Not too sure that someone who has a climbing accident or a road accident does it intentionally..If you are happy for your money,no matter how small,to be spent on a surgical team to remove a tattoo then thats fine with me.I am sure the money could be put to far better use.
Have to disagree with Kellner on this, with no reason to tactically vote LD to keep out the Tories, LD MPs with Labour in second place will be virtually wiped out, even today's yougov shows a swing of 10.5% from LDs to Labour since the last election and no incumbent, however personally popular will survive that. The council elections have shown LD councillors swept away in the cities by Labour and I would expect the next election to confirm that
Are there that many LibDem seats where Labour voters in second place voted LibDem to keep out a poor placed Conservative ??
"OT. I'm looking for a power drill with attachments that both drill and countersink but without those fiddly catches on the carrycase which always difficult to open quickly, especially in cold weather. Brrr.
Mike headlining with "Kellner says" reminds me of another "Kellner says" moment.
Back in May 2011, in a remarkable move for a pollster, he wrote an open letter to Alex Salmond just after his election victory. (Did he write an open letter to David Cameron in May 2010, just after his election victory? If not, why not?)
In it Kellner made 3 predictions. Prediction number 1 has yet to be tested, but the failure of prediction numbers 2 and 3 prove that Kellner is not the all knowing seer that he (and, in fairness, many others) like to think he is:
Certainly full of himself and going by the results so far his opinion of himself seems to be at odds with reality.
Kellner's second prediction was that Salmond would wriggle out of an in/out referendum and get DevoMax on the ballot. How did that work out?
Devomax was his worst option.
"The Scottish referendum in 2014 will ask people one question – whether they think Scotland should be an independent country. Yet many surveys and polls suggest that another option – significantly extending the powers of the Scottish Parliament – might be better able than independence to attract support from a majority of Scots."
I am too busy laughing at the stupidity of the unionist media. Hee Haw Hee Haw lap it up
That's the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey, not previously denounced as "stupid Unionist media,"
I was not referring to your quote , I was talking about today's media blindly printing the stupid mobile phone charges story put out by Westminster, despite having the reality that the charges are dropping and will be banned by 2015. They are so stupid it is unbelievable. It is very clear people would choose Devo max if it was on offer , but Cameron chose to gamble and he cannot win now , it is either lose or give out more powers. he has been led by the nose by Salmond who now cannot lose.
RT @Senorchapman Lots of millenials at #Glasto to hear #RollingStones. Imagine 1965 20-somethings waiting for band that was big in 1917
Listening to and watching them was very embarrassing. They looked and sounded like sad sad old men trying to bring back the past , desperate desperate stuff.
someone who attempts suicide is usually regarded as being ill and often has to be treated for some mental problem after the incident..are you saying therefore that Tattoo owners fall into the same category..hmmm..you were right tho, if tha knows nowt, best to say nowt..time to take your own advice
Not a thing I say and do lightly but a hearty cheer for Salmond for boycotting Muirfield for its retention of the ban on womens membership.
The greatest championship in golf should not be tarnished by allocating the honour of hosting to such a club.
The R&A should set an example for the future of golf and exclude from the Open rota those clubs that demean the sport with their bans on women membership.
one pound spent on tattoo removal is a pound too much.. and the operation diverts facilities away from more serious demands on the NHS..maybe it could be spent on teaching nurses how to nurse properly in the Mid Staffs area
Not a thing I say and do lightly but a hearty cheer for Salmond for boycotting Muirfield for its retention of the ban on womens membership.
The greatest championship in golf should not be tarnished by allocating the honour of hosting to such a club.
The R&A should set an example for the future of golf and exclude from the Open rota those clubs that demean the sport with their bans on women membership.
You have a tattoo..you pay for it.You have it removed..you pay for it.Why should a taxpayer fork out for a medcal team to remove the idiot emblem
How much does the NHS spend on tattoo removal. It's a sure sign that someone knows sod all when they post about anything but miniscule savings to be had in this area.
As for the principle, well I guess you could say people who get injured climbing mountains or driving too fast shouldn't be treated if you wanted to.
Not much will be the answer.
But the fundamental point is one of mission creep.
The NHS should provide treatment for disease and a emergency response service.
Elective surgeries, unless there is a significant health risk, should not be carried out on the taxpayers purse. (I suspect that there is probably a rule in place, but in too many cases 'mental distress' is used as a reason to qualify people for free treatment). As always there are grey areas (e.g. the difference between cosmetic weight reduction proceedures and weight reduction proceedures conducted in order to reduce the risk of a patient developing metabolic syndrome).
Moreover, it's not just the actual cost, but the opportunity cost that needs to be considered. Operating theatres are very expensive facilities and throughput needs to be optimised.
Mike headlining with "Kellner says" reminds me of another "Kellner says" moment.
Back in May 2011, in a remarkable move for a pollster, he wrote an open letter to Alex Salmond just after his election victory. (Did he write an open letter to David Cameron in May 2010, just after his election victory? If not, why not?)
In it Kellner made 3 predictions. Prediction number 1 has yet to be tested, but the failure of prediction numbers 2 and 3 prove that Kellner is not the all knowing seer that he (and, in fairness, many others) like to think he is:
Certainly full of himself and going by the results so far his opinion of himself seems to be at odds with reality.
Kellner's second prediction was that Salmond would wriggle out of an in/out referendum and get DevoMax on the ballot. How did that work out?
Devomax was his worst option.
"The Scottish referendum in 2014 will ask people one question – whether they think Scotland should be an independent country. Yet many surveys and polls suggest that another option – significantly extending the powers of the Scottish Parliament – might be better able than independence to attract support from a majority of Scots."
I am too busy laughing at the stupidity of the unionist media. Hee Haw Hee Haw lap it up
That's the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey, not previously denounced as "stupid Unionist media,"
I was not referring to your quote , I was talking about today's media blindly printing the stupid mobile phone charges story put out by Westminster, despite having the reality that the charges are dropping and will be banned by 2015. They are so stupid it is unbelievable. It is very clear people would choose Devo max if it was on offer , but Cameron chose to gamble and he cannot win now , it is either lose or give out more powers. he has been led by the nose by Salmond who now cannot lose.
he has been led by the nose by Salmond who now cannot lose.
What odds will you give me for a £100 stake that Scotland votes NO to independence?
"OT. I'm looking for a power drill with attachments that both drill and countersink but without those fiddly catches on the carrycase which always difficult to open quickly, especially in cold weather. Brrr.
Can anyone help?"
Made me LOL!!
It's a good example of how you can be rude but get away with it by being funny.
Sadly, all too often, tim is just rude in an unprovoked assault. Usually on women though - suspect he must be a little bit, shall we say, frustrated
In Scotland I think Labour will probably lose some seats (not many) to the SNP. There are quite a number of Labour Westminster seats with SNP MSPs now which gives them a good base. OTOH Labour may well pick up some Lib Dem seats to compensate so the overall picture will not change that much.
In the UK by any conventional standards an opposition mid term where the government has just announced £11.5bn of cuts that is only 5% ahead is surely toast. The problem is, as SO pointed out downthread is to work out what effect the Coalition factor is having.
Again logically it seems to me that it ought to be creating even bigger Labour leads as it does not have to share the anti government premium but it is clearly not working out like that. The most remarkable thing in this Parliament is how robust the tory vote has been. In this poll they are 3% off what they got in the GE. Even when the UKIP surge was at it's peak they lost a maximum of about 9%.
It gives Cameron an excellent base from which to work but the level of Lib Dem returners probably remains the key along with the greater efficiency of the Labour vote. Still have Labour as favourites for largest party but less convinced they will get an overall majority.
203499 pounds was spent over four years on tattoo removal, according to the Sun newspaper.not a massive amount but it could be better spent on other services
Not a thing I say and do lightly but a hearty cheer for Salmond for boycotting Muirfield for its retention of the ban on womens membership.
The greatest championship in golf should not be tarnished by allocating the honour of hosting to such a club.
The R&A should set an example for the future of golf and exclude from the Open rota those clubs that demean the sport with their bans on women membership.
Jack , the R&A is an exclusively male club.
Indeed so.
It's a disgrace to the sport.
IMO not one penny piece of public money or support should be proffered to male only clubs and I include in that the BBC televising the event.
It's completely wrong that the presence of male wedding tackle should define membership just as it is the colour of a persons skin.
The US Masters was forced to dismantle its effective colour bar on membership when Tiger Woods came on the scene. It's time to tackle the outmoded female bar on membership.
Not a thing I say and do lightly but a hearty cheer for Salmond for boycotting Muirfield for its retention of the ban on womens membership.
The greatest championship in golf should not be tarnished by allocating the honour of hosting to such a club.
The R&A should set an example for the future of golf and exclude from the Open rota those clubs that demean the sport with their bans on women membership.
"Not a thing I say and do lightly but a hearty cheer for Salmond for boycotting Muirfield for its retention of the ban on womens membership"
It's usually done more subtly. Women playing members are given the 6pm till midnight slot in winter which reduces to 10pm till midnight in summer (Tuesdays and Thursdays only)
Not a thing I say and do lightly but a hearty cheer for Salmond for boycotting Muirfield for its retention of the ban on womens membership.
The greatest championship in golf should not be tarnished by allocating the honour of hosting to such a club.
