An interesting article from TSE. What is clear is that Cameron was locked into the strategy for this campaign. Who around him, apart from Crosby's company, was party to Zac's campaign? Osborne?That seems almost certain. But who else amongst folk we know and the teenage scribbIers?
These are also the people setting the referendum strategy for REMAIN.....
According to the Dan Hodges article linked to below Osborne was seriously ambivalent about Zac's campaign and allegedly told Tessa Jowell that if she had got the nod he would have voted for her. I suspect that this was mainly because Zac is so anti-Heathrow rather than any squeamishness on the part of the Chancellor but it is not right to say he had any role to play in this campaign.
Nothing big happens inside government without the hand of Osborne.
I think hyperbole is generally useful for a campaign, especially one representing the status quo. The voters won't believe you if you tell them something will cost them 100x, but to deny your claims your opponent has to give them publicity and that leaves voters still thinking it's going to cost them x.
The problem is when you can't get them to buy into the premise at all, as was the case here.
I think hyperbole is too often overused and exaggerated just to make a point.
Hyperbole will destroy politics and leave Britain a smouldering ruin if it carries on.
yep. It already is. Nobody knows what to believe. Even if you stick to the truth yourself, nobody thinks it is the truth. The Tories (and some others) are supping with the devil by employing Crosby type tactics with the aim of winning in the short term. In the long term it's a disaster for politics.
With respect, all you're doing is blaming somebody else while trying to cloak yourself in sanctimony. They're all at it, the Conservatives.
The liberals are hardly the paragons of virtue you imply.
' A bit more hope and a little less fear please. '
No chance of that.
Politics is now a zero sum game, namely "take it from them and give it to me".
If you want hope then there needs to be enough increasing wealth creation to allow everyone to become richer and happier.
And in a globalised world economy where we're competing against peoples who are as intelligent and educated as us but who are willing to work harder at lower cost and under fewer restrictions that isn't going to happen.
[As an aside, in the next tweet he references, wrongly, Caesar. Claudius would've been more accurate ].
Mr Thomas is also incorrect in suggesting that London was founded by the Romans. There is solid evidence of human settlements in what became London going back to the bronze age and possibly even earlier.
As a Christian, no, make that, as a human being, I is thinking there's a helluva fuss being made of not that much here. I've heard of sore losers, but sore winners are much rarer.
3. How far should we be comfortable with such strategies if they DO work?
Quite a few of the criticisms have been on the effectiveness rather than the principle. To say "That was a dog-whistle in a city without dogs" is to imply that if the city had had lots of dogs, it would have been a good idea. And on PB we do a lot of that - we wonder why X hasn't reversed his policy on Y in the light of polling evidence, we criticise smears as ineffective rather than immoral. TSE is criticising the principle, and really we need a bit more of that.
For commercial advertising, agencies are all utterly cynical - if someone says their brand washes whiter or that celebrity Z uses it, they don't waste time pondering whether it's true - they just consider whether it's an effective approach. If it's about washing powder, maybe that doesn't matter much. But for deciding the future of the country we should try to set the bar a bit higher.
Interesting.
My standard reaction to celeb a b c or d using a product is that money spent on the vapid celeb hasn't been spent on the product, so I won't be buying it thanks.
Suspect many here are the same.
It is the same reason I have spent 30 years not driving BMWs or using Apple computers.
What celebs do BMW and Apple us to sell their products????
An interesting article from TSE. What is clear is that Cameron was locked into the strategy for this campaign. Who around him, apart from Crosby's company, was party to Zac's campaign? Osborne?That seems almost certain. But who else amongst folk we know and the teenage scribbIers?
These are also the people setting the referendum strategy for REMAIN.....
Though the next campaign requires a very sharp reverse ferret!
It is Leave that is campaigning on the fear of the foreign other. Remain are campaigning on bread and butter issues like the economy.
Remain are campaigning on the fear that we, the world's 5th largest economy can't manage our own affairs, and they are repeatedly playing the spiteful/cut-off-their-nose-to-spite-their-face foreigner card.
The picture of the bombed bus and the number of casualties made some of Khans and Corbyns friends happy..it was what they want to happen in the west. These two Labour Politicians call them "Friends"
It would amuse a cretin like you, I think you will find their constituency vote went up , ie the real vote. They went down in the losers list , people thought they would give some donkeys a chance of a losers seat. In the real vote it was 59 out of 73 to SNP, the hangers on had to wait for allocation of alms to the losers. SNP support still rising despite the lies morons like you like to spout.
3. How far should we be comfortable with such strategies if they DO work?
Quite a few of the criticisms have been on the effectiveness rather than the principle. To say "That was a dog-whistle in a city without dogs" is to imply that if the city had had lots of dogs, it would have been a good idea. And on PB we do a lot of that - we wonder why X hasn't reversed his policy on Y in the light of polling evidence, we criticise smears as ineffective rather than immoral. TSE is criticising the principle, and really we need a bit more of that.
For commercial advertising, agencies are all utterly cynical - if someone says their brand washes whiter or that celebrity Z uses it, they don't waste time pondering whether it's true - they just consider whether it's an effective approach. If it's about washing powder, maybe that doesn't matter much. But for deciding the future of the country we should try to set the bar a bit higher.
Interesting.
My standard reaction to celeb a b c or d using a product is that money spent on the vapid celeb hasn't been spent on the product, so I won't be buying it thanks.
Suspect many here are the same.
It is the same reason I have spent 30 years not driving BMWs or using Apple computers.
What celebs do BMW and Apple us to sell their products????
I was going to say I couldn't think of any offhand.
3. How far should we be comfortable with such strategies if they DO work?
Quite a few of the criticisms have been on the effectiveness rather than the principle. To say "That was a dog-whistle in a city without dogs" is to imply that if the city had had lots of dogs, it would have been a good idea. And on PB we do a lot of that - we wonder why X hasn't reversed his policy on Y in the light of polling evidence, we criticise smears as ineffective rather than immoral. TSE is criticising the principle, and really we need a bit more of that.
For commercial advertising, agencies are all utterly cynical - if someone says their brand washes whiter or that celebrity Z uses it, they don't waste time pondering whether it's true - they just consider whether it's an effective approach. If it's about washing powder, maybe that doesn't matter much. But for deciding the future of the country we should try to set the bar a bit higher.
Interesting.
My standard reaction to celeb a b c or d using a product is that money spent on the vapid celeb hasn't been spent on the product, so I won't be buying it thanks.
Suspect many here are the same.
It is the same reason I have spent 30 years not driving BMWs or using Apple computers.
What celebs do BMW and Apple us to sell their products????
Precisely- both Apple & BMW focus on the product/
Exactly , if he had said M&S , some supermarkets or shampoo products, etc I could see the point and agree.
That huge swathe of red through Perthshire, Angus, Kincardine and Aberdeenshire are the seats I named as potential tory targets yesterday.
The green sections presumably show where the SNP vote increased and the brightest sections are in Glasgow and its environs where they wiped out the last bastions of Labour. The tension between policies that suit those central belt conurbations and rural Scotland are going to be more of an issue for Nicola in this Parliament.
It is a slightly ironic historical footnote that the SNP first grew strong in more right wing rural areas (under Salmond) largely as a result of Tory weakness which created an opportunity in these seats. They moved to total dominance when they were able to exploit Labour weakness in the central belt but the more they achieve that the weaker they may well become in the areas they first broke through. To take an example how long is rural and prosperous Perthshire going to want to be represented by someone as left wing as Pete Wishart?
It would amuse a cretin like you, I think you will find their constituency vote went up , ie the real vote. They went down in the losers list , people thought they would give some donkeys a chance of a losers seat. In the real vote it was 59 out of 73 to SNP, the hangers on had to wait for allocation of alms to the losers. SNP support still rising despite the lies morons like you like to spout.
But still not high enough to allow you to kill us Sassenachs for fun, eh, MG?
I think hyperbole is generally useful for a campaign, especially one representing the status quo. The voters won't believe you if you tell them something will cost them 100x, but to deny your claims your opponent has to give them publicity and that leaves voters still thinking it's going to cost them x.
The problem is when you can't get them to buy into the premise at all, as was the case here.
I think hyperbole is too often overused and exaggerated just to make a point.
Hyperbole will destroy politics and leave Britain a smouldering ruin if it carries on.
yep. It already is. Nobody knows what to believe. Even if you stick to the truth yourself, nobody thinks it is the truth. The Tories (and some others) are supping with the devil by employing Crosby type tactics with the aim of winning in the short term. In the long term it's a disaster for politics.
With respect, all you're doing is blaming somebody else while trying to cloak yourself in sanctimony. They're all at it, the Conservatives.
The liberals are hardly the paragons of virtue you imply.
Anyone who uses smears, lies and exaggeration is creating more of a problem for democracy. Why are you attacking me for saying that? In fact your post demonstrates exactly what the problem we already have is. I don't do lies, smears or exaggeration in my campaigns - but I bet you think I am just saying that and I must do really.
