If you can't see what's wrong with that, there is no hope.
Where does the mandatory part come in. Nothing is done unless a child asks for help. If a child needs help then anybody should be happy that they get it, or are you suggesting we should follow England, where the Tories policies have given us Rotherham, Bristol , etc. Is that more to your liking.
How is Rotherham and Bristol related to Tory policies?
They are "running" the country unless you missed it, they have failed miserably , just like their Red Tory pals before them.
If you can't see what's wrong with that, there is no hope.
Where does the mandatory part come in. Nothing is done unless a child asks for help. If a child needs help then anybody should be happy that they get it, or are you suggesting we should follow England, where the Tories policies have given us Rotherham, Bristol , etc. Is that more to your liking.
How is Rotherham and Bristol related to Tory policies?
They are "running" the country unless you missed it, they have failed miserably , just like their Red Tory pals before them.
When this all happened they were not running the country though. In fact far from it. So how is this related? To accuse any group in such a way you should provide facts please.
Your usual post , the opinions of some other nutter rather than your own.
Have you worked out if you support the policy you haven't looked at yet, or not?
Can you tell me how headteachers will be forced to be state storm troopers and spy on hundreds of children's lives. You really are stupid and bigoted, keep promoting demonising of the poor and the disabled.
I think Mr Jessop has this about right - people vote for a variety of reasons, but personal circumstances are a big factor.
If you're comfortably off, there is little downside to EU membership. If you're competing for jobs with the influx, you're not so keen. I'm in neither category, but I bear a grudge of forty years standing about being lied to.
Having spent the weekend back in Boston I saw both sides in action. The influx of Eastern Europeans has changed the town considerably with Polish and Lithuanian being spoken widely (and Russian too as a common language between the two). There's no risk of terrorism, but the drink driving rates seem to have gone up.
However, some of my relatives are currently seeking work and less understanding, although they do admit the visitors work hard and are less fussy than the native population.
Labour would once naturally be on their side. Not now; it is pro-EU because it is generally a London party of the Establishment, and a fan of diversity too.
I remain confident that remain will win. The Establishment has all the advantages and will have to perform very badly to cock this one up.
There are some deeply unpleasant people supporting leave, rational people will vote remain for this reason if nothing else.
There are some deeply unpleasant people supporting Remain, rational people will vote Leave for this reason if nothing else.
See we can all bleat can bleat like you.
A little analysis or original thought makes reading PB so much more worthwhile.
No, it really doesn't, unless you think the SNP can do no wrong.
So, the useful idiots are in support of State Supervision of other people's kids.
Not surprising, but depressing.
Dear Dear, they are not supervising anyone. There is a named person who can help if required and asked to by a child. A reasonable safeguard. If only the Tories were so interested in the disabled and poor.
If you can't see what's wrong with that, there is no hope.
Where does the mandatory part come in. Nothing is done unless a child asks for help. If a child needs help then anybody should be happy that they get it, or are you suggesting we should follow England, where the Tories policies have given us Rotherham, Bristol , etc. Is that more to your liking.
How is Rotherham and Bristol related to Tory policies?
They are "running" the country unless you missed it, they have failed miserably , just like their Red Tory pals before them.
When this all happened they were not running the country though. In fact far from it. So how is this related? To accuse any group in such a way you should provide facts please.
So it all happened prior to 2010 then, show me proof of that since you are so hot on truth.
Mr. G, pleas for help for Rotherham victims included, I believe, parents (as well as victims themselves) asking for it. The problem (well, one of them) with Rotherham was that 'political sensitivities' were used as an excuse to ignore multiple allegations of the most serious crimes. Had the existing parents/guardians been heeded, the abuse would've stopped much sooner.
No, it really doesn't, unless you think the SNP can do no wrong.
So, the useful idiots are in support of State Supervision of other people's kids.
Not surprising, but depressing.
Malcolm is like the character Mr Parsons in Nineteen Eighty-Four. A stupid party loyalist who is eventually reported to the authorities by his own children and arrested.
No, it really doesn't, unless you think the SNP can do no wrong.
So, the useful idiots are in support of State Supervision of other people's kids.
Not surprising, but depressing.
Dear Dear, they are not supervising anyone. There is a named person who can help if required and asked to by a child. A reasonable safeguard. If only the Tories were so interested in the disabled and poor.
It's a wank policy, Malc. The vast majority of Scottish kids need no such thing as a "State Guardian". A far better idea would be to channel the resources to children who might genuinely need the help. It's really pie in the sky stuff. Who appoints the Guardian? How many kids will each guardian have? How will they keep in touch? What if the kid doesn't like the appointed guardian? It's just wank, mate.
No, it really doesn't, unless you think the SNP can do no wrong.
So, the useful idiots are in support of State Supervision of other people's kids.
Not surprising, but depressing.
Dear Dear, they are not supervising anyone. There is a named person who can help if required and asked to by a child. A reasonable safeguard. If only the Tories were so interested in the disabled and poor.
I think Mr Jessop has this about right - people vote for a variety of reasons, but personal circumstances are a big factor.
If you're comfortably off, there is little downside to EU membership. If you're competing for jobs with the influx, you're not so keen. I'm in neither category, but I bear a grudge of forty years standing about being lied to.
Having spent the weekend back in Boston I saw both sides in action. The influx of Eastern Europeans has changed the town considerably with Polish and Lithuanian being spoken widely (and Russian too as a common language between the two). There's no risk of terrorism, but the drink driving rates seem to have gone up.
However, some of my relatives are currently seeking work and less understanding, although they do admit the visitors work hard and are less fussy than the native population.
Labour would once naturally be on their side. Not now; it is pro-EU because it is generally a London party of the Establishment, and a fan of diversity too.
I remain confident that remain will win. The Establishment has all the advantages and will have to perform very badly to cock this one up.
There are some deeply unpleasant people supporting leave, rational people will vote remain for this reason if nothing else.
There are some deeply unpleasant people supporting Remain, rational people will vote Leave for this reason if nothing else.
See we can all bleat can bleat like you.
A little analysis or original thought makes reading PB so much more worthwhile.
bleat.. FFS all you ever do is bleat about how awful the EU is..
I actually loathe both sides for the continual lies that each side puts out in support of its case.. Frankly, I don't want to listen to another word about it from the media, but its worth pointing out to the Anti EU scribe who are so vocal on the site that not everyone has the same opinion, and if you say anything you get shouted down.
If you can't see what's wrong with that, there is no hope.
Where does the mandatory part come in. Nothing is done unless a child asks for help. If a child needs help then anybody should be happy that they get it, or are you suggesting we should follow England, where the Tories policies have given us Rotherham, Bristol , etc. Is that more to your liking.
How is Rotherham and Bristol related to Tory policies?
They are "running" the country unless you missed it, they have failed miserably , just like their Red Tory pals before them.
When this all happened they were not running the country though. In fact far from it. So how is this related? To accuse any group in such a way you should provide facts please.
So it all happened prior to 2010 then, show me proof of that since you are so hot on truth.