The R&A should set an example for the future of golf and exclude from the Open rota those clubs that demean the sport with their bans on women membership.
I agree Jack, I think this is the right call by Salmond. Even if he has not been entirely consistent with this in the past peoples' positions can and should evolve (as we have seen in the gay marriage debate) and coming up for the 100 year anniversary of women getting the vote seems to me a good time for golf clubs to move on.
He is right to raise the issue and right on his position. (I am going for a lie down now).
Mike headlining with "Kellner says" reminds me of another "Kellner says" moment.
Back in May 2011, in a remarkable move for a pollster, he wrote an open letter to Alex Salmond just after his election victory. (Did he write an open letter to David Cameron in May 2010, just after his election victory? If not, why not?)
In it Kellner made 3 predictions. Prediction number 1 has yet to be tested, but the failure of prediction numbers 2 and 3 prove that Kellner is not the all knowing seer that he (and, in fairness, many others) like to think he is:
Certainly full of himself and going by the results so far his opinion of himself seems to be at odds with reality.
Kellner's second prediction was that Salmond would wriggle out of an in/out referendum and get DevoMax on the ballot. How did that work out?
Devomax was his worst option.
"The Scottish referendum in 2014 will ask people one question – whether they think Scotland should be an independent country. Yet many surveys and polls suggest that another option – significantly extending the powers of the Scottish Parliament – might be better able than independence to attract support from a majority of Scots."
I am too busy laughing at the stupidity of the unionist media. Hee Haw Hee Haw lap it up
That's the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey, not previously denounced as "stupid Unionist media,"
I was not referring to your quote , I was talking about today's media blindly printing the stupid mobile phone charges story put out by Westminster, despite having the reality that the charges are dropping and will be banned by 2015. They are so stupid it is unbelievable. It is very clear people would choose Devo max if it was on offer , but Cameron chose to gamble and he cannot win now , it is either lose or give out more powers. he has been led by the nose by Salmond who now cannot lose.
he has been led by the nose by Salmond who now cannot lose.
What odds will you give me for a £100 stake that Scotland votes NO to independence?
Charles, Salmond now cannot lose , he either wins the vote OR the unionists are forced to give the extended powers and when they renege as usual he will be proven correct and easily win the popular vote and the next referendum vote. Cameron could have set the pace and at least delayed the inevitable fora minimum of a generation but is not very bright and surrounded by people of the same ilk, having donkey Moore as your negotiator says it all.
SO - Indeed, that is why I am increasingly convinced Rand Paul will end up GOP nominee, a Christie candidacy or a Jeb Bush candidacy will leave a Freedom Party candidate as almost inevitable, as indeed may a Rubio nomination because of his relatively liberal views on immigration. Paul on the other hand is a Tea Party icon and fiercely anti immigration reform. However either way Hillary will be laughing all the way to the White House!!
"OT. I'm looking for a power drill with attachments that both drill and countersink but without those fiddly catches on the carrycase which always difficult to open quickly, especially in cold weather. Brrr.
Can anyone help?"
Made me LOL!!
It's a good example of how you can be rude but get away with it by being funny.
Sadly, all too often, tim is just rude in an unprovoked assault. Usually on women though - suspect he must be a little bit, shall we say, frustrated
Are you a woman Charles? I didn't think they let them in to the schools you went to. Even if they had been vaccinated.
Not a thing I say and do lightly but a hearty cheer for Salmond for boycotting Muirfield for its retention of the ban on womens membership.
The greatest championship in golf should not be tarnished by allocating the honour of hosting to such a club.
The R&A should set an example for the future of golf and exclude from the Open rota those clubs that demean the sport with their bans on women membership.
Jack , the R&A is an exclusively male club.
Indeed so.
It's a disgrace to the sport.
IMO not one penny piece of public money or support should be proffered to male only clubs and I include in that the BBC televising the event.
It's completely wrong that the presence of male wedding tackle should define membership just as it is the colour of a persons skin.
The US Masters was forced to dismantle its effective colour bar on membership when Tiger Woods came on the scene. It's time to tackle the outmoded female bar on membership.
For once I heartily agree with OLD Jack. The R & A must - not should - come into the modern sports world and give equality of membership to all. As an avid golf follower (though sadly not a golfer), it grieves me when I see these out of date clubs ban women.
I like to see some of the players take a stand and boycott the Open when played on male only clubs.
Perhaps that keen royal golfer the Duke of York might lobby his mother to rescind the royal status of Royal Troon, Royal St Georges and even the Royal and Ancient itself and no honours for the top bananas. That might focus the minds a wee bit.
As Tim has brought up the Immigration polls, here is the full set:
Do you think immigration into Britain over the last ten years has been good or bad for Britain's economy? Good: 19(0) Bad: 56(-1) Neither: 18(-1) DK: 7(+1)
Generally speaking, do you think immigrants who come to work in Britain are more hard working than people who are born here, less hard working, or is there no real difference?
Immigrants who come to work in Britain are more hard-working than people who are born here. 32 Immigrants who come to work in Britain are less hard-working than people who are born here. 12 No difference. 46 DK. 10
Thinking about different types of people who want to come and live in the UK, to what extent should the following groups of people be allowed to come and live in Britain?
People with low levels of education and skills, looking for low paid work We should allow more of this group: 4 We should allow the present numbers of this group: 17 We should allow less of this group: 31 We should not allow this group at all: 39 DK: 10
People with high levels of education and skills, looking for high paid jobs We should allow more of this group: 21 We should allow the present numbers of this group: 43 We should allow less of this group: 19 We should not allow this group at all: 9 DK: 9
People with family already in the UK, coming to live with their relatives We should allow more of this group: 7 We should allow the present numbers of this group: 24 We should allow less of this group: 33 We should not allow this group at all: 26 DK: 10
People fleeing persecution or war in other countries We should allow more of this group: 14 We should allow the present numbers of this group: 33 We should allow less of this group: 25 We should not allow this group at all: 17 DK: 10
People paying to study in British universities We should allow more of this group: 22 We should allow the present numbers of this group: 43 We should allow less of this group: 18 We should not allow this group at all: 9 DK: 8
Would you support or oppose the following policies Requiring visitors from countries the government regards as a high risk for illegal immigration (such as India and Pakistan) to pay a bond of £3000 when they arrive in Britain, repayable when they leave? Support: 71 Oppose: 16 DK: 13
Requiring people claiming benefits who do not speak English to take English language lessons or risk having their benefits stopped? Support: 84 Oppose: 8 DK: 7
SO - Indeed, that is why I am increasingly convinced Rand Paul will end up GOP nominee, a Christie candidacy or a Jeb Bush candidacy will leave a Freedom Party candidate as almost inevitable, as indeed may a Rubio nomination because of his relatively liberal views on immigration. Paul on the other hand is a Tea Party icon and fiercely anti immigration reform. However either way Hillary will be laughing all the way to the White House!!
Perhaps that keen royal golfer the Duke of York might lobby his mother to rescind the royal status of Royal Troon, Royal St Georges and even the Royal and Ancient itself and no honours for the top bananasadvise Westminster to designate these wasteful areas as suitable places to generate new towns for our growing population.
Charles, Salmond now cannot lose , he either wins the vote OR the unionists are forced to give the extended powers....
:feckin'-delusional:
Unckie,
You lose [the vote] you lose [all hope]. Your sides losing 'cause of the morons running the campaign: Time for change Malc; or too timid to change...?
:freedom-for-engurlundt:
we will see fluffy, Salmond is against pygmies, the die is cast now and soon you too will have your wish , if Engurland will give wales and NI their freedom after they have lost Scotland.
Lord Hurd, the former foreign secretary, has become the latest Tory grandee to warn against his party's growing Eurosceptic tendencies. In a wide-ranging interview with the Observer, the peer attacked the views of Michael Gove, a Eurosceptic cabinet minister, as "backward-looking", predicted that Britain will consider joining the euro within the decade, and said he was opposed in principle to holding a referendum on the UK's relationship with the European Union while "reluctantly" accepting it was now inevitable." http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jun/29/douglas-hurd-eu-referendum
Do you trust the police more or less than you did five years ago? Trust the police more than I did five years ago: 5 Trust the police less than I did five years ago: 26 No difference - I trusted the police and I still do: 48 No difference - I did not trust the police and I still don't: 15 DK: 6
We didn't get a daily YouGov poll back in the last Parliament, so the closest I can get to the current YouGov poll at this point in the last Parliament is this one;
YouGov/Telegraph 2008-06-26 Con 46% Lab 28% Lib-Dem 15% Con Lead 18%
Labour's mid term position is utterly dreadful (and getting worse) IMO.
Not only do I think a Lab majority is pretty much out the window on the current evidence I could actually see Labour losing the election in terms of both share of the vote and seats, which will probably leave us with the prospect of another Con-Lib coalition.
It would be interesting to go through the list of Labour target seats and see what happens when you give them half the 2010 LibDem vote. I wonder if you wouldn't find that a fair few of Labour's most winnable seats were actually seats that the Tories won in 2005, not 2010.