' A bit more hope and a little less fear please. '
No chance of that.
Politics is now a zero sum game, namely "take it from them and give it to me".
If you want hope then there needs to be enough increasing wealth creation to allow everyone to become richer and happier.
And in a globalised world economy where we're competing against peoples who are as intelligent and educated as us but who are willing to work harder at lower cost and under fewer restrictions that isn't going to happen.
If that was true the left would have won a landslide instead of about 40% of the vote last year.
That huge swathe of red through Perthshire, Angus, Kincardine and Aberdeenshire are the seats I named as potential tory targets yesterday.
The green sections presumably show where the SNP vote increased and the brightest sections are in Glasgow and its environs where they wiped out the last bastions of Labour. The tension between policies that suit those central belt conurbations and rural Scotland are going to be more of an issue for Nicola in this Parliament.
It is a slightly ironic historical footnote that the SNP first grew strong in more right wing rural areas (under Salmond) largely as a result of Tory weakness which created an opportunity in these seats. They moved to total dominance when they were able to exploit Labour weakness in the central belt but the more they achieve that the weaker they may well become in the areas they first broke through. To take an example how long is rural and prosperous Perthshire going to want to be represented by someone as left wing as Pete Wishart?
David, I do not think much can be taken from this , it really needs to be the constituency votes that are shown to show the real picture. What this election has shown is the fallacy of the idiotic idea that SNP supporters give their second vote to Green/Left wing to have more balance. As we saw it cost them the majority and allowed the Tories a big increase in seats, bizarre how easily Scottish people are taken in by propaganda lies.
It would amuse a cretin like you, I think you will find their constituency vote went up , ie the real vote. They went down in the losers list , people thought they would give some donkeys a chance of a losers seat. In the real vote it was 59 out of 73 to SNP, the hangers on had to wait for allocation of alms to the losers. SNP support still rising despite the lies morons like you like to spout.
But still not high enough to allow you to kill us Sassenachs for fun, eh, MG?
The picture of the bombed bus and the number of casualties made some of Khans and Corbyns friends happy..it was what they want to happen in the west. These two Labour Politicians call them "Friends"
It was also chosen by the Mail's picture editor. Why so many people find this impossible to comprehend is beyond me.
That huge swathe of red through Perthshire, Angus, Kincardine and Aberdeenshire are the seats I named as potential tory targets yesterday.
The green sections presumably show where the SNP vote increased and the brightest sections are in Glasgow and its environs where they wiped out the last bastions of Labour. The tension between policies that suit those central belt conurbations and rural Scotland are going to be more of an issue for Nicola in this Parliament.
It is a slightly ironic historical footnote that the SNP first grew strong in more right wing rural areas (under Salmond) largely as a result of Tory weakness which created an opportunity in these seats. They moved to total dominance when they were able to exploit Labour weakness in the central belt but the more they achieve that the weaker they may well become in the areas they first broke through. To take an example how long is rural and prosperous Perthshire going to want to be represented by someone as left wing as Pete Wishart?
I think the strains are likely to show first in a Holyrood election (and this year might be the start). Its difficult to meet both the interests of a deprived, left-wing central belt and the rural and/or prosperous areas.
In Westminster elections the SNP can still operate on nationalist "we'll stand up for Scotland against the 'English' parties" line.
It would amuse a cretin like you, I think you will find their constituency vote went up , ie the real vote. They went down in the losers list , people thought they would give some donkeys a chance of a losers seat. In the real vote it was 59 out of 73 to SNP, the hangers on had to wait for allocation of alms to the losers. SNP support still rising despite the lies morons like you like to spout.
If only you guys had a sensible system like FPTP then you would have a point.
But you have been asking for PR and have it. Every vote is a real vote and every MSP is a real one.
Hard to feel sympathy for you when the electoral system you wanted bites you in the arse. Maybe try supporting FPTP for a while if you want to talk about the constituency seats being more important.
It's difficult for me to judge the campaign itself because I saw virtually nothing from Goldsmith himself - just a lot of complaining about what he was doing. Maybe his campaign wasn't aimed at me.
But from what I've seen I still don't think it was a racist campaign. That would require it to be either made up (with Khan not having a string of links to unsavoury characters) or for a white Labour politician with similar links not to be treated the same (and given that we've seen the start of such a campaign against Corbyn and particularly McDonnell that falls down too).
Zac's Mail article which used the 7/7 bus was, imo, a low point in British politics.
3. How far should we be comfortable with such strategies if they DO work?
Quite a few of the criticisms have been on the effectiveness rather than the principle. To say "That was a dog-whistle in a city without dogs" is to imply that if the city had had lots of dogs, it would have been a good idea. And on PB we do a lot of that - we wonder why X hasn't reversed his policy on Y in the light of polling evidence, we criticise smears as ineffective rather than immoral. TSE is criticising the principle, and really we need a bit more of that.
For commercial advertising, agencies are all utterly cynical - if someone says their brand washes whiter or that celebrity Z uses it, they don't waste time pondering whether it's true - they just consider whether it's an effective approach. If it's about washing powder, maybe that doesn't matter much. But for deciding the future of the country we should try to set the bar a bit higher.
Interesting.
My standard reaction to celeb a b c or d using a product is that money spent on the vapid celeb hasn't been spent on the product, so I won't be buying it thanks.
Suspect many here are the same.
It is the same reason I have spent 30 years not driving BMWs or using Apple computers.
What celebs do BMW and Apple us to sell their products????
I was going to say I couldn't think of any offhand.
Bond, James Bond...
BMZ Z3 was used in one of the films, just as it was launched on the markets.
That huge swathe of red through Perthshire, Angus, Kincardine and Aberdeenshire are the seats I named as potential tory targets yesterday.
The green sections presumably show where the SNP vote increased and the brightest sections are in Glasgow and its environs where they wiped out the last bastions of Labour. The tension between policies that suit those central belt conurbations and rural Scotland are going to be more of an issue for Nicola in this Parliament.
It is a slightly ironic historical footnote that the SNP first grew strong in more right wing rural areas (under Salmond) largely as a result of Tory weakness which created an opportunity in these seats. They moved to total dominance when they were able to exploit Labour weakness in the central belt but the more they achieve that the weaker they may well become in the areas they first broke through. To take an example how long is rural and prosperous Perthshire going to want to be represented by someone as left wing as Pete Wishart?
David, I do not think much can be taken from this , it really needs to be the constituency votes that are shown to show the real picture. What this election has shown is the fallacy of the idiotic idea that SNP supporters give their second vote to Green/Left wing to have more balance. As we saw it cost them the majority and allowed the Tories a big increase in seats, bizarre how easily Scottish people are taken in by propaganda lies.
But one of the most notable features of the night was the huge swing in a number of these areas from the SNP to the Tories at constituency level. We saw Rosanna Cunningham and John Swinney suffering massively reduced majorities in what had been very safe seats. In Moray the swing from SNP to the Tories was 20%.
Despite this, as you say the SNP constituency vote overall was up. This is because of the large swings they in turn obtained against Labour in Glasgow and the surrounding areas. Nicola is placing the SNP as much more of a left of centre party than Salmond ever did. This has worked spectacularly in that the SNP have replaced Labour in that position but it is very difficult to be all things to all men forever.
The final England local authority seat count was as follows: Lab 950 (-18) Con 563 (-47) LD 237 (+31) UKIP 34 (+25) Green 19 (=) Others 81 (-45)
In the final result, the Conservatives were a lot further down in seats than it appeared they would be in the earlier tallies. So in terms of seats, Lab down about 2%, Con down about 8%, measured against the results of previous elections in the same seats, the time of nearly all of those previous contests being the Lab high water mark of 2012.
Very good figures for the Lib Dems. Not so much for UKIP.
As I posted the other day , these figures have implications for the EU referendum . Online polls which have Leave roughly level are based on UKIP VI figures of 16/17% . This ts clearly too high by 3-5% and goes much of the way to explaining the discrepancy between online and telephone pollsters in EU polling .
Mr. Wanderer, I doubt I would've addressed him at all.
Better to use the term 'emperor' than 'Caesar', though, as Caesar can refer to a couple of individuals, as well as sometimes meaning emperor, and sometimes meaning junior emperor (I think under the later Eastern Roman Empire, Caesar was actually third place, behind sebastocrator).
It would amuse a cretin like you, I think you will find their constituency vote went up , ie the real vote. They went down in the losers list , people thought they would give some donkeys a chance of a losers seat. In the real vote it was 59 out of 73 to SNP, the hangers on had to wait for allocation of alms to the losers. SNP support still rising despite the lies morons like you like to spout.
If only you guys had a sensible system like FPTP then you would have a point.
But you have been asking for PR and have it. Every vote is a real vote and every MSP is a real one.