Good deflection attempt. Sorry no..... We are not discussing me we are discussing your last statement where You said this
"are you suggesting we should follow England, where the Tories policies have given us Rotherham, Bristol , etc. Is that more to your liking."
So again can you please provide us with a Link or proof that quote "Tories policies" unquote has given us Rotherham and Bristol. Please be very specific on the "policies". If they are responsible then we need to be enlightened to make a proper judgement. Otherwise this was just another smear issued and this time a nasty one at that.
To your next question no I am not a Tory but I do believe people should not make accusations such as this and not back it up with demonstrable proof. It does everyone harm by doing so and in these cases certainly damages the more direct and effective efforts to protect young people that find themselves in a very vulnerable position through no fault of their own.
Just catching up with the 1966 results over breakfast. Didn't realise how close Heath came to losing his seat.
Might make for an interesting alternate history?
Heath was elected by only 133 votes in 1950 so his political career might have been snuffed out before it began.
I suspect that in 1950 and 1951 Heath and Thatcher might have been contesting neighbouring constituencies.
The marginality of Bexley and its successor Bexleyheath was the reason why Heath shifted to Sidcup constituency in 1974.
Had Heath lost in 1950, chances are he'd have either fought the seat again in 1951 - another election would have been anticipated shortly given Labour's tiny majority - or found a seat for himself somewhere else. He was clearly set on a political career and didn't really have any other distractions from that objective. Even if he'd missed out on 1951, he'd just about have had time to rise to near the top by 1965, though of course he may not have done.
By contrast, had he lost in 1966, it's almost certain that he'd never have become PM. He'd have had practically no option but to resign the leadership (he could theoretically have fought a by-election to return to the House as Balfour did in 1906, but the pressure from colleagues would surely have been to stand down). Someone else would therefore have become leader of the Tories (who? - Maudling? Macleod? Hogg? Powell? Thorneycroft?), meaning a different 1970 government (whether Labour or Tory), a different approach to the EEC - at least in intensitiy of support - and snowballing consequences from thereon.
Malc, it's a barmy idea, though. State guardian for every child in Scotland? Is Scottish parenting really so bad that they need to have the state overseeing every minute aspect of it?
What is this 'state guardian' of which you speak? Ah, it's the preferred term of Tories, the Christian Institute, the Mail, the Telegraph and, to coin a phrase, assorted headbangers.
The Christian Institute, the funder of the Comres NP poll, has among other things campaigned for Clause 28 and against gay adoption, civil partnerships, gay marriage, abortion & sex education in schools. Don't know about you but I'm happy to bung them into the headbangers column.
TUD, As I said right wing nutters and Tories, and usual bag of lies. Creepy will not be back with any answer or explanation as it will blow holes in his pathetic posts. It is merely a person that a child can ask for help from , if and when they feel it is needed.
No, it really doesn't, unless you think the SNP can do no wrong.
So, the useful idiots are in support of State Supervision of other people's kids.
Not surprising, but depressing.
Malcolm is like the character Mr Parsons in Nineteen Eighty-Four. A stupid party loyalist who is eventually reported to the authorities by his own children and arrested.
The arrest of Parsons in 1984 is I think most interesting but rarely commented upon.
Winston accurately predicts that the likes of Syme, Julia and himself will be arrested but believes that Parsons wont be. Yet Parsons is and for muttering 'Down With Big Brother' in his sleep.
Now did Parsons really say that or did his children make it up in their enthusiasm to denounce people ? Is the Party ideology causing it to eat itself at that point ?
What are the number of voters in each of these groups? A,B,C1, C2 etc
A: 4% B: 23% C1: 29% C2: 21% D :15% E: 8% Note that E apparently includes all state pensioners, but I suspect it means people relying only on state pension.
Many Thanks Nick. So in an AB vs DE it is 27% vs 23% of the votes and then turnout adds to the AB lead. But DE is almost split 50/50 between LEAVE and REMAIN. Presumably it is the pensioners in E that are holding up the LEAVE vote in those stats?
But where does the assumption that Labour is going to get a 2/3 REMAIN 1/3 LEAVE split from? With DE the vote is 50/50 and with C2 it is massively pro LEAVE. The assumption for Labour's EU vote split is heavily dependent on the C1 and AB. These are the very voter types that at GE15 voted Conservative. Yes some did vote Labour but it was a minority and less than the Conservatives. Also how motivated will Labour REMAIN voters be for something headlined by Cameron and Osborne, with Corbyn etc leaving it to Mandelson etc? FWIW I think the Labour REMAIN vote will be less than 2/3 of Labour GE15 that vote, because many will just not vote.
Just catching up with the 1966 results over breakfast. Didn't realise how close Heath came to losing his seat.
Might make for an interesting alternate history?
Heath was elected by only 133 votes in 1950 so his political career might have been snuffed out before it began.
I suspect that in 1950 and 1951 Heath and Thatcher might have been contesting neighbouring constituencies.
The marginality of Bexley and its successor Bexleyheath was the reason why Heath shifted to Sidcup constituency in 1974.
Had Heath lost in 1950, chances are he'd have either fought the seat again in 1951 - another election would have been anticipated shortly given Labour's tiny majority - or found a seat for himself somewhere else. He was clearly set on a political career and didn't really have any other distractions from that objective. Even if he'd missed out on 1951, he'd just about have had time to rise to near the top by 1965, though of course he may not have done.
By contrast, had he lost in 1966, it's almost certain that he'd never have become PM. He'd have had practically no option but to resign the leadership (he could theoretically have fought a by-election to return to the House as Balfour did in 1906, but the pressure from colleagues would surely have been to stand down). Someone else would therefore have become leader of the Tories (who? - Maudling? Macleod? Hogg? Powell? Thorneycroft?), meaning a different 1970 government (whether Labour or Tory), a different approach to the EEC - at least in intensitiy of support - and snowballing consequences from thereon.
Reginald Maulding, probably.
Which would probably have meant that Wilson would have hung on in 1970.
Nick Palmer wrote an article the other day about the need for positive campaigning. He went on to mention Alan Johnson. Ignoring the flaky facts that Johnson's speech had, is there a much bigger problem for REMAIN in that the REMAIN vote that needs to be brought out is Labour GE15? With the REMAIN campaign being dominated by Conservative Government people and Big Business, these are not the type of people that would appeal to the core of Labour voters.
Certainly not those on welfare. Not those on lower wages. Not those working in the public sector and not those only on a state pension. These groups probably account for more than half the core of Labour's voters.
Maybe this should be the subject of a future article on PB?
Just catching up with the 1966 results over breakfast. Didn't realise how close Heath came to losing his seat.
Might make for an interesting alternate history?
Heath was elected by only 133 votes in 1950 so his political career might have been snuffed out before it began.
I suspect that in 1950 and 1951 Heath and Thatcher might have been contesting neighbouring constituencies.
The marginality of Bexley and its successor Bexleyheath was the reason why Heath shifted to Sidcup constituency in 1974.
Had Heath lost in 1950, chances are he'd have either fought the seat again in 1951 - another election would have been anticipated shortly given Labour's tiny majority - or found a seat for himself somewhere else. He was clearly set on a political career and didn't really have any other distractions from that objective. Even if he'd missed out on 1951, he'd just about have had time to rise to near the top by 1965, though of course he may not have done.