Take that back, I just tried it. It turns out that if you give Labour half the LibDem vote, you get a total of 57 Lab gains from Con, but all except 4 were seats Con gained in 2010. Here's my list of notional Labour majorities in seats currently held by Con, assuming half the 2010 LibDems just realigned:
Warrington South 10.925 Plymouth Sutton and Devonport 9.715 Northampton North 9.16 Lancaster and Fleetwood 8.785 Cardiff North 8.75 Brentford and Isleworth 8.185 Watford 7.96 Lincoln 7.8 Broxtowe 7.705 Hove 7.53 Weaver Vale 7.065 Pudsey 7.035 Sherwood 7.01 Bedford 6.93 Stockton South 6.895 Wolverhampton South West 6.285 Amber Valley 6.06 Hendon 5.95 Ealing Central and Acton 5.935 Brighton Kemptown 5.895 Carlisle 5.76 Warwickshire North 5.69 Dewsbury 5.65 Stroud 5.485 Waveney 5.16 Thurrock 5.15 Gloucester 4.86 Morecambe and Lunesdale 4.855 Ipswich 4.685 Chester, City of 4.025 Hastings and Rye 3.855 Corby 3.72 Bristol North West 3.705 Worcester 3.635 Colne Valley 3.53 Bury North 3.51 Erewash 3.505 Kingswood 3.315 Nuneaton 3.025 Halesowen and Rowley Regis 2.805 Enfield North 2.265 Wirral West 2.23 Pendle 2.135 Loughborough 2.075 Warwick and Leamington 1.985 High Peak 1.63 Somerset North East 1.565 Cannock Chase 1.475 Blackpool North and Cleveleys 1.36 Swindon South 1.295 Keighley 1.24 Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and 0.755 Croydon Central 0.615 Stevenage 0.31 Calder Valley 0.17 Elmet and Rothwell 0.065 Harrow East 0.045
So half the 2010 LibDem vote are actually Labour supporters who somehow failed to vote Labour in 2010 in Labour marginal seats ?
And yet we're repeatedly told that the most potent force in British elections is anti-Conservative tactical voting.
These two theories are mutually exclusive.
Now there is an element of leftists who voted LibDem in 2010 but who would vote Labour in 2015.
But I doubt its anywhere near half and it will be concentrated in various urban and university constituencies.
What you need to do is calculate the increase in the LibDem vote between 2001 and 2010 to see what the potential for Labour gaining votes from 2010 LibDems is.
Which shows that in the likes of Warwickshire North, Hendon and Thurrock the LibDem vote increased by less than 1% ie the LibDem vote in these areas is core and very unlike to change much either way.
While in the likes of Manchester Withington, Hornsey and Sheffield Central it increased by over 20% and thus at risk of an equally rapid fall.
What we can say now is that yougov polls have lost their credibility as they are way out of step with other good polling companies. Peter Kellener has never been at all supportive of Labour (he let his mask slip in a tv interview a few years ago) Compare the yougov poll with Opinium and ICM and you can see a huge disparity. Yougov reckon they are the creme de la creme of opinion polling as you can all read on the website Uk polling report and it's editor Anthony Wells will not contemplate having the slightest criticism of yougov as any person doing so are banned from posting and he will only allow comments from subservient supporters.
What we can say now is that yougov polls have lost their credibility as they are way out of step with other good polling companies. Peter Kellener has never been at all supportive of Labour (he let his mask slip in a tv interview a few years ago) Compare the yougov poll with Opinium and ICM and you can see a huge disparity. Yougov reckon they are the creme de la creme of opinion polling as you can all read on the website Uk polling report and it's editor Anthony Wells will not contemplate having the slightest criticism of yougov as any person doing so are banned from posting and he will only allow comments from subservient supporters.
Sorry YouGov is not "out of step" with other polling companies at all.
ComRes 23/6/13 gave Labour a 6% lead.
MORI 10/6/13 gave Labour a 4% lead.
ICM 9/6/13 gave Labour a 7% lead.
Labour's lead has been slowly deflating for a while now. RodCrosby's swingback model backs this up, too. The Ed's are in big, big trouble from what I can see...
OT. I'm looking for a power drill with attachments that both drill and countersink but without those fiddly catches on the carrycase which always difficult to open quickly, especially in cold weather. Brrr.
Can anyone help?
Sorry, I can't help, tim, but I'm intrigued as to why you need to be able to countersink quickly in cold weather?
It would be interesting to go through the list of Labour target seats and see what happens when you give them half the 2010 LibDem vote. I wonder if you wouldn't find that a fair few of Labour's most winnable seats were actually seats that the Tories won in 2005, not 2010.
Take that back, I just tried it. It turns out that if you give Labour half the LibDem vote, you get a total of 57 Lab gains from Con, but all except 4 were seats Con gained in 2010. Here's my list of notional Labour majorities in seats currently held by Con, assuming half the 2010 LibDems just realigned:
Warrington South 10.925 Plymouth Sutton and Devonport 9.715 [...cont'd...]
Presumably you have a spreadsheet? Would be interested to see what happens if they only get 25% of the LibDem 2010 vote (i.e. half of defectors return) - only if it is easy though...
Another person making the assumption that half of the 2010 LibDem vote is made up of Labour defectors.
Take a look at the individual constituencies.
In some there's been no change in the LibDem vote from 2001 (Labour certain landslide), 2005 (Labour hanging on) and 2010 (Conservatives going for a majority).
In other words in much of the country, and in particular those Con-Lab marginal seats which are hardest fought over, the LibDem vote is already at core levels. It is not going to change much one way or another.
The places where there will be a big LibDem to Labour swing are the same places where there was a big Labour to LibDem swing from 2001 to 2010.
A general election isn't a UNS election its 650 individual battles each with its own dynamic.
Mike headlining with "Kellner says" reminds me of another "Kellner says" moment.
Back in May 2011, in a remarkable move for a pollster, he wrote an open letter to Alex Salmond just after his election victory. (Did he write an open letter to David Cameron in May 2010, just after his election victory? If not, why not?)
In it Kellner made 3 predictions. Prediction number 1 has yet to be tested, but the failure of prediction numbers 2 and 3 prove that Kellner is not the all knowing seer that he (and, in fairness, many others) like to think he is:
Certainly full of himself and going by the results so far his opinion of himself seems to be at odds with reality.
Kellner's second prediction was that Salmond would wriggle out of an in/out referendum and get DevoMax on the ballot. How did that work out?
Devomax was his worst option.
"The Scottish referendum in 2014 will ask people one question – whether they think Scotland should be an independent country. Yet many surveys and polls suggest that another option – significantly extending the powers of the Scottish Parliament – might be better able than independence to attract support from a majority of Scots."
I am too busy laughing at the stupidity of the unionist media. Hee Haw Hee Haw lap it up
That's the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey, not previously denounced as "stupid Unionist media,"
I was not referring to your quote , I was talking about today's media blindly printing the stupid mobile phone charges story put out by Westminster, despite having the reality that the charges are dropping and will be banned by 2015. They are so stupid it is unbelievable. It is very clear people would choose Devo max if it was on offer , but Cameron chose to gamble and he cannot win now , it is either lose or give out more powers. he has been led by the nose by Salmond who now cannot lose.
he has been led by the nose by Salmond who now cannot lose.
What odds will you give me for a £100 stake that Scotland votes NO to independence?
Charles, Salmond now cannot lose , he either wins the vote OR the unionists are forced to give the extended powers and when they renege as usual he will be proven correct and easily win the popular vote and the next referendum vote. Cameron could have set the pace and at least delayed the inevitable fora minimum of a generation but is not very bright and surrounded by people of the same ilk, having donkey Moore as your negotiator says it all.
I wouldn't be surprised to see a generous offer after a No vote. How do you know that's not Cameron's game plan. It's certainly the approach I've been advocating.
Because YouGov poll much more frequently than the others there will be much greater variation - but they're still all pretty much within MOE of each other.
Since the beginning of the year it's pretty clear Labour's lead has slipped by about 2 points. There may be evidence - but I wouldn't put any money on it - that things have softened further over June - but it's too soon to say.
It would be interesting to go through the list of Labour target seats and see what happens when you give them half the 2010 LibDem vote. I wonder if you wouldn't find that a fair few of Labour's most winnable seats were actually seats that the Tories won in 2005, not 2010.
Take that back, I just tried it. It turns out that if you give Labour half the LibDem vote, you get a total of 57 Lab gains from Con, but all except 4 were seats Con gained in 2010. Here's my list of notional Labour majorities in seats currently held by Con, assuming half the 2010 LibDems just realigned:
Warrington South 10.925 Plymouth Sutton and Devonport 9.715 [...cont'd...]
Presumably you have a spreadsheet? Would be interested to see what happens if they only get 25% of the LibDem 2010 vote (i.e. half of defectors return) - only if it is easy though...
Another person making the assumption that half of the 2010 LibDem vote is made up of Labour defectors.
Take a look at the individual constituencies.
In some there's been no change in the LibDem vote from 2001 (Labour certain landslide), 2005 (Labour hanging on) and 2010 (Conservatives going for a majority).
In other words in much of the country, and in particular those Con-Lab marginal seats which are hardest fought over, the LibDem vote is already at core levels. It is not going to change much one way or another.
The places where there will be a big LibDem to Labour swing are the same places where there was a big Labour to LibDem swing from 2001 to 2010.
A general election isn't a UNS election its 650 individual battles each with its own dynamic.
Of course UNS has its weaknesses, but wanted a rough proxy.