Hard to feel sympathy for you when the electoral system you wanted bites you in the arse. Maybe try supporting FPTP for a while if you want to talk about the constituency seats being more important.
You really are not very bright. System is designed to NOT have a majority. SNP miss it by two seats and cretins like you think that is bad. Jog on loser.
' A bit more hope and a little less fear please. '
No chance of that.
Politics is now a zero sum game, namely "take it from them and give it to me".
If you want hope then there needs to be enough increasing wealth creation to allow everyone to become richer and happier.
And in a globalised world economy where we're competing against peoples who are as intelligent and educated as us but who are willing to work harder at lower cost and under fewer restrictions that isn't going to happen.
If that was true the left would have won a landslide instead of about 40% of the vote last year.
And you don't think that the Conservatives were advocating 'take it from them and give it to me' ???
Just take a look at all the glee cuts on public sector workers and those on benefits gets from Conservative supporters.
Or take a look at the support reductions in maximum pension funds gets from Conservative supporters here.
'Take it from them and give it to me' doesn't only apply to taxing millionaires.
For the average person it means taking it from the family across the road whom they don't like.
The final England local authority seat count was as follows: Lab 950 (-18) Con 563 (-47) LD 237 (+31) UKIP 34 (+25) Green 19 (=) Others 81 (-45)
In the final result, the Conservatives were a lot further down in seats than it appeared they would be in the earlier tallies. So in terms of seats, Lab down about 2%, Con down about 8%, measured against the results of previous elections in the same seats, the time of nearly all of those previous contests being the Lab high water mark of 2012.
Many thanks for that. These figures usually get lost because by the time they are collated everyone has moved on. That is a much poorer result for the Tories than I think the media have portrayed. Maybe civil war and refusing to help people in the opposite camp on Europe is not the way forward after all.
Very good figures for the Lib Dems. Not so much for UKIP.
As I posted the other day , these figures have implications for the EU referendum . Online polls which have Leave roughly level are based on UKIP VI figures of 16/17% . This ts clearly too high by 3-5% and goes much of the way to explaining the discrepancy between online and telephone pollsters in EU polling .
The polls you refer to measure general election voting intention, not local election voting intention. The Lib Dems wouldn't win 14% in a general election held today, nor would Resident win Epsom & Ewell.
Those polls which surveyed for the Scottish, Welsh, and London elections were pretty accurate.
The final England local authority seat count was as follows: Lab 950 (-18) Con 563 (-47) LD 237 (+31) UKIP 34 (+25) Green 19 (=) Others 81 (-45)
In the final result, the Conservatives were a lot further down in seats than it appeared they would be in the earlier tallies. So in terms of seats, Lab down about 2%, Con down about 8%, measured against the results of previous elections in the same seats, the time of nearly all of those previous contests being the Lab high water mark of 2012.
Those are not the final figures nor even the correct figures for now with 1 council left to declare ( Bristol ) Currently Lab 1291 ( -23) Con 828 ( -46) LDem 370 (+44) UKIP 58 ( +26) Green 34 ( N/C) Others 120 ( -1)
That huge swathe of red through Perthshire, Angus, Kincardine and Aberdeenshire are the seats I named as potential tory targets yesterday.
The green sections presumably show where the SNP vote increased and the brightest sections are in Glasgow and its environs where they wiped out the last bastions of Labour. The tension between policies that suit those central belt conurbations and rural Scotland are going to be more of an issue for Nicola in this Parliament.
It is a slightly ironic historical footnote that the SNP first grew strong in more right wing rural areas (under Salmond) largely as a result of Tory weakness which created an opportunity in these seats. They moved to total dominance when they were able to exploit Labour weakness in the central belt but the more they achieve that the weaker they may well become in the areas they first broke through. To take an example how long is rural and prosperous Perthshire going to want to be represented by someone as left wing as Pete Wishart?
David, I do not think much can be taken from this , it really needs to be the constituency votes that are shown to show the real picture. What this election has shown is the fallacy of the idiotic idea that SNP supporters give their second vote to Green/Left wing to have more balance. As we saw it cost them the majority and allowed the Tories a big increase in seats, bizarre how easily Scottish people are taken in by propaganda lies.
But one of the most notable features of the night was the huge swing in a number of these areas from the SNP to the Tories at constituency level. We saw Rosanna Cunningham and John Swinney suffering massively reduced majorities in what had been very safe seats. In Moray the swing from SNP to the Tories was 20%.
Despite this, as you say the SNP constituency vote overall was up. This is because of the large swings they in turn obtained against Labour in Glasgow and the surrounding areas. Nicola is placing the SNP as much more of a left of centre party than Salmond ever did. This has worked spectacularly in that the SNP have replaced Labour in that position but it is very difficult to be all things to all men forever.
For sure , the key point in this parliament will be the siren voices to increase tax, if she succumbs to her left wing views they are doomed. Anyone increasing income tax will get panned, even I would be voting Tory if they do. I am less than happy with what they have done to date, given the huge amounts we already pay and the amount of it wasted I am not happy about any increased taxes. What they need to be doing is tackling WASTE and incompetent national and local government spending.
It would amuse a cretin like you, I think you will find their constituency vote went up , ie the real vote. They went down in the losers list , people thought they would give some donkeys a chance of a losers seat. In the real vote it was 59 out of 73 to SNP, the hangers on had to wait for allocation of alms to the losers. SNP support still rising despite the lies morons like you like to spout.
If only you guys had a sensible system like FPTP then you would have a point.
But you have been asking for PR and have it. Every vote is a real vote and every MSP is a real one.
Hard to feel sympathy for you when the electoral system you wanted bites you in the arse. Maybe try supporting FPTP for a while if you want to talk about the constituency seats being more important.
You really are not very bright. System is designed to NOT have a majority. SNP miss it by two seats and cretins like you think that is bad. Jog on loser.
It would amuse a cretin like you, I think you will find their constituency vote went up , ie the real vote. They went down in the losers list , people thought they would give some donkeys a chance of a losers seat. In the real vote it was 59 out of 73 to SNP, the hangers on had to wait for allocation of alms to the losers. SNP support still rising despite the lies morons like you like to spout.
No Malc, we have to admit it's all over for the SNP.
3. How far should we be comfortable with such strategies if they DO work?
Quite a few of the criticisms have been on the effectiveness rather than the principle. To say "That was a dog-whistle in a city without dogs" is to imply that if the city had had lots of dogs, it would have been a good idea. And on PB we do a lot of that - we wonder why X hasn't reversed his policy on Y in the light of polling evidence, we criticise smears as ineffective rather than immoral. TSE is criticising the principle, and really we need a bit more of that.
For commercial advertising, agencies are all utterly cynical - if someone says their brand washes whiter or that celebrity Z uses it, they don't waste time pondering whether it's true - they just consider whether it's an effective approach. If it's about washing powder, maybe that doesn't matter much. But for deciding the future of the country we should try to set the bar a bit higher.
Interesting.
My standard reaction to celeb a b c or d using a product is that money spent on the vapid celeb hasn't been spent on the product, so I won't be buying it thanks.
Suspect many here are the same.
It is the same reason I have spent 30 years not driving BMWs or using Apple computers.
What celebs do BMW and Apple us to sell their products????
I was going to say I couldn't think of any offhand.
Bond, James Bond...
BMZ Z3 was used in one of the films, just as it was launched on the markets.
Very good figures for the Lib Dems. Not so much for UKIP.
As I posted the other day , these figures have implications for the EU referendum . Online polls which have Leave roughly level are based on UKIP VI figures of 16/17% . This ts clearly too high by 3-5% and goes much of the way to explaining the discrepancy between online and telephone pollsters in EU polling .
The polls you refer to measure general election voting intention, not local election voting intention. The Lib Dems wouldn't win 14% in a general election held today, nor would Resident win Epsom & Ewell.
Those polls which surveyed for the Scottish, Welsh, and London elections were pretty accurate.
The final Welsh Assembly poll had UKIP at 16% , they actually got 12.5% . Same overestimate .
It would amuse a cretin like you, I think you will find their constituency vote went up , ie the real vote. They went down in the losers list , people thought they would give some donkeys a chance of a losers seat. In the real vote it was 59 out of 73 to SNP, the hangers on had to wait for allocation of alms to the losers. SNP support still rising despite the lies morons like you like to spout.
If only you guys had a sensible system like FPTP then you would have a point.
But you have been asking for PR and have it. Every vote is a real vote and every MSP is a real one.
Hard to feel sympathy for you when the electoral system you wanted bites you in the arse. Maybe try supporting FPTP for a while if you want to talk about the constituency seats being more important.
You really are not very bright. System is designed to NOT have a majority. SNP miss it by two seats and cretins like you think that is bad. Jog on loser.
Sunny Madrid has cheered you up I see.