By contrast, had he lost in 1966, it's almost certain that he'd never have become PM. He'd have had practically no option but to resign the leadership (he could theoretically have fought a by-election to return to the House as Balfour did in 1906, but the pressure from colleagues would surely have been to stand down). Someone else would therefore have become leader of the Tories (who? - Maudling? Macleod? Hogg? Powell? Thorneycroft?), meaning a different 1970 government (whether Labour or Tory), a different approach to the EEC - at least in intensitiy of support - and snowballing consequences from thereon.
Its all hypothetical isn't it.
We know about the careers of politicians who are defeated initially but are determined or lucky enough to be given a second chance.
Bu there are also would be politicians who are defeated initially and never do get that second opportunity. They might find an alternative career in the meantime ** or they be blamed for the constituency defeat or a better candidate might become available.
** If Labour had won Bexley in 1950 their majority would have been a bit less tiny and if Labour had done slightly better throughout the country and not just in Bexley - there were six constituencies with a Conservative majority of below 100 and five with a majority between 100-200 - then Labour would have had a large enough majority to last a full five years. And that would certainly have affected the progress of Heath's career.
Nick Palmer wrote an article the other day about the need for positive campaigning. He went on to mention Alan Johnson. Ignoring the flaky facts that Johnson's speech had, is there a much bigger problem for REMAIN in that the REMAIN vote that needs to be brought out is Labour GE15? With the REMAIN campaign being dominated by Conservative Government people and Big Business, these are not the type of people that would appeal to the core of Labour voters.
Certainly not those on welfare. Not those on lower wages. Not those working in the public sector and not those only on a state pension. These groups probably account for more than half the core of Labour's voters.
Maybe this should be the subject of a future article on PB?
Why don't you write the article? You've got all the key elements, write it and send it to OGH.
The fourth safest Conservative constituency was Hove - Labour in 2015.
And Edinburgh South, Glasgow Cathcart and Sheffield Hallam were all in the top ten.
While Labour's safe seats are dominated by mining areas and apart from a few in the East End very few City constituencies.
Oddly Broxtowe had a Labour majority of over 22,000 then - it must have been on rather different boundaries - the Nottinghamshire coalfield presumably.
Nick Palmer wrote an article the other day about the need for positive campaigning. He went on to mention Alan Johnson. Ignoring the flaky facts that Johnson's speech had, is there a much bigger problem for REMAIN in that the REMAIN vote that needs to be brought out is Labour GE15? With the REMAIN campaign being dominated by Conservative Government people and Big Business, these are not the type of people that would appeal to the core of Labour voters.
Certainly not those on welfare. Not those on lower wages. Not those working in the public sector and not those only on a state pension. These groups probably account for more than half the core of Labour's voters.
Maybe this should be the subject of a future article on PB?
Yes, I agree - it's a point I've made several times. I'd encourage you to write it.
By contrast, had he lost in 1966, it's almost certain that he'd never have become PM. He'd have had practically no option but to resign the leadership (he could theoretically have fought a by-election to return to the House as Balfour did in 1906, but the pressure from colleagues would surely have been to stand down). Someone else would therefore have become leader of the Tories (who? - Maudling? Macleod? Hogg? Powell? Thorneycroft?), meaning a different 1970 government (whether Labour or Tory), a different approach to the EEC - at least in intensitiy of support - and snowballing consequences from thereon.
Its all hypothetical isn't it.
We know about the careers of politicians who are defeated initially but are determined or lucky enough to be given a second chance.
Bu there are also would be politicians who are defeated initially and never do get that second opportunity. They might find an alternative career in the meantime ** or they be blamed for the constituency defeat or a better candidate might become available.
** If Labour had won Bexley in 1950 their majority would have been a bit less tiny and if Labour had done slightly better throughout the country and not just in Bexley - there were six constituencies with a Conservative majority of below 100 and five with a majority between 100-200 - then Labour would have had a large enough majority to last a full five years. And that would certainly have affected the progress of Heath's career.
It would depend on the reason for the loss - if we're talking about a swing to Labour then yes, increasing their majority from 5 to, say, 25 would make a significant difference to that parliament's likely longevity.
However, there were specific local circumstances for Heath that wouldn't have required a national swing: his constituency Association was in a mess only a year before the election, with a corrupt agent who pilfered the fighting fund and an attempt initiated by him to oust the officers in order to cover his tracks. Had those matters not been resolved, you can easily see a case where the seat was lost.
That would only have increased Labour's majority to 7, which is unlikely to have had much impact, and Heath would have been unlikely to have been blamed for a fiasco in his Association.
Heath was, pre-1966, a precocious high-flier and certainly more likely than most to gain another nomination. As you say, it's possible that his head might have been turned by a different career opportunity but all things considered, the odds are probably against it.
Nick Palmer wrote an article the other day about the need for positive campaigning. He went on to mention Alan Johnson. Ignoring the flaky facts that Johnson's speech had, is there a much bigger problem for REMAIN in that the REMAIN vote that needs to be brought out is Labour GE15? With the REMAIN campaign being dominated by Conservative Government people and Big Business, these are not the type of people that would appeal to the core of Labour voters.
Certainly not those on welfare. Not those on lower wages. Not those working in the public sector and not those only on a state pension. These groups probably account for more than half the core of Labour's voters.
Maybe this should be the subject of a future article on PB?
Yes, I agree - it's a point I've made several times. I'd encourage you to write it.
Many Thanks Nick. So in an AB vs DE it is 27% vs 23% of the votes and then turnout adds to the AB lead. But DE is almost split 50/50 between LEAVE and REMAIN. Presumably it is the pensioners in E that are holding up the LEAVE vote in those stats?
But where does the assumption that Labour is going to get a 2/3 REMAIN 1/3 LEAVE split from? With DE the vote is 50/50 and with C2 it is massively pro LEAVE. The assumption for Labour's EU vote split is heavily dependent on the C1 and AB. These are the very voter types that at GE15 voted Conservative. Yes some did vote Labour but it was a minority and less than the Conservatives. Also how motivated will Labour REMAIN voters be for something headlined by Cameron and Osborne, with Corbyn etc leaving it to Mandelson etc? FWIW I think the Labour REMAIN vote will be less than 2/3 of Labour GE15 that vote, because many will just not vote.
The 2/3-1/3 is based on (my recollection of, too lazy to check on Easter Monday) polling weighted by stated certainty to vote. I think you'd be right if the referendum was tomorrow, though - if it's an argument between Cameron+Osborne vs Boris+Gove, I could hardly be arsed to vote myself, and I've probably one of the 1% of people keenest on the EU. At present, Labour is preoccupied with the local elections (plus a little light feuding). But we are expecting a major pro-Remain speech by Corbyn and after May 5 the Labour effort to get the vote out for the referendum will crank up. It needs to, since if only Tories and UKIP and LibDems voted, Leave would win.
Watching the rerun of 66. Is it me or do the results seem to be coming in a lot faster than the last election?
No local election results to disentangle.