Based on polls, the LibDems have lost c. 50-60% of their 2010 voters, mainly to Labour. I assume half of those will return to the LibDems at the GE. The point was that LibDem defectors alone aren't enough to secure a majority for Labour.
Mike headlining with "Kellner says" reminds me of another "Kellner says" moment.
Back in May 2011, in a remarkable move for a pollster, he wrote an open letter to Alex Salmond just after his election victory. (Did he write an open letter to David Cameron in May 2010, just after his election victory? If not, why not?)
In it Kellner made 3 predictions. Prediction number 1 has yet to be tested, but the failure of prediction numbers 2 and 3 prove that Kellner is not the all knowing seer that he (and, in fairness, many others) like to think he is:
Certainly full of himself and going by the results so far his opinion of himself seems to be at odds with reality.
Kellner's second prediction was that Salmond would wriggle out of an in/out referendum and get DevoMax on the ballot. How did that work out?
Devomax was his worst option.
"The Scottish referendum in 2014 will ask people one question – whether they think Scotland should be an independent country. Yet many surveys and polls suggest that another option – significantly extending the powers of the Scottish Parliament – might be better able than independence to attract support from a majority of Scots."
I am too busy laughing at the stupidity of the unionist media. Hee Haw Hee Haw lap it up
That's the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey, not previously denounced as "stupid Unionist media,"
I was not referring to your quote , I was talking about today's media blindly printing the stupid mobile phone charges story put out by Westminster, despite having the reality that the charges are dropping and will be banned by 2015. They are so stupid it is unbelievable. It is very clear people would choose Devo max if it was on offer , but Cameron chose to gamble and he cannot win now , it is either lose or give out more powers. he has been led by the nose by Salmond who now cannot lose.
he has been led by the nose by Salmond who now cannot lose.
What odds will you give me for a £100 stake that Scotland votes NO to independence?
Charles, Salmond now cannot lose , he either wins the vote OR the unionists are forced to give the extended powers and when they renege as usual he will be proven correct and easily win the popular vote and the next referendum vote. Cameron could have set the pace and at least delayed the inevitable fora minimum of a generation but is not very bright and surrounded by people of the same ilk, having donkey Moore as your negotiator says it all.
I wouldn't be surprised to see a generous offer after a No vote. How do you know that's not Cameron's game plan. It's certainly the approach I've been advocating.
Agree - a generous offer was what got Cameron the Coalition, so I too would not be surprised to see that after a "no" vote to independence - he wants to kick this into the long grass - not have a second term dominated by haggling with Scotland.
It would be interesting to go through the list of Labour target seats and see what happens when you give them half the 2010 LibDem vote. I wonder if you wouldn't find that a fair few of Labour's most winnable seats were actually seats that the Tories won in 2005, not 2010.
Take that back, I just tried it. It turns out that if you give Labour half the LibDem vote, you get a total of 57 Lab gains from Con, but all except 4 were seats Con gained in 2010. Here's my list of notional Labour majorities in seats currently held by Con, assuming half the 2010 LibDems just realigned:
Warrington South 10.925 Plymouth Sutton and Devonport 9.715 [...cont'd...]
Presumably you have a spreadsheet? Would be interested to see what happens if they only get 25% of the LibDem 2010 vote (i.e. half of defectors return) - only if it is easy though...
Another person making the assumption that half of the 2010 LibDem vote is made up of Labour defectors.
Take a look at the individual constituencies.
In some there's been no change in the LibDem vote from 2001 (Labour certain landslide), 2005 (Labour hanging on) and 2010 (Conservatives going for a majority).
In other words in much of the country, and in particular those Con-Lab marginal seats which are hardest fought over, the LibDem vote is already at core levels. It is not going to change much one way or another.
The places where there will be a big LibDem to Labour swing are the same places where there was a big Labour to LibDem swing from 2001 to 2010.
A general election isn't a UNS election its 650 individual battles each with its own dynamic.
Of course UNS has its weaknesses, but wanted a rough proxy.
Based on polls, the LibDems have lost c. 50-60% of their 2010 voters, mainly to Labour. I assume half of those will return to the LibDems at the GE. The point was that LibDem defectors alone aren't enough to secure a majority for Labour.
The 2015 general election will be decided by the same sorts of people voting in the same sorts of places that all the other general elections have been dcided in.
Namely lower middle and skilled working class Con/Lab swing voters in constituencies which sound like the names of lower division football clubs.
The obsession about what former LibDem voters will or will not do is because politicans, political commentators and political blog posters all want elections to be decided by nice middle class 'people like me' rather than 'people like them' lower down the socioeconomic scale.
Mike headlining with "Kellner says" reminds me of another "Kellner says" moment.
Back in May 2011, in a remarkable move for a pollster, he wrote an open letter to Alex Salmond just after his election victory. (Did he write an open letter to David Cameron in May 2010, just after his election victory? If not, why not?)
In it Kellner made 3 predictions. Prediction number 1 has yet to be tested, but the failure of prediction numbers 2 and 3 prove that Kellner is not the all knowing seer that he (and, in fairness, many others) like to think he is:
Certainly full of himself and going by the results so far his opinion of himself seems to be at odds with reality.
Kellner's second prediction was that Salmond would wriggle out of an in/out referendum and get DevoMax on the ballot. How did that work out?
Devomax was his worst option.
"The Scottish referendum in 2014 will ask people one question – whether they think Scotland should be an independent country. Yet many surveys and polls suggest that another option – significantly extending the powers of the Scottish Parliament – might be better able than independence to attract support from a majority of Scots."
I am too busy laughing at the stupidity of the unionist media. Hee Haw Hee Haw lap it up
That's the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey, not previously denounced as "stupid Unionist media,"
I was not referring to your quote , I was talking about today's media blindly printing the stupid mobile phone charges story put out by Westminster, despite having the reality that the charges are dropping and will be banned by 2015. They are so stupid it is unbelievable. It is very clear people would choose Devo max if it was on offer , but Cameron chose to gamble and he cannot win now , it is either lose or give out more powers. he has been led by the nose by Salmond who now cannot lose.
he has been led by the nose by Salmond who now cannot lose.
What odds will you give me for a £100 stake that Scotland votes NO to independence?
Charles, Salmond now cannot lose , he either wins the vote OR the unionists are forced to give the extended powers and when they renege as usual he will be proven correct and easily win the popular vote and the next referendum vote. Cameron could have set the pace and at least delayed the inevitable fora minimum of a generation but is not very bright and surrounded by people of the same ilk, having donkey Moore as your negotiator says it all.
I wouldn't be surprised to see a generous offer after a No vote. How do you know that's not Cameron's game plan. It's certainly the approach I've been advocating.
Charles, we would have heard of it by now, history shows they will welch on it in any case , it is in their DNA to only cede powers when they are absolutely forced to and even then they make them as neutered as possible. They will prove true to their past and if NO is the vote we will have future turmoils as people get really annoyed at being cheated. Personally I think enough people will have the sense to realise this prior to the event and will vote YES.
It's lucky for you as a Scottish taxpayer that Salmond is boycotting the Open in Scotland . On these junkets he tends to be wildly open handed with other people's money.
Any view as to whether this Unionist jamboree is better value for our 500K?
'There will be 57 parades through Glasgow next Saturday, as about 4500 members of the Protestant Orange Order and tens of thousands of supporters gather in the city for the organisation's biggest event outside of Northern Ireland. It is estimated the cost of policing the event will be more than £500,000 despite the Orange Order using its own members to steward the parade and police numbers being cut back in recent years.'
In other words in much of the country, and in particular those Con-Lab marginal seats which are hardest fought over, the LibDem vote is already at core levels. It is not going to change much one way or another.
The places where there will be a big LibDem to Labour swing are the same places where there was a big Labour to LibDem swing from 2001 to 2010.
A general election isn't a UNS election its 650 individual battles each with its own dynamic.
Yes, that is quite right. Nonetheless I think it's useful to think about four broad categories of seat (I'm excluding Scotland from this quick overview):
1) Seats where the LibDems/Liberals have traditionally been strong, or where they have a well dug-in MP with a strong personal vote (such as Lewes or Berwick-Upon-Tweed). Here I'd expect their vote to remain firm, although they might hit problems in a few cases where popular MPs decide to retire in 2015.
2) Seats which Labour won in recent elections but where there was an Iraq or tuition-fee protest shift to the LibDems. I'd expect the LibDem vote to collapse in such seats, but the electoral effect of this may not much matter because the Tories are not in contention; the effect will simply be increased Labour majorities. Many of these seats are in the North.
3) Con/LD battlegrounds, mainly in the South of England. These are the seats where Labour-leaning tactical voting has been a key factor. Some of those tactical voters are very disgruntled but a substantial proportion of them will hold their noses and vote LD when push comes to shove. The big unknown is how substantial a proportion.
4) Con/Lab marginals. As you rightly say, the LibDem vote here really can't have been tactical, so it's probably mainly a core LD vote, or perhaps a 'None of the Above' vote. Logically, one might expect relatively little shift from the LibDems towards Labour in such cases - after all, why didn't they vote Labour last time? Nonetheless, even a small shift in these marginals could have big effect on seat numbers, so this is still a danger to the Tories.
Mike headlining with "Kellner says" reminds me of another "Kellner says" moment.