Leave this afternoon , but forecast is Tory weather , rain and thunder storms, the nasty party get you everywhere
That huge swathe of red through Perthshire, Angus, Kincardine and Aberdeenshire are the seats I named as potential tory targets yesterday.
The green sections presumably show where the SNP vote increased and the brightest sections are in Glasgow and its environs where they wiped out the last bastions of Labour. The tension between policies that suit those central belt conurbations and rural Scotland are going to be more of an issue for Nicola in this Parliament.
It is a slightly ironic historical footnote that the SNP first grew strong in more right wing rural areas (under Salmond) largely as a result of Tory weakness which created an opportunity in these seats. They moved to total dominance when they were able to exploit Labour weakness in the central belt but the more they achieve that the weaker they may well become in the areas they first broke through. To take an example how long is rural and prosperous Perthshire going to want to be represented by someone as left wing as Pete Wishart?
David, I do not think much can be taken from this , it really needs to be the constituency votes that are shown to show the real picture. What this election has shown is the fallacy of the idiotic idea that SNP supporters give their second vote to Green/Left wing to have more balance. As we saw it cost them the majority and allowed the Tories a big increase in seats, bizarre how easily Scottish people are taken in by propaganda lies.
Very good figures for the Lib Dems. Not so much for UKIP.
As I posted the other day , these figures have implications for the EU referendum . Online polls which have Leave roughly level are based on UKIP VI figures of 16/17% . This ts clearly too high by 3-5% and goes much of the way to explaining the discrepancy between online and telephone pollsters in EU polling .
The polls you refer to measure general election voting intention, not local election voting intention. The Lib Dems wouldn't win 14% in a general election held today, nor would Resident win Epsom & Ewell.
Those polls which surveyed for the Scottish, Welsh, and London elections were pretty accurate.
The final Welsh Assembly poll had UKIP at 16% , they actually got 12.5% . Same overestimate .
Very good figures for the Lib Dems. Not so much for UKIP.
As I posted the other day , these figures have implications for the EU referendum . Online polls which have Leave roughly level are based on UKIP VI figures of 16/17% . This ts clearly too high by 3-5% and goes much of the way to explaining the discrepancy between online and telephone pollsters in EU polling .
The polls you refer to measure general election voting intention, not local election voting intention. The Lib Dems wouldn't win 14% in a general election held today, nor would Resident win Epsom & Ewell.
Those polls which surveyed for the Scottish, Welsh, and London elections were pretty accurate.
The final Welsh Assembly poll had UKIP at 16% , they actually got 12.5% . Same overestimate .
In general, though, online polls were well within the accepted margin of error.
That huge swathe of red through Perthshire, Angus, Kincardine and Aberdeenshire are the seats I named as potential tory targets yesterday.
The green sections presumably show where the SNP vote increased and the brightest sections are in Glasgow and its environs where they wiped out the last bastions of Labour. The tension between policies that suit those central belt conurbations and rural Scotland are going to be more of an issue for Nicola in this Parliament.
It is a slightly ironic historical footnote that the SNP first grew strong in more right wing rural areas (under Salmond) largely as a result of Tory weakness which created an opportunity in these seats. They moved to total dominance when they were able to exploit Labour weakness in the central belt but the more they achieve that the weaker they may well become in the areas they first broke through. To take an example how long is rural and prosperous Perthshire going to want to be represented by someone as left wing as Pete Wishart?
David, I do not think much can be taken from this , it really needs to be the constituency votes that are shown to show the real picture. What this election has shown is the fallacy of the idiotic idea that SNP supporters give their second vote to Green/Left wing to have more balance. As we saw it cost them the majority and allowed the Tories a big increase in seats, bizarre how easily Scottish people are taken in by propaganda lies.
1. Why does negativity usually seem to pay electoral dividends?
I think it links into popular disillusionment with politics - most people think it simply more credible that politician X is a sleazeball than that he has some good ideas. And it's well-documented that it sells papers better, so the media play up an attack where they'll bury a positive message on page 6.
2. Why didn't it work this time?
3. How far should we be comfortable with such strategies if they DO work?
For commercial advertising, agencies are all utterly cynical - if someone says their brand washes whiter or that celebrity Z uses it, they don't waste time pondering whether it's true - they just consider whether it's an effective approach. If it's about washing powder, maybe that doesn't matter much. But for deciding the future of the country we should try to set the bar a bit higher.
There's too much to answer without doing an essay but your last paragraph couldn't be more innacurate. In advertising TRUTH is everything. Protecting a brand is all about giving it integrity. You can play fast and loose in a poitical campaign where no one one even monitors honesty but not when selling a product. And it's not just the regulatory body-which is strict enough-but the demands of the brand which is where the product value lies.
I shot an international campaign of six commercials for Braun food mixers one of which was for the Superbowl final. We had to reshoot the whole campaign because the home ecconomist prepared some of the dishes using a Moulinex. On the same theme I shot an ad for Volvo where we stacked twelve Volvos on top of each other. It had to be reshot because the car at the bottom had its suspension strengthened.
These were nothing about advertising rules but all about the integrity of the product. Truth and honesty is fundamental to advertising. Ask Ratner's what happens when you forget this.
It is just as fundamental to political parties though some people don't realise it. It's taken two decades for the Tories to partially clear their image of being 'the nasty party'. Political parties are completely unregulated which is why the reputations of politicians are so low and why so little of what they claim is believed
The final England local authority seat count was as follows: Lab 950 (-18) Con 563 (-47) LD 237 (+31) UKIP 34 (+25) Green 19 (=) Others 81 (-45)
In the final result, the Conservatives were a lot further down in seats than it appeared they would be in the earlier tallies. So in terms of seats, Lab down about 2%, Con down about 8%, measured against the results of previous elections in the same seats, the time of nearly all of those previous contests being the Lab high water mark of 2012.
So the Conservatives lost more than twice as many councillors as Labour (and even higher as a proportion to what they were defending).
Nobody was predicting that.
Roughly speaking the Conservatives (and UKIP) made gains from Labour in northern and wwc areas but the Conservatives had significant losses to LibDems and Others is southern and affluent areas.
Which suggests dissatisfaction towards both the Conservative and Labour leaderships.
When people bellow abuse, they are often talking about themselves. The foul-mouthed homophobe turns out to be a closet gay. The evangelical preacher is caught in the vice squad raid. Whether it is Donald Trump, Boris Johnson or Nicola Sturgeon, those who insist that everyone else is lying are the biggest liars of all.
I take issue with the word often, it's too optimistic about human nature - the man bellowing homophobic slurs might be secretly gay and confused about his own sexuality and deserves some of our pity. But more often than not they may just be an arsehole.
Incidentally, I liked this, by our very own Mr. T: ttps://twitter.com/thomasknox/status/729055631131459584
[As an aside, in the next tweet he references, wrongly, Caesar. Claudius would've been more accurate ].
Are you saying that you would not have addressed Claudius as "Caesar"? Could have been awfully career-limiting.
His official title at the time would have been Princeps, wouldn't it, following in Augustus' tradition? Caesar was one of Claudius' names but as only the fourth emperor, the institution was still in formation and Caesar was still something of a personal name to the Julio-Claudian family; something that raised the whole dynasty apart, rather than the office.
It would amuse a cretin like you, I think you will find their constituency vote went up , ie the real vote. They went down in the losers list , people thought they would give some donkeys a chance of a losers seat. In the real vote it was 59 out of 73 to SNP, the hangers on had to wait for allocation of alms to the losers. SNP support still rising despite the lies morons like you like to spout.
No Malc, we have to admit it's all over for the SNP.
That last paragraph in the thread header could relate just as well to the opposing factions in both parties of course.
In the Labour Party there is little hope that the corbynistas and Blairites will come to any agreement anytime soon if ever? As such, there may not be a Labour Party as we presently know it that could be lead into another General election let alone to winning it. The left though just don't seem to care about winning which is what Khan astutely pointed out as his acceptance speech.
On the other hand the Tories with their in/out split over Europe are also divided though not to the point of splitting. Team hugs would not be the first thing at future meetings. They do have an appetite for winning though which would carry them through in the end at least at the 2020 GE.
What is needed is the "Patrick party" overthrown at birth by the brutal and inopportune posting of a new thread by the controlling Aristocracy just as the message was starting to gain traction with the PB electorate
Which is why it would be best for Labour if Corbyn or McDonnell lead them to general election defeat in 2020, only once the left has been defeated again and non-Blairite candidates lost 3 consecutive elections can a more Blairite agenda, from say Chuka, get a hearing, even if it will not be full blown Blairism. The Tory danger is UKIP not Labour at the moment
Very good figures for the Lib Dems. Not so much for UKIP.
As I posted the other day , these figures have implications for the EU referendum . Online polls which have Leave roughly level are based on UKIP VI figures of 16/17% . This ts clearly too high by 3-5% and goes much of the way to explaining the discrepancy between online and telephone pollsters in EU polling .