Were there that many local elections last year? IIRC in May we had had only a handful of results by 1AM. Or was it that more staff were employed at the counts back then?
EIT, according to MORI, turnout among AB voters was 18% higher than among DE voters. But it's 25% higher among the 55+ cohort than among the 18-34 cohort.
Thanks. From memory the old/young split on the referendum looks pretty similar to the split in Mike's graphic, so leave's old/young turnout advantage seems a bit stronger, although maybe they'll mostly cancel out.
More generally looking at the way Britain is governed, old people must be a more potent electoral force than educated people.
When you see the bar chart above, you are perplexed that how can Tories be 45 - 55 against REMAIN.
But it is often forgotten that a largest percentage of C2D2 [ sic ] are Tories and kippers. The higher rung on the class or income ladder Tories are mostly Europhiles.
Labour Remainers will disproportionately be Guardian reading types with a higher turnout than Labour Leavers who will more likely be people who get their hands dirty. The two-thirds / one-third split may therefore be an underestimate.
Haven't read thread yet, so apologies if question already asked.
This strikes me as heartening for Leave. When people talked about the bulk of their support coming from lower social groups, I'd assumed they were referring to D/E. Who don't vote.
Actually it appears to be C2 - semi-skilled working class (i.e. the "white van man"). They were instrumental to Thatcher's victories, and if they can be persuaded to turnout could be a potent force.
Many Thanks Nick. So in an AB vs DE it is 27% vs 23% of the votes and then turnout adds to the AB lead. But DE is almost split 50/50 between LEAVE and REMAIN. Presumably it is the pensioners in E that are holding up the LEAVE vote in those stats?
But where does the assumption that Labour is going to get a 2/3 REMAIN 1/3 LEAVE split from? With DE the vote is 50/50 and with C2 it is massively pro LEAVE. The assumption for Labour's EU vote split is heavily dependent on the C1 and AB. These are the very voter types that at GE15 voted Conservative. Yes some did vote Labour but it was a minority and less than the Conservatives. Also how motivated will Labour REMAIN voters be for something headlined by Cameron and Osborne, with Corbyn etc leaving it to Mandelson etc? FWIW I think the Labour REMAIN vote will be less than 2/3 of Labour GE15 that vote, because many will just not vote.
The 2/3-1/3 is based on (my recollection of, too lazy to check on Easter Monday) polling weighted by stated certainty to vote. I think you'd be right if the referendum was tomorrow, though - if it's an argument between Cameron+Osborne vs Boris+Gove, I could hardly be arsed to vote myself, and I've probably one of the 1% of people keenest on the EU. At present, Labour is preoccupied with the local elections (plus a little light feuding). But we are expecting a major pro-Remain speech by Corbyn and after May 5 the Labour effort to get the vote out for the referendum will crank up. It needs to, since if only Tories and UKIP and LibDems voted, Leave would win.
Corbyn's speech will, I hope, not only be in support of the EU with well known caveats, but he must also ask Labour voters explicitly to come out and vote REMAIN.
You are right. Many Labour voters may give this a miss.
Surbiton I would expect that AB Tories are probably evenly split, while C,D,E Tories are heavily for Leave. AB Labour will indeed be massively for Remain.
Labour Remainers will disproportionately be Guardian reading types with a higher turnout than Labour Leavers who will more likely be people who get their hands dirty. The two-thirds / one-third split may therefore be an underestimate.
Unfortunately.
Yes but the dirty handers outnumber the Islingtonian remainers by, what, five to one??
The wealthy are few. The ordinary, many. Especially at the moment.
EIT, according to MORI, turnout among AB voters was 18% higher than among DE voters. But it's 25% higher among the 55+ cohort than among the 18-34 cohort.
Thanks. From memory the old/young split on the referendum looks pretty similar to the split in Mike's graphic, so leave's old/young turnout advantage seems a bit stronger, although maybe they'll mostly cancel out.
More generally looking at the way Britain is governed, old people must be a more potent electoral force than educated people.
On turnout they are.
Where they are located is also important - are 'educated' ** people concentrated in urban areas where there are fewer marginal constituencies while older people are more evenly distributed ?
And are 'educated' people less set in their ways than older people and so more likely to vary from election to election as to who they vote for and whether they vote at all ?
** The difference between an employment trained person and a university educated person is another issue.
I ask this time and again but rarely the answer is forthcoming:
Who paid Comres to produce this poll?
ITV? At least that's what ComRes/ITV implies.
Polling companies are businesses, they're paid by customers to produce the right results, it seems plenty on here ignore or disregard that.
Mainly because;
1) It's not true - their 'worth' lies in 'accuracy' - not 'keeping clients happy' 2) It's libellous - if by 'the right results' you mean 'the results the client wants' - but I'm sure you didn't mean that.....
Old Toom Tabard accusing people of libel yet again , what a one trick pony you Tory Pom Pom cheerleaders are, just outright lying toerags. Ask HQ for another set of threats , your old list is threadbare.
Says the blowhard who had to apologize for libeling Prof Curtice......stick to your turnips
More lies from a halfwit, given I don't know Curtice and have never had any interaction with him , where do you get with lying yet again. Go stir your cauldron and calm down a bit.
You denounced Professor John Curtice as a "Unionist troll" and then sheepishly apologised to OGH when on the receiving end of a well deserved ticking off.
Why does it not surprise me that you have no idea who Scotland's leading psephologist is?
To combine two themes of this thread, here's the actual Named Person question asked by Comres. Clear, unbiased and concise, and definitely nothing leading about previous questions.
"Q.4 The Scottish Government is introducing the 'Named Person Scheme', where every child will be assigned a health visitor or teacher tasked with monitoring that child's 'wellbeing'. The external Named Person is expected to look at various aspects of family life, including whether parents argue, whether the child misses GP or dental appointments, whether they enjoy spending time with their parents and whether the child is consulted before major family decisions are made. The Scottish Government claims that the scheme will 'work with children, young people and their families to get the help they need, when they need it'. However, opponents of the scheme, including the Scottish Parent Teacher Council, argue that the Named Person represents an unwelcome intrusion which effectively turns the State into a co-parent. Some believe that aspects of the Scottish scheme may eventually be rolled out across the whole of the UK. Taking the information that you have read on the previous screen into account, do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about the 'Named Person Scheme'?"
Another Richard Quite. The Tories held five out of nine seats in Liverpool, for example. Scotland was completely different.
Actually, at regional level, the areas that were strong for the Tories in 1950 tend to be strong today, and ditto for Labour. But the big differences are:-
1. The growth of nationalism in Scotland
2. The shift in population from Labour-voting areas to Conservative-voting areas. Lots of Labour seats from 1950 have disappeared. Lots of new Tory seats have been created.
3. The decline of religion, which has shifted the North West generally, and Merseyside specifically to Labour.
4. The decline of class-based voting (except in Liverpool, which shifted from religion to class as the most important voting determinant). New towns now largely vote Conservative. University seats now largely vote for left-wing parties.
5. The end of coal-mining. Once coal-mining ceases in any given seat, loyalty to Labour begins to fade.
6. The growth of ethnic minorities. A tiny factor in 1950, but not now.
Watching the rerun of 66. Is it me or do the results seem to be coming in a lot faster than the last election?