Back in May 2011, in a remarkable move for a pollster, he wrote an open letter to Alex Salmond just after his election victory. (Did he write an open letter to David Cameron in May 2010, just after his election victory? If not, why not?)
In it Kellner made 3 predictions. Prediction number 1 has yet to be tested, but the failure of prediction numbers 2 and 3 prove that Kellner is not the all knowing seer that he (and, in fairness, many others) like to think he is:
Certainly full of himself and going by the results so far his opinion of himself seems to be at odds with reality.
Kellner's second prediction was that Salmond would wriggle out of an in/out referendum and get DevoMax on the ballot. How did that work out?
Devomax was his worst option.
"The Scottish referendum in 2014 will ask people one question – whether they think Scotland should be an independent country. Yet many surveys and polls suggest that another option – significantly extending the powers of the Scottish Parliament – might be better able than independence to attract support from a majority of Scots."
I am too busy laughing at the stupidity of the unionist media. Hee Haw Hee Haw lap it up
That's the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey, not previously denounced as "stupid Unionist media,"
I was not referring to your quote , I was talking about today's media blindly printing the stupid mobile phone charges story put out by Westminster, despite having the reality that the charges are dropping and will be banned by 2015. They are so stupid it is unbelievable. It is very clear people would choose Devo max if it was on offer , but Cameron chose to gamble and he cannot win now , it is either lose or give out more powers. he has been led by the nose by Salmond who now cannot lose.
he has been led by the nose by Salmond who now cannot lose.
What odds will you give me for a £100 stake that Scotland votes NO to independence?
Charles, Salmond now cannot lose , he either wins the vote OR the unionists are forced to give the extended powers and when they renege as usual he will be proven correct and easily win the popular vote and the next referendum vote. Cameron could have set the pace and at least delayed the inevitable fora minimum of a generation but is not very bright and surrounded by people of the same ilk, having donkey Moore as your negotiator says it all.
I wouldn't be surprised to see a generous offer after a No vote. How do you know that's not Cameron's game plan. It's certainly the approach I've been advocating.
Charles, we would have heard of it by now
Why do the work if you don't even know if Scotland will still be in the Union in 2016?
Had Salmond got his "three question referendum" it would be a valid point.
It would be interesting to go through the list of Labour target seats and see what happens when you give them half the 2010 LibDem vote. I wonder if you wouldn't find that a fair few of Labour's most winnable seats were actually seats that the Tories won in 2005, not 2010.
Take that back, I just tried it. It turns out that if you give Labour half the LibDem vote, you get a total of 57 Lab gains from Con, but all except 4 were seats Con gained in 2010. Here's my list of notional Labour majorities in seats currently held by Con, assuming half the 2010 LibDems just realigned:
Warrington South 10.925 Plymouth Sutton and Devonport 9.715 [...cont'd...]
Presumably you have a spreadsheet? Would be interested to see what happens if they only get 25% of the LibDem 2010 vote (i.e. half of defectors return) - only if it is easy though...
Another person making the assumption that half of the 2010 LibDem vote is made up of Labour defectors.
Take a look at the individual constituencies.
In some there's been no change in the LibDem vote from 2001 (Labour certain landslide), 2005 (Labour hanging on) and 2010 (Conservatives going for a majority).
In other words in much of the country, and in particular those Con-Lab marginal seats which are hardest fought over, the LibDem vote is already at core levels. It is not going to change much one way or another.
The places where there will be a big LibDem to Labour swing are the same places where there was a big Labour to LibDem swing from 2001 to 2010.
A general election isn't a UNS election its 650 individual battles each with its own dynamic.
Of course UNS has its weaknesses, but wanted a rough proxy.
Based on polls, the LibDems have lost c. 50-60% of their 2010 voters, mainly to Labour. I assume half of those will return to the LibDems at the GE. The point was that LibDem defectors alone aren't enough to secure a majority for Labour.
The 2015 general election will be decided by the same sorts of people voting in the same sorts of places that all the other general elections have been dcided in.
Namely lower middle and skilled working class Con/Lab swing voters in constituencies which sound like the names of lower division football clubs.
The obsession about what former LibDem voters will or will not do is because politicans, political commentators and political blog posters all want elections to be decided by nice middle class 'people like me' rather than 'people like them' lower down the socioeconomic scale.
As you said, it depends on where the votes shift, but the Lib Dem -> Labour shift has been the biggest and most prominent change since the election.
IIRC, the marginal poll (18 months ago?) didn't show a dramatic difference in the battleground seats vs. national
I wouldn't be surprised to see a generous offer after a No vote. How do you know that's not Cameron's game plan. It's certainly the approach I've been advocating.
I'd be surprised. The Tories opposed Devolution in '79, Thatcher reneged on Douglas-Home's promise of further powers, they opposed Devolution in '97 and Davidson said they had drawn a line in the sand over further powers (though she is all over the shop on the issue). Leopards, spots etc.
Mike headlining with "Kellner says" reminds me of another "Kellner says" moment.
Back in May 2011, in a remarkable move for a pollster, he wrote an open letter to Alex Salmond just after his election victory. (Did he write an open letter to David Cameron in May 2010, just after his election victory? If not, why not?)
In it Kellner made 3 predictions. Prediction number 1 has yet to be tested, but the failure of prediction numbers 2 and 3 prove that Kellner is not the all knowing seer that he (and, in fairness, many others) like to think he is:
Certainly full of himself and going by the results so far his opinion of himself seems to be at odds with reality.
Kellner's second prediction was that Salmond would wriggle out of an in/out referendum and get DevoMax on the ballot. How did that work out?
Devomax was his worst option.
"The Scottish referendum in 2014 will ask people one question – whether they think Scotland should be an independent country. Yet many surveys and polls suggest that another option – significantly extending the powers of the Scottish Parliament – might be better able than independence to attract support from a majority of Scots."
I am too busy laughing at the stupidity of the unionist media. Hee Haw Hee Haw lap it up
That's the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey, not previously denounced as "stupid Unionist media,"
I was not referring to your quote , I was talking about today's media blindly printing the stupid mobile phone charges story put out by Westminster, despite having the reality that the charges are dropping and will be banned by 2015. They are so stupid it is unbelievable. It is very clear people would choose Devo max if it was on offer , but Cameron chose to gamble and he cannot win now , it is either lose or give out more powers. he has been led by the nose by Salmond who now cannot lose.
he has been led by the nose by Salmond who now cannot lose.
What odds will you give me for a £100 stake that Scotland votes NO to independence?
Charles, Salmond now cannot lose , he either wins the vote OR the unionists are forced to give the extended powers and when they renege as usual he will be proven correct and easily win the popular vote and the next referendum vote. Cameron could have set the pace and at least delayed the inevitable fora minimum of a generation but is not very bright and surrounded by people of the same ilk, having donkey Moore as your negotiator says it all.
I wouldn't be surprised to see a generous offer after a No vote. How do you know that's not Cameron's game plan. It's certainly the approach I've been advocating.
Charles, we would have heard of it by now
Why do the work if you don't even know if Scotland will still be in the Union in 2016?
Had Salmond got his "three question referendum" it would be a valid point.
But he didn't, so it isn't.
Also any work would likely leak out and undermine the NO story.
It's lucky for you as a Scottish taxpayer that Salmond is boycotting the Open in Scotland . On these junkets he tends to be wildly open handed with other people's money.
Difficult to say - one works out at £12,500/ head with the money spent in the US - the other at ~ £30/ head with the money all spent in Scotland - what do you think?
I wouldn't be surprised to see a generous offer after a No vote. How do you know that's not Cameron's game plan. It's certainly the approach I've been advocating.
I'd be surprised. The Tories opposed Devolution in '79, Thatcher reneged on Home's promise of further powers, they opposed Devolution in '97 and Davidson said they had drawn a line in the sand over further powers (though she is all over the shop on the issue). Leopards, spots etc.
Cameron is closer to being a liberal unionist than the Tory leadership at those times. He also studied under Andrew Gailey who has some very distinctive (and persuasive) view on these matters.
Dr Andrew Gailey, has taught in the history department at Eton College since 1981 and was a house master from 1993 to 2006. A graduate of both St Andrews and Cambridge, he is the author of numerous studies of Anglo-Irish relations in the 19th and 20th centuries, with a particular research interest in constructive unionism. He is presently working on a biography of the 1st Marquess Dufferin and Ava. As well as being a fellow of Eton, he is a governor of three other schools and a trustee on charitable bodies such as the Dufferin Foundation.
Based on polls, the LibDems have lost c. 50-60% of their 2010 voters, mainly to Labour. I assume half of those will return to the LibDems at the GE. The point was that LibDem defectors alone aren't enough to secure a majority for Labour.
On what do you base that assumption? My impression (anecdotal, but rather a lot of anecdotes) is that the LD->Lab switchers are on average more motivated ("No way I'm voting for that lot in a General Election ever again!") than the people who usually vote Labour ("I suppose so, I usually do"). I'd be astonished if anything like half the switchers went back to the LibDems, except in seats that the LibDems already hold. That applies particularly in seats where the LibDems had quite a large share in 2005 so could do their usual bar chart stuff to persuade people that "only we can beat the Tories this time". It's not a trick that will be easy to repeat in seats like Broxtowe (39/38/17) or Amber Valley (39/37/14) or Sherwood (39/39/15).