The polls you refer to measure general election voting intention, not local election voting intention. The Lib Dems wouldn't win 14% in a general election held today, nor would Resident win Epsom & Ewell.
Those polls which surveyed for the Scottish, Welsh, and London elections were pretty accurate.
The final Welsh Assembly poll had UKIP at 16% , they actually got 12.5% . Same overestimate .
Very good figures for the Lib Dems. Not so much for UKIP.
As I posted the other day , these figures have implications for the EU referendum . Online polls which have Leave roughly level are based on UKIP VI figures of 16/17% . This ts clearly too high by 3-5% and goes much of the way to explaining the discrepancy between online and telephone pollsters in EU polling .
The polls you refer to measure general election voting intention, not local election voting intention. The Lib Dems wouldn't win 14% in a general election held today, nor would Resident win Epsom & Ewell.
Those polls which surveyed for the Scottish, Welsh, and London elections were pretty accurate.
The final Welsh Assembly poll had UKIP at 16% , they actually got 12.5% . Same overestimate .
In general, though, online polls were well within the accepted margin of error.
I disagree , online polls are consistently over stating UKIP support by 3-5% and have been for some time . Where that % should belong is open to debate but as 90% plus of UKIP supporters are for Leave it is a clear indication that online polls are overstating Leave .
The final England local authority seat count was as follows: Lab 950 (-18) Con 563 (-47) LD 237 (+31) UKIP 34 (+25) Green 19 (=) Others 81 (-45)
In the final result, the Conservatives were a lot further down in seats than it appeared they would be in the earlier tallies. So in terms of seats, Lab down about 2%, Con down about 8%, measured against the results of previous elections in the same seats, the time of nearly all of those previous contests being the Lab high water mark of 2012.
Many thanks for that. These figures usually get lost because by the time they are collated everyone has moved on. That is a much poorer result for the Tories than I think the media have portrayed. Maybe civil war and refusing to help people in the opposite camp on Europe is not the way forward after all.
Not quite the final figures, of course. They are still counting in Bristol. As of this morning, according to the BBC, the figures are
Lab 1291 (-23) Con 828 (-46) LD 370 (+44) UKIP 58 (+26) Green 34 (=)
It would amuse a cretin like you, I think you will find their constituency vote went up , ie the real vote. They went down in the losers list , people thought they would give some donkeys a chance of a losers seat. In the real vote it was 59 out of 73 to SNP, the hangers on had to wait for allocation of alms to the losers. SNP support still rising despite the lies morons like you like to spout.
If only you guys had a sensible system like FPTP then you would have a point.
But you have been asking for PR and have it. Every vote is a real vote and every MSP is a real one.
Hard to feel sympathy for you when the electoral system you wanted bites you in the arse. Maybe try supporting FPTP for a while if you want to talk about the constituency seats being more important.
You really are not very bright. System is designed to NOT have a majority. SNP miss it by two seats and cretins like you think that is bad. Jog on loser.
Sunny Madrid has cheered you up I see.
Leave this afternoon , but forecast is Tory weather , rain and thunder storms, the nasty party get you everywhere
Safe flight (I did mention that Ruth was a goddess didn't I?)
I think hyperbole is generally useful for a campaign, especially one representing the status quo. The voters won't believe you if you tell them something will cost them 100x, but to deny your claims your opponent has to give them publicity and that leaves voters still thinking it's going to cost them x.
The problem is when you can't get them to buy into the premise at all, as was the case here.
I think hyperbole is too often overused and exaggerated just to make a point.
Hyperbole will destroy politics and leave Britain a smouldering ruin if it carries on.
yep. It already is. Nobody knows what to believe. Even if you stick to the truth yourself, nobody thinks it is the truth. The Tories (and some others) are supping with the devil by employing Crosby type tactics with the aim of winning in the short term. In the long term it's a disaster for politics.
With respect, all you're doing is blaming somebody else while trying to cloak yourself in sanctimony. They're all at it, the Conservatives.
The liberals are hardly the paragons of virtue you imply.
Anyone who uses smears, lies and exaggeration is creating more of a problem for democracy. Why are you attacking me for saying that? In fact your post demonstrates exactly what the problem we already have is. I don't do lies, smears or exaggeration in my campaigns - but I bet you think I am just saying that and I must do really.
Good to know that you're a paragon of virtue. Never done a bar chart, then?
' A bit more hope and a little less fear please. '
No chance of that.
Politics is now a zero sum game, namely "take it from them and give it to me".
If you want hope then there needs to be enough increasing wealth creation to allow everyone to become richer and happier.
And in a globalised world economy where we're competing against peoples who are as intelligent and educated as us but who are willing to work harder at lower cost and under fewer restrictions that isn't going to happen.
Just because the developing world sees its gdp increase that does not mean our gdp will decrease but it does mean the gap will likely erode if their gdp grows faster. As nations like China see their middle class expand their willingness to accept harsher working conditions may also begin to decline too
I really can't see the Mayoral campaign, or anything in it, having the slightest relevance to the General Election in 2020. People will have long since forgotten it by then. A week is a long time in politics - 200 of them is an eternity.
Agree with TSE, but also think that the Conservative party have become obsessed with targeting strategies. It works in a multi faceted election such as a General, but leaves the party and election fighting Maxine hopefully inadequate at other contests.
What was wrong with being John Major popular. I really hope the next PM realises that winning votes and being liked often go hand in hand.
Certainly helps. I think the consensus is correct going negative in this particular way didn't work because Khan is basically unthreatening, he seems a. Normal politician in every way, not someone to fear for any reason. It's odd the Tories didn't notice, since one reason for Cameron winning was the same. He's not super well liked but he is or was liked enough, and more importantly labour trying to make people fear the Tory difnt work as people didn't fear what Cameron might do.
When people bellow abuse, they are often talking about themselves. The foul-mouthed homophobe turns out to be a closet gay. The evangelical preacher is caught in the vice squad raid. Whether it is Donald Trump, Boris Johnson or Nicola Sturgeon, those who insist that everyone else is lying are the biggest liars of all.
I take issue with the word often, it's too optimistic about human nature - the man bellowing homophobic slurs might be secretly gay and confused about his own sexuality and deserves some of our pity. But more often than not they may just be an arsehole.
Unaccountably Cohen seems not have noticed that his observation that those who accuse others of dishonesty because they cannot be honest themselves might be applied to himself.
That huge swathe of red through Perthshire, Angus, Kincardine and Aberdeenshire are the seats I named as potential tory targets yesterday.
The green sections presumably show where the SNP vote increased and the brightest sections are in Glasgow and its environs where they wiped out the last bastions of Labour. The tension between policies that suit those central belt conurbations and rural Scotland are going to be more of an issue for Nicola in this Parliament.
It is a slightly ironic historical footnote that the SNP first grew strong in more right wing rural areas (under Salmond) largely as a result of Tory weakness which created an opportunity in these seats. They moved to total dominance when they were able to exploit Labour weakness in the central belt but the more they achieve that the weaker they may well become in the areas they first broke through. To take an example how long is rural and prosperous Perthshire going to want to be represented by someone as left wing as Pete Wishart?
David, I do not think much can be taken from this , it really needs to be the constituency votes that are shown to show the real picture. What this election has shown is the fallacy of the idiotic idea that SNP supporters give their second vote to Green/Left wing to have more balance. As we saw it cost them the majority and allowed the Tories a big increase in seats, bizarre how easily Scottish people are taken in by propaganda lies.
Dear Dear , Tommy is a serial loser and whinger. No-one will vote for his North Korea vision.
He does have a point in Glasgow though where the SNP won all the FPTP constituencies, they were therefore not going to win any list seats so a vote for Solidarity etc there would have been more sensible. In Edinburgh by contrast or the borders where the SNP won fewer constituencies you are correct and SNP 1 and 2 would have been sensible as they could have won more list seats there
I think hyperbole is generally useful for a campaign, especially one representing the status quo. The voters won't believe you if you tell them something will cost them 100x, but to deny your claims your opponent has to give them publicity and that leaves voters still thinking it's going to cost them x.
The problem is when you can't get them to buy into the premise at all, as was the case here.
I think hyperbole is too often overused and exaggerated just to make a point.
Hyperbole will destroy politics and leave Britain a smouldering ruin if it carries on.
yep. It already is. Nobody knows what to believe. Even if you stick to the truth yourself, nobody thinks it is the truth. The Tories (and some others) are supping with the devil by employing Crosby type tactics with the aim of winning in the short term. In the long term it's a disaster for politics.
With respect, all you're doing is blaming somebody else while trying to cloak yourself in sanctimony. They're all at it, the Conservatives.
The liberals are hardly the paragons of virtue you imply.
Quite. Crosby type tactics are perfectly standard, because often they work, and it's political behaviour not partisan behaviour. The exact manifestation of the tactics might differ in noticable ways for particular parties but they all do it.