No local election results to disentangle.
Were there that many local elections last year? IIRC in May we had had only a handful of results by 1AM. Or was it that more staff were employed at the counts back then?
Quite a lot in England:
All 36 Met authorities 49 unitary authorities 194 district authorities 6 mayoral elections.
Labour Remainers will disproportionately be Guardian reading types with a higher turnout than Labour Leavers who will more likely be people who get their hands dirty. The two-thirds / one-third split may therefore be an underestimate.
Unfortunately.
Yes but the dirty handers outnumber the Islingtonian remainers by, what, five to one??
The wealthy are few. The ordinary, many. Especially at the moment.
A large proportion of the Salariat support Labour.
Labour Remainers will disproportionately be Guardian reading types with a higher turnout than Labour Leavers who will more likely be people who get their hands dirty. The two-thirds / one-third split may therefore be an underestimate.
Unfortunately.
Yes but the dirty handers outnumber the Islingtonian remainers by, what, five to one??
The wealthy are few. The ordinary, many. Especially at the moment.
A large proportion of the Salariat support Labour.
The public salariat yes. They are outnumbered by the private sector 5-1. And quite a few doctors and teachers vote conservative.
Your most rock solid support base is muslim immigrants.
Another Richard Quite. The Tories held five out of nine seats in Liverpool, for example. Scotland was completely different.
Actually, at regional level, the areas that were strong for the Tories in 1950 tend to be strong today, and ditto for Labour. But the big differences are:-
1. The growth of nationalism in Scotland
2. The shift in population from Labour-voting areas to Conservative-voting areas. Lots of Labour seats from 1950 have disappeared. Lots of new Tory seats have been created.
3. The decline of religion, which has shifted the North West generally, and Merseyside specifically to Labour.
4. The decline of class-based voting (except in Liverpool, which shifted from religion to class as the most important voting determinant). New towns now largely vote Conservative. University seats now largely vote for left-wing parties.
5. The end of coal-mining. Once coal-mining ceases in any given seat, loyalty to Labour begins to fade.
6. The growth of ethnic minorities. A tiny factor in 1950, but not now.
Let's face it, where would labour be without its import-a-vote?
Another Richard Quite. The Tories held five out of nine seats in Liverpool, for example. Scotland was completely different.
Actually, at regional level, the areas that were strong for the Tories in 1950 tend to be strong today, and ditto for Labour. But the big differences are:-
1. The growth of nationalism in Scotland
2. The shift in population from Labour-voting areas to Conservative-voting areas. Lots of Labour seats from 1950 have disappeared. Lots of new Tory seats have been created.
3. The decline of religion, which has shifted the North West generally, and Merseyside specifically to Labour.
4. The decline of class-based voting (except in Liverpool, which shifted from religion to class as the most important voting determinant). New towns now largely vote Conservative. University seats now largely vote for left-wing parties.
5. The end of coal-mining. Once coal-mining ceases in any given seat, loyalty to Labour begins to fade.
6. The growth of ethnic minorities. A tiny factor in 1950, but not now.
The shift of middle class public sector workers leftwards and working class private sector workers rightwards is important.
The Conservative position in London is dependent upon the City while at a smaller scale the cities where the Conservatives can still do well in - Bristol, Derby, Stoke, Plymouth - still have significant industrial areas.
Obviously, equalizing constituency size is undemocratic because it might *help Tories*.
I don't have huge objection to equalizing size, although I think it a shame that some historical boundaries and links are going to be lost. But why reduce the number of seats? Less MPs means less of a pool of talent for the government.
Obviously, equalizing constituency size is undemocratic because it might *help Tories*.
Having perused some of the wonderful threads on the Vote website, I now think +/-5% is too tight, and results in many constituencies that lack cohesion. Just a small change to +/-7.5% makes a big difference, and avoids Wales having some very, very odd constituencies. (I saw a wonderful possibility of a star shaped constituency on the site that would almost certainly have had to have been called "Wales, Bits that Didn't Fit Anywhere Else".)
Obviously, equalizing constituency size is undemocratic because it might *help Tories*.
Having perused some of the wonderful threads on the Vote website, I now think +/-5% is too tight, and results in many constituencies that lack cohesion. Just a small change to +/-7.5% makes a big difference, and avoids Wales having some very, very odd constituencies. (I saw a wonderful possibility of a star shaped constituency on the site that would almost certainly have had to have been called "Wales, Bits that Didn't Fit Anywhere Else".)
Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweedsdale is that constituency in Scotland. A pretty much nonsensical geographic grouping of left over buts from other constituencies.
Obviously, equalizing constituency size is undemocratic because it might *help Tories*.
I don't have huge objection to equalizing size, although I think it a shame that some historical boundaries and links are going to be lost. But why reduce the number of seats? Less MPs means less of a pool of talent for the government.
I spoke to Philip Davies a little while ago and he confirmed that he would vote against the changes again unless there was a simultaneous reduction in the size of the government. I agree with him on that objective, though not his means for attempting it.
The Commons is far too big though - what other house of any parliament has so many members, and they all seem to get by.
Yes, I agree - it's a point I've made several times. I'd encourage you to write it.
Nick, you should write it - clearly your idea.
Mostly too busy these days (I'm just in the midle of translating 45,000 words from Danish on legislation about electronic cigarettes - actually more interesting than you might think as they wrestle with the shortage of evidence) - I dash off a column for Mike when I have a free momen, but it's unpredictable. I hereby donate the subject to you!
Alternatively a petition to get MPs to debate the overseas aid bill gets the requisite 100,000 signatures in 24 hours.
The overseas aid is just a total waste of cash. If the Oxbridge lot want to play noblesse oblige they could try doing it with their own money instead of other peoples.
Alternatively a petition to get MPs to debate the overseas aid bill gets the requisite 100,000 signatures in 24 hours.
Ineffectively throwing away borrowed money on pet projects is not the sort of financial management the British government should be demonstrating to the Third World.
Obviously, equalizing constituency size is undemocratic because it might *help Tories*.
I don't have huge objection to equalizing size, although I think it a shame that some historical boundaries and links are going to be lost. But why reduce the number of seats? Less MPs means less of a pool of talent for the government.
It's only reduced by 50 - one would hope there would be enough people in 600 to fill all necessary government positions.
Besides, if there's a lack of talent in 600 or 650 (or even 500) the bigger problem is surely the parties picking people who are not suitable, or the public only electing those who are unsuitable.
Obviously, equalizing constituency size is undemocratic because it might *help Tories*.
I don't have huge objection to equalizing size, although I think it a shame that some historical boundaries and links are going to be lost. But why reduce the number of seats? Less MPs means less of a pool of talent for the government.
I spoke to Philip Davies a little while ago and he confirmed that he would vote against the changes again unless there was a simultaneous reduction in the size of the government. I agree with him on that objective, though not his means for attempting it.
The Commons is far too big though - what other house of any parliament has so many members, and they all seem to get by.
Obviously, equalizing constituency size is undemocratic because it might *help Tories*.