OT. I'm looking for a power drill with attachments that both drill and countersink but without those fiddly catches on the carrycase which always difficult to open quickly, especially in cold weather. Brrr.
Can anyone help?
Sorry, I can't help, tim, but I'm intrigued as to why you need to be able to countersink quickly in cold weather?
Based on polls, the LibDems have lost c. 50-60% of their 2010 voters, mainly to Labour. I assume half of those will return to the LibDems at the GE. The point was that LibDem defectors alone aren't enough to secure a majority for Labour.
On what do you base that assumption? My impression (anecdotal, but rather a lot of anecdotes) is that the LD->Lab switchers are on average more motivated ("No way I'm voting for that lot in a General Election ever again!") than the people who usually vote Labour ("I suppose so, I usually do"). I'd be astonished if anything like half the switchers went back to the LibDems, except in seats that the LibDems already hold. That applies particularly in seats where the LibDems had quite a large share in 2005 so could do their usual bar chart stuff to persuade people that "only we can beat the Tories this time". It's not a trick that will be easy to repeat in seats like Broxtowe (39/38/17) or Amber Valley (39/37/14) or Sherwood (39/39/15).
On the assumption that the LibDems are more likely to poll 15% in the GE than 10%. Nothing more scientific than that.
Difficult to say - one works out at £12,500/head with the money spent in the US - the other at ~ £30/ head with the money all spent in Scotland - what do you think?
Ah, good old Unionist reductio ad absurdum. I guess you think that policing costs for EDL marches are of greater benefit than Prince Andrew's junkets? Airmiles Andy v. Tommy Robinson, no contest!
Difficult to say - one works out at £12,500/head with the money spent in the US - the other at ~ £30/ head with the money all spent in Scotland - what do you think?
Ah, good old Unionist reductio ad absurdum.
Just following good old SNP reductio ad absurdum.....unless you think the Orange Parades should be either banned or go unpoliced?
My friend's husband went to 'buggy fit' as she was ill and reckoned their baby enjoyed it. He was knackered when he got back.
Not barred then?
No. Just a bit embarrassed by his unmanly collapse on Hove Lawns at the end.
There blurb says they employ experts in post natal exercise, I imagine there will be more blokes in Hove doing that than in Hanley. I have no evidence for that whatsoever I'm just guessing.
No doubt
I think what may put him off from going again was the chatting about (his words) 'women's bits'.
Based on polls, the LibDems have lost c. 50-60% of their 2010 voters, mainly to Labour. I assume half of those will return to the LibDems at the GE. The point was that LibDem defectors alone aren't enough to secure a majority for Labour.
On what do you base that assumption? My impression (anecdotal, but rather a lot of anecdotes) is that the LD->Lab switchers are on average more motivated ("No way I'm voting for that lot in a General Election ever again!") than the people who usually vote Labour ("I suppose so, I usually do"). I'd be astonished if anything like half the switchers went back to the LibDems, except in seats that the LibDems already hold. That applies particularly in seats where the LibDems had quite a large share in 2005 so could do their usual bar chart stuff to persuade people that "only we can beat the Tories this time". It's not a trick that will be easy to repeat in seats like Broxtowe (39/38/17) or Amber Valley (39/37/14) or Sherwood (39/39/15).
Many of these so called LD to Lab switchers have not yet switched their vote at all . They have simply sat on their hands at the local elections and not voted at all . some others did switch to Labour in 2011 and 2012 and switched to UKIP in May . I seem to recall you complaining that in Broxtowe this May they stuck to the Lib Dems . For many voters voting is a once in every 5 years occurrence and it is very difficult to predict what they will do then 2 or 3 years before .
In other words in much of the country, and in particular those Con-Lab marginal seats which are hardest fought over, the LibDem vote is already at core levels. It is not going to change much one way or another.
The places where there will be a big LibDem to Labour swing are the same places where there was a big Labour to LibDem swing from 2001 to 2010.
A general election isn't a UNS election its 650 individual battles each with its own dynamic.
3) Con/LD battlegrounds, mainly in the South of England. These are the seats where Labour-leaning tactical voting has been a key factor. Some of those tactical voters are very disgruntled but a substantial proportion of them will hold their noses and vote LD when push comes to shove. The big unknown is how substantial a proportion.
4) Con/Lab marginals. As you rightly say, the LibDem vote here really can't have been tactical, so it's probably mainly a core LD vote, or perhaps a 'None of the Above' vote. Logically, one might expect relatively little shift from the LibDems towards Labour in such cases - after all, why didn't they vote Labour last time? Nonetheless, even a small shift in these marginals could have big effect on seat numbers, so this is still a danger to the Tories.
(3) Labour have made a bit of headway into the LD vote, but not a lot. The main problem the LDs face is an ageing and poorly motivated activist base. The tories are increasing having to deal with baggage they picked up in local govt since they won back power from 2000 onwards.
(4) In places like Crawley the LD vote, already squeezed, appears to have collapsed to benefit Labour almost entirely. "Why didn't they vote Labour last time?" In 2010 the LDs were an attractive receptacle for people tired of the Labour govt, but would never vote Tory.
Personally been a bit surprised how "up-for-it" the local Labour campaigners are in marginal seats. Seem like the most motivated of the bunch. Compared to 2010,2005, the next election looks a bit easier to campaign in.
Difficult to say - one works out at £12,500/head with the money spent in the US - the other at ~ £30/ head with the money all spent in Scotland - what do you think?
Ah, good old Unionist reductio ad absurdum.
Just following good old SNP reductio ad absurdum.....unless you think the Orange Parades should be either banned or go unpoliced?
I could see Eck in a bowler hat, he's got the build for it.
Just following good old SNP reductio ad absurdum.....unless you think the Orange Parades should be either banned or go unpoliced?
They should be charged for it, which the Lodges can pass onto their members if they so wish. Considering the amounts the diddies spend on booze, travel and their silly uniforms, £100 per head shouldn't be too much for the Orange Glasto.
Charles, we would have heard of it by now, history shows they will welch on it in any case , it is in their DNA to only cede powers when they are absolutely forced to and even then they make them as neutered as possible. They will prove true to their past and if NO is the vote we will have future turmoils as people get really annoyed at being cheated. Personally I think enough people will have the sense to realise this prior to the event and will vote YES.
Just following good old SNP reductio ad absurdum.....unless you think the Orange Parades should be either banned or go unpoliced?
They should be charged for it, which the Lodges can pass onto their members if they so wish. Considering the amounts the diddies spend on booze, travel and their silly uniforms, £100 per head shouldn't be too much for the Orange Glasto.
I assume you advocate the same for any and all parades and events where the police are needed. Remembrance Day Parades? Village Fetes? Carnivals? I wonder if the Notting Hill Carnival in London would still be able to go ahead if the police back-charged the organisers for the costs? And all the protest marches in London. Should the police charge everyone going on those protests to make sure their costs are covered?
Or is it the case that only things you (or I) disagree with should be charged?
Or is it the case that only things you (or I) disagree with should be charged?
I think ThUD has made a faux-pas: I really don't think the geezer is advocating that all-but "torch-lit led parades" should be self-financing in Scotland. He just dislikes one part of Scotland that is different from his part of Scotland: President Lee of Singapore prophosised this over twenty-years ago....
I assume you advocate the same for any and all parades and events where the police are needed. Remembrance Day Parades? Village Fetes? Carnivals? I wonder if the Notting Hill Carnival in London would still be able to go ahead if the police back-charged the organisers for the costs? And all the protest marches in London. Should the police charge everyone going on those protests to make sure their costs are covered?
Or is it the case that only things you (or I) disagree with should be charged?
I'd suggest that an event which has for decades had drunkenness, confrontation, violence and vomiting central to it, and causes substantial inconvenience to Glasgow's population, should be required to pay the majority of its costs. Football clubs do it, why not the Orange Order?
He just dislikes one part of Scotland that is different from his part of Scotland: President Lee of Singapore prophosised this over twenty-years ago....
He just dislikes one part of Scotland that is different from his part of Scotland: President Lee of Singapore prophosised this over twenty-years ago....
'Most devastatingly, Labour set up a supervisory body charged by Ministers with covering up every outrage to protect the NHS’s reputation (or rather the Government’s). Anyone who squawked about dying patients was bought off with money that might otherwise have helped dying patients. This ultimate example of Labour spin must have left the NHS’s founder Aneurin Bevan gyrating in his tomb. Labour has nursed the NHS from cradle to grave: once its midwife, it’s now killed it off.
Very worrying poll for Labour. The Balls and Miliband Osborne-Lite economic strategy was always a massive risk, and it looks to have backfired spectacularly.
The UKIP shrivelling vote share is also significant. The notion that Farage and co. will actually get any MPs is now strictly for the fairies, but they could still damage the Tory vote and let Labour in by the cellar door. The more UKIP is seen a merely a protest vote/novelty act, the more it will focus minds. I suspect the UKIP share has further to fall.
"If the Tories and Lib Dems fought together they’d keep their ministerial offices and limousines, and continue to do the right things for the UK. But too many backbenchers in both parties yearn for Opposition, preferring hallucinogenic ideological purity and political irrelevance to the mucky reality of governing."
Surely the UKIP polling figures are showing exactly what the LibDems have shown in recent years - when there is nothing in the news to encourage people to remember them, people think on a Labour-Tory axis.