By the by, I have for the first time voted for one of the big two parties, as my second preference in the PCC was for the Tory candidate. I think this means I'm evil now?
I really can't see the Mayoral campaign, or anything in it, having the slightest relevance to the General Election in 2020. People will have long since forgotten it by then. A week is a long time in politics - 200 of them is an eternity.
Me neither, and London isn't the whole country either.
coutning today Bristol locals Welsh 4 PCCs: South Wales, North Wales, Gwent and the other one with more consonants than vocals
and then we can all go to sleep for a week
Interesting to see how the greens do in Bristol. Lots of seats before then and second in a parliamentary seat, will the Corbyn Fever which is genuinely popular in Bristol hit them.
The final England local authority seat count was as follows: Lab 950 (-18) Con 563 (-47) LD 237 (+31) UKIP 34 (+25) Green 19 (=) Others 81 (-45)
In the final result, the Conservatives were a lot further down in seats than it appeared they would be in the earlier tallies. So in terms of seats, Lab down about 2%, Con down about 8%, measured against the results of previous elections in the same seats, the time of nearly all of those previous contests being the Lab high water mark of 2012.
Many thanks for that. These figures usually get lost because by the time they are collated everyone has moved on. That is a much poorer result for the Tories than I think the media have portrayed. Maybe civil war and refusing to help people in the opposite camp on Europe is not the way forward after all.
Not quite the final figures, of course. They are still counting in Bristol. As of this morning, according to the BBC, the figures are
Lab 1291 (-23) Con 828 (-46) LD 370 (+44) UKIP 58 (+26) Green 34 (=)
But the gist of your comments holds good.
That would suggest the share of Tory losses is down from 8% to roughly 5%. Still not good but most governing parties would be pretty happy with that, especially those busy tearing each other apart.
'It is just as fundamental to political parties though some people don't realise it. It's taken two decades for the Tories to partially clear their image of being 'the nasty party'. Political parties are completely unregulated which is why the reputations of politicians are so low and why so little of what they claim is believed.'
What an excellent piece of insight Roger. I bet this line of political analysis get picked up outside pbCOM because it is so clever, and so intuitively right.
So far LEAVE has said spent a small share of its time on immigration.
That doesn't accurately reflect reality. Some time ago, Boris proposed the Canada model for post-Brexit, and was roundly laughed at. A few weeks ago Gove proposed a model (later characterised as "the Albania model") and impressed nobody. Since then it has been ALL anti-immigration from LEAVE.
Weekend before last Gove gave a ginormous two-page spread on how the Albanians were coming and were going to eat your NHS. This week it's "security" and "borders", and I wonder what those are code words for. For months (oh let's face it, years), the Mail has been banging on about migrants. The Sun are explicitly anti-immigration, it's not subtle. If you stand next to a Vote Leave stall[1] and listen to what the people say, it's about them and us, for various values of "them" and "us". A recent Times article said that mentioning Albania was an unexpected plus, since it engendered fear of Albanian immigration without prompting.
There is a coterie of old-skool Eurosceptics on this board who are genuinely unconcerned about immigration (Tyndall springs to mind) but they were swamped long ago by the antiimmigrationists. Economic arguments for Brexit didn't really gain traction[2]. Antiimmigration arguments are.
[1] This also happened to me near a Grassroots Out stall, but since it was only once I have to discard it. [2] Except possibly in South Wales, because Port Talbot
That huge swathe of red through Perthshire, Angus, Kincardine and Aberdeenshire are the seats I named as potential tory targets yesterday.
The green sections presumably show where the SNP vote increased and the brightest sections are in Glasgow and its environs where they wiped out the last bastions of Labour. The tension between policies that suit those central belt conurbations and rural Scotland are going to be more of an issue for Nicola in this Parliament.
It is a slightly ironic historical footnote that the SNP first grew strong in more right wing rural areas (under Salmond) largely as a result of Tory weakness which created an opportunity in these seats. They moved to total dominance when they were able to exploit Labour weakness in the central belt but the more they achieve that the weaker they may well become in the areas they first broke through. To take an example how long is rural and prosperous Perthshire going to want to be represented by someone as left wing as Pete Wishart?
David, I do not think much can be taken from this , it really needs to be the constituency votes that are shown to show the real picture. What this election has shown is the fallacy of the idiotic idea that SNP supporters give their second vote to Green/Left wing to have more balance. As we saw it cost them the majority and allowed the Tories a big increase in seats, bizarre how easily Scottish people are taken in by propaganda lies.
Dear Dear , Tommy is a serial loser and whinger. No-one will vote for his North Korea vision.
He does have a point in Glasgow though where the SNP won all the FPTP constituencies, they were therefore not going to win any list seats so a vote for Solidarity etc there would have been more sensible. In Edinburgh by contrast or the borders where the SNP won fewer constituencies you are correct and SNP 1 and 2 would have been sensible as they could have won more list seats there
"a vote for Solidarity etc there would have been more sensible"
Think about what you are writing. Voting for that bunch of nutters is never sensible.
coutning today Bristol locals Welsh 4 PCCs: South Wales, North Wales, Gwent and the other one with more consonants than vocals
and then we can all go to sleep for a week
Interesting to see how the greens do in Bristol. Lots of seats before then and second in a parliamentary seat, will the Corbyn Fever which is genuinely popular in Bristol hit them.
We shall see later today but the Bristol Greens seem to have split in 2 geographical opposing sections over support or lack of it for their mayoral candidate
That huge swathe of red through Perthshire, Angus, Kincardine and Aberdeenshire are the seats I named as potential tory targets yesterday.
The green sections presumably show where the SNP vote increased and the brightest sections are in Glasgow and its environs where they wiped out the last bastions of Labour. The tension between policies that suit those central belt conurbations and rural Scotland are going to be more of an issue for Nicola in this Parliament.
It is a slightly ironic historical footnote that the SNP first grew strong in more right wing rural areas (under Salmond) largely as a result of Tory weakness which created an opportunity in these seats. They moved to total dominance when they were able to exploit Labour weakness in the central belt but the more they achieve that the weaker they may well become in the areas they first broke through. To take an example how long is rural and prosperous Perthshire going to want to be represented by someone as left wing as Pete Wishart?
David, I do not think much can be taken from this , it really needs to be the constituency votes that are shown to show the real picture. What this election has shown is the fallacy of the idiotic idea that SNP supporters give their second vote to Green/Left wing to have more balance. As we saw it cost them the majority and allowed the Tories a big increase in seats, bizarre how easily Scottish people are taken in by propaganda lies.
Dear Dear , Tommy is a serial loser and whinger. No-one will vote for his North Korea vision.
He does have a point in Glasgow though where the SNP won all the FPTP constituencies, they were therefore not going to win any list seats so a vote for Solidarity etc there would have been more sensible. In Edinburgh by contrast or the borders where the SNP won fewer constituencies you are correct and SNP 1 and 2 would have been sensible as they could have won more list seats there
"a vote for Solidarity etc there would have been more sensible"
Think about what you are writing. Voting for that bunch of nutters is never sensible.
On the proviso that you put independence above all else of course!
I really can't see the Mayoral campaign, or anything in it, having the slightest relevance to the General Election in 2020. People will have long since forgotten it by then. A week is a long time in politics - 200 of them is an eternity.
I think it reminds people labour us a winner, albeit somewhere they should be winning every time, and a vague remembrance of the campaign may linger when people see Khan, who will surely bring it up a lot. When recalled, it might be an effective tool. Remember Liam Byrnes note? What Normal person thought about it, but 5 years on it was the centrepiece of the.cameron strategy.
One effect though it helps the narrative from this point on - the BBC front page has been all about Khan this weekend, the Scottish labour disaster pushed down the pecking order. In England at least oeople will gain the impression labour are doing ok under Corbyn and that might lead some who stayed home thinking they woukd do poorly to co e back.
The final England local authority seat count was as follows: Lab 950 (-18) Con 563 (-47) LD 237 (+31) UKIP 34 (+25) Green 19 (=) Others 81 (-45)
In the final result, the Conservatives were a lot further down in seats than it appeared they would be in the earlier tallies. So in terms of seats, Lab down about 2%, Con down about 8%, measured against the results of previous elections in the same seats, the time of nearly all of those previous contests being the Lab high water mark of 2012.
The BBC has the following local election results prior to Bristol which is counting today.
Very good figures for the Lib Dems. Not so much for UKIP.
The Lib Dems made net gains despite being 2% down on 2012. Presumably due to Lab being 5% down.
Very poor Tory return in net seats given an increase in NEV on 2012 and declines for Lab and LD.
I think the LD share was down in mostly no hope areas from a low base to an even lower base but up sometimes substantially so in areas where their results were already good for example Cheltenham and Watford .
I really can't see the Mayoral campaign, or anything in it, having the slightest relevance to the General Election in 2020. People will have long since forgotten it by then. A week is a long time in politics - 200 of them is an eternity.