I don't have huge objection to equalizing size, although I think it a shame that some historical boundaries and links are going to be lost. But why reduce the number of seats? Less MPs means less of a pool of talent for the government.
It's only reduced by 50 - one would hope there would be enough people in 600 to fill all necessary government positions.
Besides, if there's a lack of talent in 600 or 650 (or even 500) the bigger problem is surely the parties picking people who are not suitable, or the public only electing those who are unsuitable.
Alternatively a petition to get MPs to debate the overseas aid bill gets the requisite 100,000 signatures in 24 hours.
The overseas aid is just a total waste of cash. If the Oxbridge lot want to play noblesse oblige they could try doing it with their own money instead of other peoples.
Especially at a time when we are really skint.
The overseas aid budget is a nothing more than a giant slush fund for the elite. Tear it down.
Obviously, equalizing constituency size is undemocratic because it might *help Tories*.
I don't have huge objection to equalizing size, although I think it a shame that some historical boundaries and links are going to be lost. But why reduce the number of seats? Less MPs means less of a pool of talent for the government.
It's only reduced by 50 - one would hope there would be enough people in 600 to fill all necessary government positions.
Besides, if there's a lack of talent in 600 or 650 (or even 500) the bigger problem is surely the parties picking people who are not suitable, or the public only electing those who are unsuitable.
The best argument against reducing the number of constituencies is that it reduces the number of political parties represented
The fewer the number of constituencies the more likely that there will be only two viable parties
That is something that I do not welcome in an environment where underlying support is splintering
Obviously, equalizing constituency size is undemocratic because it might *help Tories*.
I don't have huge objection to equalizing size, although I think it a shame that some historical boundaries and links are going to be lost. But why reduce the number of seats? Less MPs means less of a pool of talent for the government.
I spoke to Philip Davies a little while ago and he confirmed that he would vote against the changes again unless there was a simultaneous reduction in the size of the government. I agree with him on that objective, though not his means for attempting it.
The Commons is far too big though - what other house of any parliament has so many members, and they all seem to get by.
Oh, and *fewer*!
The House of Lords.
There is that too, although given the chance, I'd reform that to make it overwhelmingly elected and with a much, much smaller membership (around 150).
The Commons is far too big though - what other house of any parliament has so many members, and they all seem to get by.
According to Wikipedia:
1. National People's Congress (People's Republic of China): 2987 seats. 2. House of Lords (United Kingdom): 822 seats. 3. Supreme People's Assembly (North Korea): 687 seats. 4. House of Commons (United Kingdom): 650 seats.
The Commons is far too big though - what other house of any parliament has so many members, and they all seem to get by.
According to Wikipedia:
1. National People's Congress (People's Republic of China): 2987 seats. 2. House of Lords (United Kingdom): 822 seats. 3. Supreme People's Assembly (North Korea): 687 seats. 4. House of Commons (United Kingdom): 650 seats.
Obviously, equalizing constituency size is undemocratic because it might *help Tories*.
I don't have huge objection to equalizing size, although I think it a shame that some historical boundaries and links are going to be lost. But why reduce the number of seats? Less MPs means less of a pool of talent for the government.
I spoke to Philip Davies a little while ago and he confirmed that he would vote against the changes again unless there was a simultaneous reduction in the size of the government. I agree with him on that objective, though not his means for attempting it.
The Commons is far too big though - what other house of any parliament has so many members, and they all seem to get by.
Oh, and *fewer*!
I am a huge fan of P. Davies. The voice of Tory reason on the backbenches. Reminds me a lot of Eric Forth, whom I similarly had great regard for.
Neither were afraid to let public or meedja opinion get in the way of doing the right thing.
The FBI is now trying to determine whether a crime was committed in the handling of that classified material. It is also examining whether the server was hacked.
One hundred forty-seven FBI agents have been deployed to run down leads, according to a lawmaker briefed by FBI Director James B. Comey. The FBI has accelerated the investigation because officials want to avoid the possibility of announcing any action too close to the election.
The Commons is far too big though - what other house of any parliament has so many members, and they all seem to get by.
According to Wikipedia:
1. National People's Congress (People's Republic of China): 2987 seats. 2. House of Lords (United Kingdom): 822 seats. 3. Supreme People's Assembly (North Korea): 687 seats. 4. House of Commons (United Kingdom): 650 seats.
Plato's point proven in spades.
I'd suggest, though, that MPs should in that case be prohibited from taking up issues for constituents with public authorities (who would be told to send a form letter instructing MPs to tell thier constituents to get in touch directly). The pressure to do that is what makes the job a 70-hour week, which will only get worse with fewer MPs. Plenty of people feel it shouldn't be part of an MP's job (e.g. Eric Forth refused to do it), but in anything like a marginl seat you simply have to because the public expect it and you'll lose if you don't.
It would however mean a distinct reduction in MP contact with constituents, which arguably is the only part of British politics that still commands widespread confidence - most people exempt their local MPs from wider strictures, because "she helped me when I was in trouble".
Obviously, equalizing constituency size is undemocratic because it might *help Tories*.
I don't have huge objection to equalizing size, although I think it a shame that some historical boundaries and links are going to be lost. But why reduce the number of seats? Less MPs means less of a pool of talent for the government.
I spoke to Philip Davies a little while ago and he confirmed that he would vote against the changes again unless there was a simultaneous reduction in the size of the government. I agree with him on that objective, though not his means for attempting it.
The Commons is far too big though - what other house of any parliament has so many members, and they all seem to get by.
Oh, and *fewer*!
Are the boundary changes actually likely to pass?
There will be some Tory MPs who would lose their seats and thus would be being asked to vote themselves into redundancy, plus apparently some like Philip Davies who oppose it on principle - and we've seen the last few weeks how willing Tory MPs are to rebel if they don't like something.
Nick Palmer wrote an article the other day about the need for positive campaigning. He went on to mention Alan Johnson. Ignoring the flaky facts that Johnson's speech had, is there a much bigger problem for REMAIN in that the REMAIN vote that needs to be brought out is Labour GE15? With the REMAIN campaign being dominated by Conservative Government people and Big Business, these are not the type of people that would appeal to the core of Labour voters.
Certainly not those on welfare. Not those on lower wages. Not those working in the public sector and not those only on a state pension. These groups probably account for more than half the core of Labour's voters.
Maybe this should be the subject of a future article on PB?
The Commons is far too big though - what other house of any parliament has so many members, and they all seem to get by.
According to Wikipedia:
1. National People's Congress (People's Republic of China): 2987 seats. 2. House of Lords (United Kingdom): 822 seats. 3. Supreme People's Assembly (North Korea): 687 seats. 4. House of Commons (United Kingdom): 650 seats.
Plato's point proven in spades.
Although we are unusual in that the executive is picked from the legislature. In the US, congressmen are not cabinet ministers.
I've just received a petition to sign against certain battery farming methods. I therefore decided to check out existing regulations.
It seems that the EU have improved the lot of chickens significantly over the last few years and despite there still being much to do EU regulations are now considered a benchmark for the treatment of chickens.