Around election time, by-elections etc people remember there are minor parties and are prepared to vote for them.
UKIP will get another boost next May for the Euros, and although their poll figures are likely to drop off from current figures they may well start from a higher base than this year. We have to see whether they can maintain that momentum into the GE. We also need to see whether the LibDems still get some of their normal election boost, or if their poor figures are entirely due to their left-leaning supporters upset at their support for a Conservative-led coalition.
'For three years their argument has been that with interest rates so low, Britain should borrow and spend more. Yes, the Britain which has the highest annual budget deficit in the EU, and which (as Labour likes to remind us) is adding to the national debt hundreds of billions of pounds on top of what Osborne originally planned. Labour’s dreamy answer to the country’s debt problem goes down well with trade union leaders but to the public it now seems ridiculous. Families struggling with the mortgage, choking on yesteryear’s easy credit and drowning in plastic card interest payments cannot see how additional borrowing can make any more sense for government than it would for them.
Comments
"It's a sure sign that someone knows sod all when they post about anything but miniscule savings to be had in this area"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2351736/Miliband-Ill-scrap-MPs-10-000-pay-rise.html
"OT.
I'm looking for a power drill with attachments that both drill and countersink but without those fiddly catches on the carrycase which always difficult to open quickly, especially in cold weather.
Brrr.
Can anyone help?"
Made me LOL!!
It is very clear people would choose Devo max if it was on offer , but Cameron chose to gamble and he cannot win now , it is either lose or give out more powers. he has been led by the nose by Salmond who now cannot lose.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/nsa-spied-on-european-union-offices-a-908590.html
The greatest championship in golf should not be tarnished by allocating the honour of hosting to such a club.
The R&A should set an example for the future of golf and exclude from the Open rota those clubs that demean the sport with their bans on women membership.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2351750/Is-Sarah-Palin-leave-Republican-Party-Tea-Party-celebrity-hints-independent-start-new-Freedom-Party.html
But the fundamental point is one of mission creep.
The NHS should provide treatment for disease and a emergency response service.
Elective surgeries, unless there is a significant health risk, should not be carried out on the taxpayers purse. (I suspect that there is probably a rule in place, but in too many cases 'mental distress' is used as a reason to qualify people for free treatment). As always there are grey areas (e.g. the difference between cosmetic weight reduction proceedures and weight reduction proceedures conducted in order to reduce the risk of a patient developing metabolic syndrome).
Moreover, it's not just the actual cost, but the opportunity cost that needs to be considered. Operating theatres are very expensive facilities and throughput needs to be optimised.
What odds will you give me for a £100 stake that Scotland votes NO to independence?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2351736/Miliband-Ill-scrap-MPs-10-000-pay-rise.html
All Democrats will be praying Palin does this.
Sadly, all too often, tim is just rude in an unprovoked assault. Usually on women though - suspect he must be a little bit, shall we say, frustrated
In the UK by any conventional standards an opposition mid term where the government has just announced £11.5bn of cuts that is only 5% ahead is surely toast. The problem is, as SO pointed out downthread is to work out what effect the Coalition factor is having.
Again logically it seems to me that it ought to be creating even bigger Labour leads as it does not have to share the anti government premium but it is clearly not working out like that. The most remarkable thing in this Parliament is how robust the tory vote has been. In this poll they are 3% off what they got in the GE. Even when the UKIP surge was at it's peak they lost a maximum of about 9%.
It gives Cameron an excellent base from which to work but the level of Lib Dem returners probably remains the key along with the greater efficiency of the Labour vote. Still have Labour as favourites for largest party but less convinced they will get an overall majority.
It's a disgrace to the sport.
IMO not one penny piece of public money or support should be proffered to male only clubs and I include in that the BBC televising the event.
It's completely wrong that the presence of male wedding tackle should define membership just as it is the colour of a persons skin.
The US Masters was forced to dismantle its effective colour bar on membership when Tiger Woods came on the scene. It's time to tackle the outmoded female bar on membership.
"Not a thing I say and do lightly but a hearty cheer for Salmond for boycotting Muirfield for its retention of the ban on womens membership"
It's usually done more subtly. Women playing members are given the 6pm till midnight slot in winter which reduces to 10pm till midnight in summer (Tuesdays and Thursdays only)
I agree Jack, I think this is the right call by Salmond. Even if he has not been entirely consistent with this in the past peoples' positions can and should evolve (as we have seen in the gay marriage debate) and coming up for the 100 year anniversary of women getting the vote seems to me a good time for golf clubs to move on.
He is right to raise the issue and right on his position. (I am going for a lie down now).
"Usually on women though -"
We're all unisex on the internet
Perhaps that keen royal golfer the Duke of York might lobby his mother to rescind the royal status of Royal Troon, Royal St Georges and even the Royal and Ancient itself and no honours for the top bananas. That might focus the minds a wee bit.
Unckie,
You lose [the vote] you lose [all hope]. Your sides losing 'cause of the morons running the campaign: Time for change Malc; or too timid to change...?
:freedom-for-engurlundt:
As Tim has brought up the Immigration polls, here is the full set:
Do you think immigration into Britain over the
last ten years has been good or bad for
Britain's economy?
Good: 19(0)
Bad: 56(-1)
Neither: 18(-1)
DK: 7(+1)
Generally speaking, do you think immigrants
who come to work in Britain are more hard
working than people who are born here, less
hard working, or is there no real difference?
Immigrants who come to work in Britain are more
hard-working than people who are born here. 32
Immigrants who come to work in Britain are less
hard-working than people who are born here. 12
No difference. 46
DK. 10
Thinking about different types of people who
want to come and live in the UK, to what extent
should the following groups of people be
allowed to come and live in Britain?
People with low levels of education and skills,
looking for low paid work
We should allow more of this group: 4
We should allow the present numbers of this group: 17
We should allow less of this group: 31
We should not allow this group at all: 39
DK: 10
People with high levels of education and skills,
looking for high paid jobs
We should allow more of this group: 21
We should allow the present numbers of this group: 43
We should allow less of this group: 19
We should not allow this group at all: 9
DK: 9
People with family already in the UK, coming to
live with their relatives
We should allow more of this group: 7
We should allow the present numbers of this group: 24
We should allow less of this group: 33
We should not allow this group at all: 26
DK: 10
People fleeing persecution or war in other
countries
We should allow more of this group: 14
We should allow the present numbers of this group: 33
We should allow less of this group: 25
We should not allow this group at all: 17
DK: 10
People paying to study in British universities
We should allow more of this group: 22
We should allow the present numbers of this group: 43
We should allow less of this group: 18
We should not allow this group at all: 9
DK: 8
Would you support or oppose the following
policies
Requiring visitors from countries the
government regards as a high risk for illegal
immigration (such as India and Pakistan) to pay
a bond of £3000 when they arrive in Britain,
repayable when they leave?
Support: 71
Oppose: 16
DK: 13
Requiring people claiming benefits who do not
speak English to take English language
lessons or risk having their benefits stopped?
Support: 84
Oppose: 8
DK: 7
http://goo.gl/PZwRo
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jun/29/douglas-hurd-eu-referendum
Do you trust the police more or less than you
did five years ago?
Trust the police more than I did five years ago: 5
Trust the police less than I did five years ago: 26
No difference - I trusted the police and I still do: 48
No difference - I did not trust the police and I still don't: 15
DK: 6
http://goo.gl/dzVtu
YouGov/Telegraph 2008-06-26 Con 46% Lab 28% Lib-Dem 15% Con Lead 18%
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-2005-2010
Labour's mid term position is utterly dreadful (and getting worse) IMO.
Not only do I think a Lab majority is pretty much out the window on the current evidence I could actually see Labour losing the election in terms of both share of the vote and seats, which will probably leave us with the prospect of another Con-Lib coalition.
Same slippery slope saw women get the same prize money in tennis for just 3 sets.
Dads - try turning up for a mums buggy fit class and see how welcome you are.
And yet we're repeatedly told that the most potent force in British elections is anti-Conservative tactical voting.
These two theories are mutually exclusive.
Now there is an element of leftists who voted LibDem in 2010 but who would vote Labour in 2015.
But I doubt its anywhere near half and it will be concentrated in various urban and university constituencies.
What you need to do is calculate the increase in the LibDem vote between 2001 and 2010 to see what the potential for Labour gaining votes from 2010 LibDems is.
Which shows that in the likes of Warwickshire North, Hendon and Thurrock the LibDem vote increased by less than 1% ie the LibDem vote in these areas is core and very unlike to change much either way.
While in the likes of Manchester Withington, Hornsey and Sheffield Central it increased by over 20% and thus at risk of an equally rapid fall.
Compare the yougov poll with Opinium and ICM and you can see a huge disparity. Yougov reckon they are the creme de la creme of opinion polling as you can all read on the website Uk polling report and it's editor Anthony Wells will not contemplate having the slightest criticism of yougov as any person doing so are banned from posting and he will only allow comments from subservient supporters.
ComRes 23/6/13 gave Labour a 6% lead.
MORI 10/6/13 gave Labour a 4% lead.
ICM 9/6/13 gave Labour a 7% lead.
Labour's lead has been slowly deflating for a while now. RodCrosby's swingback model backs this up, too. The Ed's are in big, big trouble from what I can see...
Another person making the assumption that half of the 2010 LibDem vote is made up of Labour defectors.