The 2016 campaign is unlikely to have a lasting consequence. The next mayoral election will be on the same day as the GE though, won't it?
However, the clear division between Khan and Corbyn will be a dynamic to watch as time moves on.
I really can't see the Mayoral campaign, or anything in it, having the slightest relevance to the General Election in 2020. People will have long since forgotten it by then. A week is a long time in politics - 200 of them is an eternity.
Me neither, and London isn't the whole country either.
It does seem to be a disease of political obsessives (and this site is maybe slightly over-represented in that demographic) that they think that today's headlines are all that will matter for years. I just had a flashback to tim obsessing about the Conservatives' tie-up in the European Parliament with dodgy Estonians or something. Nobody cared at the time, except those who were already going to vote Labour anyway, and even they'd forgotten it by general election time.
It is hard to extrapolate too much from local election results in terms of national support, UKIP performance at this level has never been very good, while Lib Dems have always been strong on pavement politics. Nonetheless it is a solid base (except Wales perhaps) for recovery.
Nonetheless it does seem as if the tectonic plates have not moved as much as the frothers would have it. I think the conservatism of the British resists change fairly effectively. It also finds xenophobia rather rude.
Sadiq Khan looks to me to be balancing his Pakistani Muslim ancestral heritage with his British heritage really quite well. His victory speech was really quite impressive on the need for inclusivity and also for centrist politics. While his politics reflects his identity, it is not tribal "identity politics".
Inspired by the pied piper of Islington, these folk would be roused to the polls and victory would follow. This was the Corbyn formula for electoral success.
It was a seductive sell to a Labour party stunned by its general election defeat and the more attractive because it promised a cure both miraculous and painless. No more having to make compromises with the electorate. No more having to try to win the support of voters who might not always put a cross in the Labour box. No more having to talk to people who might even have backed the wicked Tories on occasion. Dr Corbyn’s elixir promised Labour that it would not have to choose between purity and power. The party could have both.
Some of us did spot a bit of a flaw with this thesis: the complete lack of evidence to support it...
Elected leaders are making life “difficult” because they spend too much time thinking about what they can get out of EU and kowtowing to public opinion, rather than working on “historic” projects such as the Euro, he said.
“Too many politicians are listening exclusively to their national opinion. And if you are listening to your national opinion you are not developing what should be a common European sense and a feeling of the need to put together efforts. We have too many part-time Europeans.”
It would amuse a cretin like you, I think you will find their constituency vote went up , ie the real vote. They went down in the losers list , people thought they would give some donkeys a chance of a losers seat. In the real vote it was 59 out of 73 to SNP, the hangers on had to wait for allocation of alms to the losers. SNP support still rising despite the lies morons like you like to spout.
No Malc, we have to admit it's all over for the SNP.
Nobody sane thinks it's all over for them even on here. The Scotland debate in general is such a nasty hyperbolic mess it is depressing, even relatively benign comments are often infused with paranoid or self righteous hyperbolism from one side or the other, and while mischaracterising ones opponents comments is common everywhere, I've never seen it as endemic as in the Scotland debate.
Please note this not an SNP focused attack before you say I'm wrong.
Elected leaders are making life “difficult” because they spend too much time thinking about what they can get out of EU and kowtowing to public opinion, rather than working on “historic” projects such as the Euro, he said.
“Too many politicians are listening exclusively to their national opinion. And if you are listening to your national opinion you are not developing what should be a common European sense and a feeling of the need to put together efforts. We have too many part-time Europeans.” Juncker4Britain
In the interests of European unity, I suggest that Juncker propose relocating the ECJ to Budapest. If it's not needed in Brussels then why not place it somewhere in the East, symbolising the reunion of the continent after the Cold War.
1) it is used because it works when it is done credibly. This time it wasn't very credible so it didn't work.
2) advertising is far more effective than we like to think, especially on ourselves. If it wasn't, we'd all be buying supermarket own-brands all the time. I hope @Roger writes about this in detail at some point.
3) when two candidates or parties put out rival messages, the public will usually end up believing both. So they may well believe that Sadiq Khan has some murky connections but if they also believe that Zac Goldsmith is an out of touch posho with no ideas how to improve London for the ordinary citizen, they'll probably overlook that.
4) neither Sadiq Khan nor Zac Goldsmith did a very good job of completing the caption competition "I should be next Mayor of London because..." in 15 words or fewer. So the public went on their default settings.
One shouldn't use advertising as shorthand for all marketing activity. PR is just as important, with (groan) social media activity also playing a role. Even more fundamental is the brand positioning that should be set in place before something hits the market.
I really can't see the Mayoral campaign, or anything in it, having the slightest relevance to the General Election in 2020. People will have long since forgotten it by then. A week is a long time in politics - 200 of them is an eternity.
I think it reminds people labour us a winner, albeit somewhere they should be winning every time, and a vague remembrance of the campaign may linger when people see Khan, who will surely bring it up a lot. When recalled, it might be an effective tool. Remember Liam Byrnes note? What Normal person thought about it, but 5 years on it was the centrepiece of the.cameron strategy.
One effect though it helps the narrative from this point on - the BBC front page has been all about Khan this weekend, the Scottish labour disaster pushed down the pecking order. In England at least oeople will gain the impression labour are doing ok under Corbyn and that might lead some who stayed home thinking they woukd do poorly to co e back.
England has 52m people. London over 8m. Scotland 5m.
Very good figures for the Lib Dems. Not so much for UKIP.
The Lib Dems made net gains despite being 2% down on 2012. Presumably due to Lab being 5% down.
Very poor Tory return in net seats given an increase in NEV on 2012 and declines for Lab and LD.
I think the LD share was down in mostly no hope areas from a low base to an even lower base but up sometimes substantially so in areas where their results were already good for example Cheltenham and Watford .
That's probably true but no small number of the areas where the Lib Dems have gone from low to lower were ones that they were being elected in pre-2010.
Mr. Indigo, there's a lot of truth in Juncker's comments.
A man can't be loyal to two masters. Clegg's a patriot, but he thinks his country is the EU. Cameron's willing to sacrifice national interest for the EU interest.
That's what, ultimately, this vote will decide (for decades, at least). We can take our destiny in our own hands, or give the whip hand to unaccountable foreign bureaucrats.
Hmm, this piece says a presidential candidate in the Philippines can barely get through a speech without threatening to kill someone. It's not as bad as it sounds. Sort of.
Very good figures for the Lib Dems. Not so much for UKIP.
The Lib Dems made net gains despite being 2% down on 2012. Presumably due to Lab being 5% down.
Very poor Tory return in net seats given an increase in NEV on 2012 and declines for Lab and LD.
I think the LD share was down in mostly no hope areas from a low base to an even lower base but up sometimes substantially so in areas where their results were already good for example Cheltenham and Watford .
That's probably true but no small number of the areas where the Lib Dems have gone from low to lower were ones that they were being elected in pre-2010.
I really can't see the Mayoral campaign, or anything in it, having the slightest relevance to the General Election in 2020. People will have long since forgotten it by then. A week is a long time in politics - 200 of them is an eternity.
Me neither, and London isn't the whole country either.
It does seem to be a disease of political obsessives (and this site is maybe slightly over-represented in that demographic) that they think that today's headlines are all that will matter for years. I just had a flashback to tim obsessing about the Conservatives' tie-up in the European Parliament with dodgy Estonians or something. Nobody cared at the time, except those who were already going to vote Labour anyway, and even they'd forgotten it by general election time.
Elected leaders are making life “difficult” because they spend too much time thinking about what they can get out of EU and kowtowing to public opinion, rather than working on “historic” projects such as the Euro, he said.
“Too many politicians are listening exclusively to their national opinion. And if you are listening to your national opinion you are not developing what should be a common European sense and a feeling of the need to put together efforts. We have too many part-time Europeans.”
Juncker4Britain The fact, amazingly, people think of who elected them first, is the whole reason the eu needs to slow down or stop its integration mr juncker, because they don't want more hence requiring leaders to be difficult. If they wanted a superstate in reality rather than in theory for so e, their leaders would go for it happily.
Comments
The liberals are hardly the paragons of virtue you imply.
No chance of that.
Politics is now a zero sum game, namely "take it from them and give it to me".
If you want hope then there needs to be enough increasing wealth creation to allow everyone to become richer and happier.
And in a globalised world economy where we're competing against peoples who are as intelligent and educated as us but who are willing to work harder at lower cost and under fewer restrictions that isn't going to happen.
In the real vote it was 59 out of 73 to SNP, the hangers on had to wait for allocation of alms to the losers.
SNP support still rising despite the lies morons like you like to spout.
Lab 33
Con 32
Lib Dem 14
UKIP 12
Precis - Labour won’t govern based on these results
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/labour-wont-govern-based-on-these-results-t6fqm3jqp
The green sections presumably show where the SNP vote increased and the brightest sections are in Glasgow and its environs where they wiped out the last bastions of Labour. The tension between policies that suit those central belt conurbations and rural Scotland are going to be more of an issue for Nicola in this Parliament.
It is a slightly ironic historical footnote that the SNP first grew strong in more right wing rural areas (under Salmond) largely as a result of Tory weakness which created an opportunity in these seats. They moved to total dominance when they were able to exploit Labour weakness in the central belt but the more they achieve that the weaker they may well become in the areas they first broke through. To take an example how long is rural and prosperous Perthshire going to want to be represented by someone as left wing as Pete Wishart?
Why are you attacking me for saying that?
In fact your post demonstrates exactly what the problem we already have is. I don't do lies, smears or exaggeration in my campaigns - but I bet you think I am just saying that and I must do really.
In Westminster elections the SNP can still operate on nationalist "we'll stand up for Scotland against the 'English' parties" line.
But you have been asking for PR and have it. Every vote is a real vote and every MSP is a real one.
Hard to feel sympathy for you when the electoral system you wanted bites you in the arse. Maybe try supporting FPTP for a while if you want to talk about the constituency seats being more important.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/zac-goldsmith_uk_57288c3de4b05c31e570f525
BMZ Z3 was used in one of the films, just as it was launched on the markets.
Despite this, as you say the SNP constituency vote overall was up. This is because of the large swings they in turn obtained against Labour in Glasgow and the surrounding areas. Nicola is placing the SNP as much more of a left of centre party than Salmond ever did. This has worked spectacularly in that the SNP have replaced Labour in that position but it is very difficult to be all things to all men forever.
Lab 950 (-18)
Con 563 (-47)
LD 237 (+31)
UKIP 34 (+25)
Green 19 (=)
Others 81 (-45)
In the final result, the Conservatives were a lot further down in seats than it appeared they would be in the earlier tallies. So in terms of seats, Lab down about 2%, Con down about 8%, measured against the results of previous elections in the same seats, the time of nearly all of those previous contests being the Lab high water mark of 2012.
Better to use the term 'emperor' than 'Caesar', though, as Caesar can refer to a couple of individuals, as well as sometimes meaning emperor, and sometimes meaning junior emperor (I think under the later Eastern Roman Empire, Caesar was actually third place, behind sebastocrator).
Just take a look at all the glee cuts on public sector workers and those on benefits gets from Conservative supporters.
Or take a look at the support reductions in maximum pension funds gets from Conservative supporters here.
'Take it from them and give it to me' doesn't only apply to taxing millionaires.
For the average person it means taking it from the family across the road whom they don't like.
Those polls which surveyed for the Scottish, Welsh, and London elections were pretty accurate.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/seumas-milne-has-been-asking-laura-kuenssberg-for-advice-2015-11
Currently
Lab 1291 ( -23)
Con 828 ( -46)
LDem 370 (+44)
UKIP 58 ( +26)
Green 34 ( N/C)
Others 120 ( -1)
https://twitter.com/iainmacwhirter/status/728924377014767621
https://twitter.com/citizentommy/status/728449256810414080
https://twitter.com/News24Scotland/status/728544054569472004
I shot an international campaign of six commercials for Braun food mixers one of which was for the Superbowl final. We had to reshoot the whole campaign because the home ecconomist prepared some of the dishes using a Moulinex. On the same theme I shot an ad for Volvo where we stacked twelve Volvos on top of each other. It had to be reshot because the car at the bottom had its suspension strengthened.
These were nothing about advertising rules but all about the integrity of the product. Truth and honesty is fundamental to advertising. Ask Ratner's what happens when you forget this.
It is just as fundamental to political parties though some people don't realise it. It's taken two decades for the Tories to partially clear their image of being 'the nasty party'. Political parties are completely unregulated which is why the reputations of politicians are so low and why so little of what they claim is believed
Nobody was predicting that.
Roughly speaking the Conservatives (and UKIP) made gains from Labour in northern and wwc areas but the Conservatives had significant losses to LibDems and Others is southern and affluent areas.
Which suggests dissatisfaction towards both the Conservative and Labour leaderships.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rmq7Xqjp6AA
coutning today
Bristol locals
Welsh 4 PCCs: South Wales, North Wales, Gwent and the other one with more consonants than vocals
and then we can all go to sleep for a week
Lab 1291 (-23)
Con 828 (-46)
LD 370 (+44)
UKIP 58 (+26)
Green 34 (=)
But the gist of your comments holds good.
How could we measure this?
Are people less knowledgeable about, and less interested in, political parties nowadays?
Is it partly due to a celebrity culture?
Please ping me at my username at gmail.com if they do.
Thanks
By the by, I have for the first time voted for one of the big two parties, as my second preference in the PCC was for the Tory candidate. I think this means I'm evil now?
What an excellent piece of insight Roger. I bet this line of political analysis get picked up outside pbCOM because it is so clever, and so intuitively right.
Very poor Tory return in net seats given an increase in NEV on 2012 and declines for Lab and LD.
Weekend before last Gove gave a ginormous two-page spread on how the Albanians were coming and were going to eat your NHS. This week it's "security" and "borders", and I wonder what those are code words for. For months (oh let's face it, years), the Mail has been banging on about migrants. The Sun are explicitly anti-immigration, it's not subtle. If you stand next to a Vote Leave stall[1] and listen to what the people say, it's about them and us, for various values of "them" and "us". A recent Times article said that mentioning Albania was an unexpected plus, since it engendered fear of Albanian immigration without prompting.
There is a coterie of old-skool Eurosceptics on this board who are genuinely unconcerned about immigration (Tyndall springs to mind) but they were swamped long ago by the antiimmigrationists. Economic arguments for Brexit didn't really gain traction[2]. Antiimmigration arguments are.
[1] This also happened to me near a Grassroots Out stall, but since it was only once I have to discard it.
[2] Except possibly in South Wales, because Port Talbot
Think about what you are writing. Voting for that bunch of nutters is never sensible.
One effect though it helps the narrative from this point on - the BBC front page has been all about Khan this weekend, the Scottish labour disaster pushed down the pecking order. In England at least oeople will gain the impression labour are doing ok under Corbyn and that might lead some who stayed home thinking they woukd do poorly to co e back.
The BBC has the following local election results prior to Bristol which is counting today.
Labour 1,291 −23
Conservative 828 −46
Liberal Democrat 370 +44
Independent 77 −3
UKIP 58 +26
Residents 39 +8
Green Party 34 +0
Liberal 4 −1
However, the clear division between Khan and Corbyn will be a dynamic to watch as time moves on.
Same with this storm in a teacup I think.
It is hard to extrapolate too much from local election results in terms of national support, UKIP performance at this level has never been very good, while Lib Dems have always been strong on pavement politics. Nonetheless it is a solid base (except Wales perhaps) for recovery.
Nonetheless it does seem as if the tectonic plates have not moved as much as the frothers would have it. I think the conservatism of the British resists change fairly effectively. It also finds xenophobia rather rude.
Sadiq Khan looks to me to be balancing his Pakistani Muslim ancestral heritage with his British heritage really quite well. His victory speech was really quite impressive on the need for inclusivity and also for centrist politics. While his politics reflects his identity, it is not tribal "identity politics".
Please note this not an SNP focused attack before you say I'm wrong.
Ogmore 40.5% (runner up PC)
Swansea East 36.2 (UKIP)
Cynon Valley 31.2 (PC)
Aberavon 30.7 (PC)
Merthyr 26.5 (UKIP)
Alyn and Deeside 24.7 (Con)
Newport East 23.7 (UKIP)
Swansea West 22.9 (Con)
Cardiff South 22.8 (Con)
Islwyn 22.8 (PC)
Pontypridd 21 (PC)
Bridgend 20.9 (Con)
Torfaen 19.6 (UKIP)
Delyn 15.4 (Con)
Newport West 14.8 (Con)
Clwyd South 13.6 (Con)
Neath 11.5 (PC)
Cardiff North 9.8 (Con)
Wrexham 6.5 (Con)
Gower 6.1 (Con)
Caerphilly 5.8 (PC)
Cardiff West 3.7 (PC)
Cardiff Central 3.1 (LD)
Vale of Clwyd 3.1 (Con)
Blaenau Gwent 3.1 (PC)
Vale of Glamorgan 2.1 (Con)
Llanelli 1.3 (PC)
A man can't be loyal to two masters. Clegg's a patriot, but he thinks his country is the EU. Cameron's willing to sacrifice national interest for the EU interest.
That's what, ultimately, this vote will decide (for decades, at least). We can take our destiny in our own hands, or give the whip hand to unaccountable foreign bureaucrats.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-36223755
The fact, amazingly, people think of who elected them first, is the whole reason the eu needs to slow down or stop its integration mr juncker, because they don't want more hence requiring leaders to be difficult. If they wanted a superstate in reality rather than in theory for so e, their leaders would go for it happily.