I'm sure the UK with it's history of animal welfare would have imposed these rules anyway but isn't it comforting to know that this standard of animal welfare is now obligatory on at least 26 other nations many of whom would not have imposed them without EU compulsion and the EU lead is being followed by others.
I think Mr Jessop has this about right - people vote for a variety of reasons, but personal circumstances are a big factor.
If you're comfortably off, there is little downside to EU membership. If you're competing for jobs with the influx, you're not so keen. I'm in neither category, but I bear a grudge of forty years standing about being lied to.
Having spent the weekend back in Boston I saw both sides in action. The influx of Eastern Europeans has changed the town considerably with Polish and Lithuanian being spoken widely (and Russian too as a common language between the two). There's no risk of terrorism, but the drink driving rates seem to have gone up.
However, some of my relatives are currently seeking work and less understanding, although they do admit the visitors work hard and are less fussy than the native population.
Labour would once naturally be on their side. Not now; it is pro-EU because it is generally a London party of the Establishment, and a fan of diversity too.
I remain confident that remain will win. The Establishment has all the advantages and will have to perform very badly to cock this one up.
There are some deeply unpleasant people supporting leave, rational people will vote remain for this reason if nothing else.
There are some deeply unpleasant people supporting remain, rational people will vote leave for this reason if nothing else.
Don't think that line of argument really helps either of us, does it?
I wonder if the graph is evidence contrary to the perceived wisdom that lower turnout is better for Leave, given the pro-Leave groups (according to the graph's groupings) would seem to be less likely to vote.
Comments
"If it is hated by the Tories that has got to mean it is good for ordinary people."
Closely followed within a handful of posts by.....
"I am not just a brainwashed halfwit like you that hates anything the Scottish government does."
Oh no sireee... Not at all. Not brainwashed in the slightest
So, the useful idiots are in support of State Supervision of other people's kids.
Not surprising, but depressing.
BREAKING: Belgian minister says 4 wounded in suicide bombings die in hospital; death toll now at 35.
See we can all bleat can bleat like you.
A little analysis or original thought makes reading PB so much more worthwhile.
Migrant Traffickers Prepare New Route to Europe Through Italy : http://greece.greekreporter.com/2016/03/28/migrant-traffickers-prepare-new-route-to-europe-through-italy/?utm_content=buffer6e869&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer#sthash.3KQlW7pU.dpuf
You are flailing now Malk.
Blind support for a crap policy, you admit you haven't read, that doesn't affect you.
Just sad.
It's just wank, mate.
I suspect that in 1950 and 1951 Heath and Thatcher might have been contesting neighbouring constituencies.
The marginality of Bexley and its successor Bexleyheath was the reason why Heath shifted to Sidcup constituency in 1974.
I actually loathe both sides for the continual lies that each side puts out in support of its case.. Frankly, I don't want to listen to another word about it from the media, but its worth pointing out to the Anti EU scribe who are so vocal on the site that not everyone has the same opinion, and if you say anything you get shouted down.
"are you suggesting we should follow England, where the Tories policies have given us Rotherham, Bristol , etc. Is that more to your liking."
So again can you please provide us with a Link or proof that quote "Tories policies" unquote has given us Rotherham and Bristol. Please be very specific on the "policies". If they are responsible then we need to be enlightened to make a proper judgement. Otherwise this was just another smear issued and this time a nasty one at that.
To your next question no I am not a Tory but I do believe people should not make accusations such as this and not back it up with demonstrable proof. It does everyone harm by doing so and in these cases certainly damages the more direct and effective efforts to protect young people that find themselves in a very vulnerable position through no fault of their own.
By contrast, had he lost in 1966, it's almost certain that he'd never have become PM. He'd have had practically no option but to resign the leadership (he could theoretically have fought a by-election to return to the House as Balfour did in 1906, but the pressure from colleagues would surely have been to stand down). Someone else would therefore have become leader of the Tories (who? - Maudling? Macleod? Hogg? Powell? Thorneycroft?), meaning a different 1970 government (whether Labour or Tory), a different approach to the EEC - at least in intensitiy of support - and snowballing consequences from thereon.
Exactly as happens now.
So what's the point?
See: http://data.unhcr.org/mediterranean/regional.php
It will be very interesting to see how effective - or otherwise - the deal with Turkey will be.
Winston accurately predicts that the likes of Syme, Julia and himself will be arrested but believes that Parsons wont be. Yet Parsons is and for muttering 'Down With Big Brother' in his sleep.
Now did Parsons really say that or did his children make it up in their enthusiasm to denounce people ? Is the Party ideology causing it to eat itself at that point ?
So in an AB vs DE it is 27% vs 23% of the votes and then turnout adds to the AB lead.
But DE is almost split 50/50 between LEAVE and REMAIN. Presumably it is the pensioners in E that are holding up the LEAVE vote in those stats?
But where does the assumption that Labour is going to get a 2/3 REMAIN 1/3 LEAVE split from?
With DE the vote is 50/50 and with C2 it is massively pro LEAVE.
The assumption for Labour's EU vote split is heavily dependent on the C1 and AB. These are the very voter types that at GE15 voted Conservative. Yes some did vote Labour but it was a minority and less than the Conservatives. Also how motivated will Labour REMAIN voters be for something headlined by Cameron and Osborne, with Corbyn etc leaving it to Mandelson etc?
FWIW I think the Labour REMAIN vote will be less than 2/3 of Labour GE15 that vote, because many will just not vote.
Which would probably have meant that Wilson would have hung on in 1970.
Labour Suspends Another ISIS-Israel Conspiracy Theorist: https://t.co/DbOoA4PbHG https://t.co/ft8cf4C1kM
Is it me or do the results seem to be coming in a lot faster than the last election?
Certainly not those on welfare. Not those on lower wages. Not those working in the public sector and not those only on a state pension. These groups probably account for more than half the core of Labour's voters.
Maybe this should be the subject of a future article on PB?
We know about the careers of politicians who are defeated initially but are determined or lucky enough to be given a second chance.
Bu there are also would be politicians who are defeated initially and never do get that second opportunity. They might find an alternative career in the meantime ** or they be blamed for the constituency defeat or a better candidate might become available.
** If Labour had won Bexley in 1950 their majority would have been a bit less tiny and if Labour had done slightly better throughout the country and not just in Bexley - there were six constituencies with a Conservative majority of below 100 and five with a majority between 100-200 - then Labour would have had a large enough majority to last a full five years. And that would certainly have affected the progress of Heath's career.
http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/ge50/conmaj.htm
http://order-order.com/2016/03/28/labour-suspends-another-isis-israel-conspiracy-theorist/
http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/ge50/conmaj.htm
The fourth safest Conservative constituency was Hove - Labour in 2015.
And Edinburgh South, Glasgow Cathcart and Sheffield Hallam were all in the top ten.
While Labour's safe seats are dominated by mining areas and apart from a few in the East End very few City constituencies.
Oddly Broxtowe had a Labour majority of over 22,000 then - it must have been on rather different boundaries - the Nottinghamshire coalfield presumably.
http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/ge50/labmaj.htm
However, there were specific local circumstances for Heath that wouldn't have required a national swing: his constituency Association was in a mess only a year before the election, with a corrupt agent who pilfered the fighting fund and an attempt initiated by him to oust the officers in order to cover his tracks. Had those matters not been resolved, you can easily see a case where the seat was lost.
That would only have increased Labour's majority to 7, which is unlikely to have had much impact, and Heath would have been unlikely to have been blamed for a fiasco in his Association.
Heath was, pre-1966, a precocious high-flier and certainly more likely than most to gain another nomination. As you say, it's possible that his head might have been turned by a different career opportunity but all things considered, the odds are probably against it.
IIRC in May we had had only a handful of results by 1AM.
Or was it that more staff were employed at the counts back then?
More generally looking at the way Britain is governed, old people must be a more potent electoral force than educated people.
But it is often forgotten that a largest percentage of C2D2 [ sic ] are Tories and kippers. The higher rung on the class or income ladder Tories are mostly Europhiles.
Many AB people also support Labour.
Where did the PBTories go wrong ?
Unfortunately.
This strikes me as heartening for Leave. When people talked about the bulk of their support coming from lower social groups, I'd assumed they were referring to D/E. Who don't vote.
Actually it appears to be C2 - semi-skilled working class (i.e. the "white van man"). They were instrumental to Thatcher's victories, and if they can be persuaded to turnout could be a potent force.
Does anyone have data on C2 turnout to hand?
You are right. Many Labour voters may give this a miss.
The wealthy are few. The ordinary, many. Especially at the moment.
Where they are located is also important - are 'educated' ** people concentrated in urban areas where there are fewer marginal constituencies while older people are more evenly distributed ?
And are 'educated' people less set in their ways than older people and so more likely to vary from election to election as to who they vote for and whether they vote at all ?
** The difference between an employment trained person and a university educated person is another issue.
Why does it not surprise me that you have no idea who Scotland's leading psephologist is?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Curtice
SINDYRef?
No?
"Q.4 The Scottish Government is introducing the 'Named Person Scheme', where every child will be assigned a health visitor or teacher tasked with monitoring that child's 'wellbeing'. The external Named Person is expected to look at various aspects of family life, including whether parents argue, whether the child misses GP or dental appointments, whether they enjoy spending time with their parents and whether the child is consulted before major family decisions are made. The Scottish Government claims that the scheme will 'work with children, young people and their families to get the help they need, when they need it'. However, opponents of the scheme, including the Scottish Parent Teacher Council, argue that the Named Person represents an unwelcome intrusion which effectively turns the State into a co-parent. Some believe that aspects of the Scottish scheme may eventually be rolled out across the whole of the UK. Taking the information that you have read on the previous screen into account, do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about the 'Named Person Scheme'?"
http://tinyurl.com/hcbhpyq
Look at sage Nabavi - keeping his head low.
A position 3/4 of your cabinet support including PM, Chancellor, FS and HS.
You have come out as a REMAINer.
How many others ? 10 max. ?
Actually, at regional level, the areas that were strong for the Tories in 1950 tend to be strong today, and ditto for Labour. But the big differences are:-
1. The growth of nationalism in Scotland
2. The shift in population from Labour-voting areas to Conservative-voting areas. Lots of Labour seats from 1950 have disappeared. Lots of new Tory seats have been created.
3. The decline of religion, which has shifted the North West generally, and Merseyside specifically to Labour.
4. The decline of class-based voting (except in Liverpool, which shifted from religion to class as the most important voting determinant). New towns now largely vote Conservative. University seats now largely vote for left-wing parties.
5. The end of coal-mining. Once coal-mining ceases in any given seat, loyalty to Labour begins to fade.
6. The growth of ethnic minorities. A tiny factor in 1950, but not now.
All 36 Met authorities
49 unitary authorities
194 district authorities
6 mayoral elections.
No, he's impervious to it......
Your most rock solid support base is muslim immigrants.
Good lord, more nonsense: Petition to STOP THE BOUNDARY CHANGES from @MomentumNun - https://t.co/7DQhaO6Sip…
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/123864
Obviously, equalizing constituency size is undemocratic because it might *help Tories*.
The Conservative position in London is dependent upon the City while at a smaller scale the cities where the Conservatives can still do well in - Bristol, Derby, Stoke, Plymouth - still have significant industrial areas.
The Mail's expose just confirmed my fears that DfiD have literally too much money to spend and dishing it out to any open palm.
The Commons is far too big though - what other house of any parliament has so many members, and they all seem to get by.
Oh, and *fewer*!
Mostly too busy these days (I'm just in the midle of translating 45,000 words from Danish on legislation about electronic cigarettes - actually more interesting than you might think as they wrestle with the shortage of evidence) - I dash off a column for Mike when I have a free momen, but it's unpredictable. I hereby donate the subject to you!
Besides, if there's a lack of talent in 600 or 650 (or even 500) the bigger problem is surely the parties picking people who are not suitable, or the public only electing those who are unsuitable.
The overseas aid budget is a nothing more than a giant slush fund for the elite. Tear it down.
The fewer the number of constituencies the more likely that there will be only two viable parties
That is something that I do not welcome in an environment where underlying support is splintering
https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/politics/holyrood/872899/pressure-mounts-snp-aberdeenshire-candidate-apologise-offensive-comments/
Gillian Martin: ‘Royal family are a bunch of inbred dysfunctionals’, ‘EU’s tranny trove of cash’ and ‘smug Salmond’
1. National People's Congress (People's Republic of China): 2987 seats.
2. House of Lords (United Kingdom): 822 seats.
3. Supreme People's Assembly (North Korea): 687 seats.
4. House of Commons (United Kingdom): 650 seats.
Guardian cartoon, 31st March 1966 #election66 https://t.co/uqy6DV4rM8
Neither were afraid to let public or meedja opinion get in the way of doing the right thing.
Political coverage, 1966 style: repeated references to pretty girls and people voting communist. https://t.co/ZTGElSaYSs
The General Synod spent years developing a new prayerbook and finally voted it through. Then Parliament vetoed it...
147!!! https://t.co/9hiKjIhI4m https://t.co/0OhZLynSTK
FBI send in their team
It would however mean a distinct reduction in MP contact with constituents, which arguably is the only part of British politics that still commands widespread confidence - most people exempt their local MPs from wider strictures, because "she helped me when I was in trouble".
There will be some Tory MPs who would lose their seats and thus would be being asked to vote themselves into redundancy, plus apparently some like Philip Davies who oppose it on principle - and we've seen the last few weeks how willing Tory MPs are to rebel if they don't like something.
It seems that the EU have improved the lot of chickens significantly over the last few years and despite there still being much to do EU regulations are now considered a benchmark for the treatment of chickens.
I'm sure the UK with it's history of animal welfare would have imposed these rules anyway but isn't it comforting to know that this standard of animal welfare is now obligatory on at least 26 other nations many of whom would not have imposed them without EU compulsion and the EU lead is being followed by others.
Don't think that line of argument really helps either of us, does it?
I wonder if the graph is evidence contrary to the perceived wisdom that lower turnout is better for Leave, given the pro-Leave groups (according to the graph's groupings) would seem to be less likely to vote.