Take a look at the individual constituencies.
In some there's been no change in the LibDem vote from 2001 (Labour certain landslide), 2005 (Labour hanging on) and 2010 (Conservatives going for a majority).
In other words in much of the country, and in particular those Con-Lab marginal seats which are hardest fought over, the LibDem vote is already at core levels. It is not going to change much one way or another.
The places where there will be a big LibDem to Labour swing are the same places where there was a big Labour to LibDem swing from 2001 to 2010.
A general election isn't a UNS election its 650 individual battles each with its own dynamic.
YouGov: +5
ComRes: +6
Opinium: +9
TNS-BRMB: +9
Ipsos-Mori: +4
ICM:+7
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/uk-polling-report-average-2
Because YouGov poll much more frequently than the others there will be much greater variation - but they're still all pretty much within MOE of each other.
Since the beginning of the year it's pretty clear Labour's lead has slipped by about 2 points. There may be evidence - but I wouldn't put any money on it - that things have softened further over June - but it's too soon to say.
Take a look at the individual constituencies.
In some there's been no change in the LibDem vote from 2001 (Labour certain landslide), 2005 (Labour hanging on) and 2010 (Conservatives going for a majority).
In other words in much of the country, and in particular those Con-Lab marginal seats which are hardest fought over, the LibDem vote is already at core levels. It is not going to change much one way or another.
The places where there will be a big LibDem to Labour swing are the same places where there was a big Labour to LibDem swing from 2001 to 2010.
A general election isn't a UNS election its 650 individual battles each with its own dynamic.
Of course UNS has its weaknesses, but wanted a rough proxy.
Based on polls, the LibDems have lost c. 50-60% of their 2010 voters, mainly to Labour. I assume half of those will return to the LibDems at the GE. The point was that LibDem defectors alone aren't enough to secure a majority for Labour.
Welcome to the modern world, tim
Forced into insults because you've nothing positive to say about Labour I suppose...
Roast pork lunch doth beckoneth.
Based on polls, the LibDems have lost c. 50-60% of their 2010 voters, mainly to Labour. I assume half of those will return to the LibDems at the GE. The point was that LibDem defectors alone aren't enough to secure a majority for Labour.
The 2015 general election will be decided by the same sorts of people voting in the same sorts of places that all the other general elections have been dcided in.
Namely lower middle and skilled working class Con/Lab swing voters in constituencies which sound like the names of lower division football clubs.
The obsession about what former LibDem voters will or will not do is because politicans, political commentators and political blog posters all want elections to be decided by nice middle class 'people like me' rather than 'people like them' lower down the socioeconomic scale.
They will prove true to their past and if NO is the vote we will have future turmoils as people get really annoyed at being cheated. Personally I think enough people will have the sense to realise this prior to the event and will vote YES.
'There will be 57 parades through Glasgow next Saturday, as about 4500 members of the Protestant Orange Order and tens of thousands of supporters gather in the city for the organisation's biggest event outside of Northern Ireland.
It is estimated the cost of policing the event will be more than £500,000 despite the Orange Order using its own members to steward the parade and police numbers being cut back in recent years.'
http://tinyurl.com/qeg2q5n
1) Seats where the LibDems/Liberals have traditionally been strong, or where they have a well dug-in MP with a strong personal vote (such as Lewes or Berwick-Upon-Tweed). Here I'd expect their vote to remain firm, although they might hit problems in a few cases where popular MPs decide to retire in 2015.
2) Seats which Labour won in recent elections but where there was an Iraq or tuition-fee protest shift to the LibDems. I'd expect the LibDem vote to collapse in such seats, but the electoral effect of this may not much matter because the Tories are not in contention; the effect will simply be increased Labour majorities. Many of these seats are in the North.
3) Con/LD battlegrounds, mainly in the South of England. These are the seats where Labour-leaning tactical voting has been a key factor. Some of those tactical voters are very disgruntled but a substantial proportion of them will hold their noses and vote LD when push comes to shove. The big unknown is how substantial a proportion.
4) Con/Lab marginals. As you rightly say, the LibDem vote here really can't have been tactical, so it's probably mainly a core LD vote, or perhaps a 'None of the Above' vote. Logically, one might expect relatively little shift from the LibDems towards Labour in such cases - after all, why didn't they vote Labour last time? Nonetheless, even a small shift in these marginals could have big effect on seat numbers, so this is still a danger to the Tories.
Had Salmond got his "three question referendum" it would be a valid point.
But he didn't, so it isn't.
Namely lower middle and skilled working class Con/Lab swing voters in constituencies which sound like the names of lower division football clubs.
The obsession about what former LibDem voters will or will not do is because politicans, political commentators and political blog posters all want elections to be decided by nice middle class 'people like me' rather than 'people like them' lower down the socioeconomic scale.
As you said, it depends on where the votes shift, but the Lib Dem -> Labour shift has been the biggest and most prominent change since the election.
IIRC, the marginal poll (18 months ago?) didn't show a dramatic difference in the battleground seats vs. national
Dr Andrew Gailey, has taught in the history department at Eton College since 1981 and was a house master from 1993 to 2006. A graduate of both St Andrews and Cambridge, he is the author of numerous studies of Anglo-Irish relations in the 19th and 20th centuries, with a particular research interest in constructive unionism. He is presently working on a biography of the 1st Marquess Dufferin and Ava. As well as being a fellow of Eton, he is a governor of three other schools and a trustee on charitable bodies such as the Dufferin Foundation.
I guess you think that policing costs for EDL marches are of greater benefit than Prince Andrew's junkets?
Airmiles Andy v. Tommy Robinson, no contest!
I think what may put him off from going again was the chatting about (his words) 'women's bits'.
For many voters voting is a once in every 5 years occurrence and it is very difficult to predict what they will do then 2 or 3 years before .
(4) In places like Crawley the LD vote, already squeezed, appears to have collapsed to benefit Labour almost entirely. "Why didn't they vote Labour last time?" In 2010 the LDs were an attractive receptacle for people tired of the Labour govt, but would never vote Tory.
Personally been a bit surprised how "up-for-it" the local Labour campaigners are in marginal seats. Seem like the most motivated of the bunch. Compared to 2010,2005, the next election looks a bit easier to campaign in.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2349927/Miliband-reveals-fears-sons-aged-access-porn-smartphones.html
:nuffinck-more-to-say:
17+ of their MPs will be 60+ at 2015 GE.
30 of them will be 55+
Expect at least 10 retirements.
Or is it the case that only things you (or I) disagree with should be charged?
It is my part of Scotland, you neep.
Labour's NHS cover-up.
'Most devastatingly, Labour set up a supervisory body charged by Ministers with covering up every outrage to protect the NHS’s reputation (or rather the Government’s). Anyone who squawked about dying patients was bought off with money that might otherwise have helped dying patients. This ultimate example of Labour spin must have left the NHS’s founder Aneurin Bevan gyrating in his tomb. Labour has nursed the NHS from cradle to grave: once its midwife, it’s now killed it off.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2351766/Osborne-turned-omni-shambles-omni-rout-buried-borrow-Ed-Miliband-says-Tory-big-beast.html#ixzz2XhNlawhi
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
The UKIP shrivelling vote share is also significant. The notion that Farage and co. will actually get any MPs is now strictly for the fairies, but they could still damage the Tory vote and let Labour in by the cellar door. The more UKIP is seen a merely a protest vote/novelty act, the more it will focus minds. I suspect the UKIP share has further to fall.
I'm not sure the current lot are any more in favour of NHS transparency, or indeed government transparency in general.
A Commons committee was recently told that the NHS spent £2,000,000 on compromise agreements preventing 50 whistleblowers from speaking out.
Have those people's stories been published yet? If not, why not?
"If the Tories and Lib Dems fought together they’d keep their ministerial offices and limousines, and continue to do the right things for the UK. But too many backbenchers in both parties yearn for Opposition, preferring hallucinogenic ideological purity and political irrelevance to the mucky reality of governing."
Never a truer word......
Surely the UKIP polling figures are showing exactly what the LibDems have shown in recent years - when there is nothing in the news to encourage people to remember them, people think on a Labour-Tory axis.
Around election time, by-elections etc people remember there are minor parties and are prepared to vote for them.
UKIP will get another boost next May for the Euros, and although their poll figures are likely to drop off from current figures they may well start from a higher base than this year. We have to see whether they can maintain that momentum into the GE. We also need to see whether the LibDems still get some of their normal election boost, or if their poor figures are entirely due to their left-leaning supporters upset at their support for a Conservative-led coalition.
Labour's fantasy economics binned.
'For three years their argument has been that with interest rates so low, Britain should borrow and spend more. Yes, the Britain which has the highest annual budget deficit in the EU, and which (as Labour likes to remind us) is adding to the national debt hundreds of billions of pounds on top of what Osborne originally planned.
Labour’s dreamy answer to the country’s debt problem goes down well with trade union leaders but to the public it now seems ridiculous. Families struggling with the mortgage, choking on yesteryear’s easy credit and drowning in plastic card interest payments cannot see how additional borrowing can make any more sense for government than it would for them.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2351766/Osborne-turned-omni-shambles-omni-rout-buried-borrow-Ed-Miliband-says-Tory-big-beast.html#ixzz2XhV3q2iX
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook