling.reuters.com/#poll/TR130/filters/LIKELY_PRIMARY15:1,PARTY_ID_:2/dates/20151107-20151113/type/day
Trump 42 (+10)
Carson 23 (-2)
Rubio 9.6 (+0.2)
Cruz 7.4 (- 3.5)
Bush 4.2 (+0.5)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-34810806
Just in time for winter. We are ruled by pygmies.
http://polling.reuters.com/#poll/TR130/filters/LIKELY_PRIMARY15:1,PARTY_ID_:2/dates/20150807-20151113/type/day
As I mentioned last week Liz Taylor demanded fresh bananas from africa everyday on the set of Cleopatra.
But never mind about energy security, that Dave Cameron does a lovely speech, and he always strikes the right note at the cenotaph.
...sorry I thought you were being serious for a moment :-)
Republicans need to reach out to hispanics, and this won't do it.
Not exactly a pantomime, is it?
I will repeat what I've said before: Russia has no interest in 'defeating' ISIS. They are looking after their own interests, which is supporting a puppet Assad. That is a pantomime, and one people such as yourself are all too keen to watch and applaud.
I need some mind bleach. I just thought of Putin dressed up as Widow Twankey ...
However each day something like 25% of our electricity comes from coal burning power stations (and another 25% from filthy nuclear) so we still have a long way to go. Perhaps even higher taxes on electricity might be the right thing to do; those polar bears aren't going to save themselves.
Hispanics of mexican origin are a crucial block in most south western states, however with the exception of Texas and Arizona most of them vote democrat by large margins, only Nevada and perhaps Colorado are hispanic-mexican swing states but they only have 6 & 9 electoral votes respectively, while the industrial states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan each have double that number.
Given that in the state polls Hillary is struggling in the industrial states against all republicans I would ditch the hispanic outreach strategy for a blue collar one, and it's not impossible because they all have elected republican governors and senators these past few years in the rust belt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2016
7 airstrikes a day. 7. 800 a day to get rid of Saddam - that's what the US does when it's actually interested in defeating someone. 7 to 'degrade' ISIS (whilst ISIS enjoy vast territorial expansion). And this is the farce that we've been asked to join.
You contradict yourself even within your own posts. To support Assad (which they have fully acknowledged, and is the most sensible way of resolving the situation) means ISIS must be defeated. The only side that ISIS' expansion benefits is the Saudi, Qatari, Turkey, US (sadly UK) axis, which is perhaps why 'coalition' airstrikes have been tickling their tummy for the past 13 months.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_Kingdom#/media/File:Electricity_Production_in_the_United_Kingdom.svg
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
And I've not contradicted myself at all.
I must once again ask how you think ISIS is going to be 'defeated', and in fact what 'defeat' for that organisation would be. As I pointed out earlier, 'defeating' their ideology militarily is going to be exceptionally difficult given their multinational nature and ideology. Try having some original thoughts instead of regurgitating whatever rubbish you've read on some Putinist blog or other.
ISIS's expansion has served Russia very well, hasn't it? Its allowed them to create a puppet out of Assad and get a further foothold in the ME. It's been of zero benefit to either the US or UK.
" ... which is perhaps why 'coalition' airstrikes have been tickling their tummy for the past 13 months."
Yeah, right. Your knowledge of the situation and region really is most laughable and one-dimensional.
So best case for her is a repeat of 2012, worst case the biggest republican victory since 1988.
and if Rubio can't win anywhere early so loses his sheen
Surely Trump v Cruz?
I am on Rubio I think, f w i w.
I've said from the beginning that I don't think Trump will be the nominee, and that he will crash and burn. So far that has not happened, and after the first few primaries I might need to reconsider that view. At present I think it's Rubio's to lose. The next three months or so will show if my utterly unscientific view is correct.
Simply because nuclear power is old fashioned, dangerous and incredibly expensive, does not mean conservatives should support it.
I may support nuclear weapons but I'm not an idiot to support nuclear power, if even the japanese failed to master it then it's way too dangerous.
Kerry is not running for president and it's not 2004 likewise Obama is not Kerry and 2008 was not 2004 but he still won Virginia, Indiana, Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, Ohio, Florida and N.Carolina which Kerry did not.
If you look at presidential election maps you would see that from president to president the geographical support changes drastically.
@DamCou: 2/2 "…return from their successful negotiation of Jihadi John's extradition without loss. You can see John himself riding the lead unicorn…"
In vino veritas or something.
However, when I've sobered up .....
Given the number of coal fired power stations that have been closed it certainly wouldn't surprise me to find that nuclear share is now back up around 25%.
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
None of this is of benefit to the UK - we have no dog in this fight. We are there because that's what the US wants. The American benefit is clear - they want to get rid of Assad. ISIS was not only the most effective force against the Assad Government, it also gave a pretext to impose a de facto no fly zone over Syria, to prevent Assad from using his air force to gain the upper hand.
'Yeah right' - great argument there. What do you call 7 air strikes a day against the biggest threat to humanity the 21st century has yet seen?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinorwig_Power_Station
There are many cheaper and safer alternatives that produce the same results but are less sexy than nuclear power, with a nuclear reactor a loose bolt could make Britain uninhabitable for decades.
Try looking at some proper research into just how poorly we are served by wind turbines.
http://www.cityam.com/1414407936/wind-farms-unreliable-expensive-and-deeply-inefficient-study-claims
"UK wind farms top 80 per cent of their potential output for less than a week every year. It gets worse as, according to the study, wind turbines are only able to produce 90 per cent or more of their potential power output for a meagre 17 hours a year."
However, if you look at my original post on this matter up-thread you will see that I was suggesting that coal and nuclear power stations be shut down. We do have to think of the polar bears and the planet as a whole. I am delighted that the UK has a national target, backed by legislation, to reduce its carbon emissions etc. to less than 80% of the 1990 level.
Obviously that will mean sacrifices as the demand for electricity cannot be allowed to rise as it has over the last half-century or so. As someone, I forget who but it was one of the great and good, said we must accept that in future electricity will not be available on demand. So some form of rationing is inevitable. How to ration? Well, the great and the good cannot be expected to go without so price is the obvious mechanism.
Ken Clark tried this in the 1990s when he introduced VAT on domestic fuel. Labour kicked up a fearful stink, cut the VAT as far as the EU would let them and then a few years later introduced their own taxes on on energy but called them something else. So as both main parties are happy to agree that ordinary people should pay more for electricity the politics are settled; ordinary people are to have the electricity rationed.
Which is fine because, as I said those polar bears will not save themselves, and the UK by reducing its less than 2% share of nasty emissions will be a world leader. That won't make a sod's worth of difference to global warming but it will allow our politicians to strut their stuff on the world stage which is what matters. The unemployed industrial workers will be heartened to know that their sacrifice has been worth while.
You are wrong, because we wanted to get involved *before* ISIS was a significant power in the conflict. And that was mostly because of Assad's use of chemical weapons (yes, I know you don't believe he used them, but we can't help your utter lack of intellectual rigour).
'The American benefit is clear - they want to get rid of Assad.'
Really? They cared that much about Assad before he started gassing his own civilians in the civil war? What the west wanted was an end to the civil war, and Assad going was the easiest way for that to happen, especially once he used those weapons.
As usual, you apply utterly heinous and evil motives to the Americans, and pure and God-like ones to Putin and the Russians.
Tidal, the new oil?
Has the SNP managed to do anything right?
*If* we need wind power, we'll need new technologies to perform the load balancing, whether that is flywheels, molten salts, compressed air, or a combination.
@ScottyNational: Today's #FMQs transcript :
MSP:Do you...
NS:Poll..
MSP :.have any..
NS:ratings..
MSP:.answers about..
NS:Poll...
Msp:
NS:ratings
@1ofthe63: So sturgeons new response to #FMQs she can't answer is to say "look at the polls". Basically Fuk U Scotland,we're in power and unaccountable