Daily Mail reports the Camerons may be set to move to Manhattan after a British writer recently returned from the city was hosted at Chequers and Sam Cam was 'grilling the writer’s companion about life in Manhattan and where the best districts were to live.' She will focus on her fashion label while he writes his memoirs and joins the lecture circuit.
Cameron has also redrawn the guest list for his 50th birthday party next month, removing any former close friends who backed Leave and especially anyone who backed the Gove leadership bid. Steve Hilton may also not even get a mention in his memoirs as a punishment for his backing Brexit.
Finally, he is angry at the sacking of Osborne and 'he thinks the grammar schools decision is a complete disaster. He saw grammars as Eton writ small, and that stopping them helped ordinary people. Now, she is doing the opposite.’ His concerns over the direction May was taking clearly influenced his decision to stand down as an MP too.
Daily Mail reports the Camerons may be set to move to Manhattan after a British writer recently returned from the city was hosted at Chequers and Sam Cam was 'grilling the writer’s companion about life in Manhattan and where the best districts were to live.' She will focus on her fashion label while he writes his memoirs and joins the lecture circuit.
Cameron has also redrawn the guest list for his 50th birthday party next month, removing any former close friends who backed Leave and especially anyone who backed the Gove leadership bid. Steve Hilton may also not even get a mention in his memoirs as a punishment for his backing Brexit.
Finally, he is angry at the sacking of Osborne and 'he thinks the grammar schools decision is a complete disaster. He saw grammars as Eton writ small, and that stopping them helped ordinary people. Now, she is doing the opposite.’ His concerns over the direction May was taking clearly influenced his decision to stand down as an MP too.
If you've benefitted from an Etonian education, it seems wrong to deny it to people who, if not poor, are still much further down the food chain than you are.
Indeed, am not sure I understand Cameron's logic in that comments which seems to be attacking both his old alma mater and grammar schools at the same time!
He sees grammar and private schools as means of vesting upper and middle class privilege. He is right of course.
Comprehensive schools in the wealthiest catchment areas of course arguably do that even more
That's his point yes. And he is right.
No he is wrong as grammar schools are the only state schools which truly challenge the top private schools at the top universities and in the top professions
Love Productions is understood to have accused the BBC of “ripping off” the Bake Off format to create two new shows, involving the search for the nation’s leading amateur artist and hair stylist.
While the BBC has tried to portray the loss of the baking show as a purely financial matter, a source at the corporation said that there had been a “total breakdown of trust” between the broadcaster and the production company, which made it “impossible” to agree a deal.
It is understood that Love threatened to sue the corporation over Hair, a BBC Three programme released in early 2014 that was billed by the broadcaster as “a competition to find Britain’s best amateur hair stylist”, and was widely reported as being akin to a “Bake Off for hairdressing”. The corporation had agreed to a financial settlement with the production company, to prevent the case going to court.
Barely a year later, the corporation was accused of attempting a similar move over the BBC One show, The Big Painting Challenge, presented by Richard Bacon and Una Stubbs. The broadcaster billed the programme as a “nationwide search for Britain’s best amateur artist”, which Love again complained bore all the hallmarks of its own baking show.
Oh absolutely. But grammar schools were the private schools the middle class could not afford. They dominated them because their children came from homes where books were read, where homework was important, where ambition was encouraged. In latter times they could also afford the necessary tutoring. People who point to the odd working class exception there with a scholarship to pay for his or her uniform are guilty of either wishful thinking or deliberate blindness. They were not a ladder for more than a handful of the poor, they were an escalator built for the middle classes. And going back to that simply will not improve social mobility.
Grammar schools were also great for the children of immigrants. Mine was around a third Indian and a fifth other Asian. I'd say it was about 50/50 white British to non-white British. Speaking as the latter it was the only way I would ever have been able to get such a quality education. I got into a private school but my parents weren't able to work out the bursary in time and they could never have afforded the fees (~£4k per term iirc) without one.
There needs to be a type of schooling that recognises and nurtures academic excellence outside of the fee paying sector. Grammar schools are part of the answer.
They still are a fantastic way to help immigrants get on move forward and integrate. Ask anyone in Slough which has 5 - all of which are disproportionately populated with hardworking brown people.
Love Productions is understood to have accused the BBC of “ripping off” the Bake Off format to create two new shows, involving the search for the nation’s leading amateur artist and hair stylist.
While the BBC has tried to portray the loss of the baking show as a purely financial matter, a source at the corporation said that there had been a “total breakdown of trust” between the broadcaster and the production company, which made it “impossible” to agree a deal.
It is understood that Love threatened to sue the corporation over Hair, a BBC Three programme released in early 2014 that was billed by the broadcaster as “a competition to find Britain’s best amateur hair stylist”, and was widely reported as being akin to a “Bake Off for hairdressing”. The corporation had agreed to a financial settlement with the production company, to prevent the case going to court.
Barely a year later, the corporation was accused of attempting a similar move over the BBC One show, The Big Painting Challenge, presented by Richard Bacon and Una Stubbs. The broadcaster billed the programme as a “nationwide search for Britain’s best amateur artist”, which Love again complained bore all the hallmarks of its own baking show.
Love Productions is understood to have accused the BBC of “ripping off” the Bake Off format to create two new shows, involving the search for the nation’s leading amateur artist and hair stylist.
While the BBC has tried to portray the loss of the baking show as a purely financial matter, a source at the corporation said that there had been a “total breakdown of trust” between the broadcaster and the production company, which made it “impossible” to agree a deal.
It is understood that Love threatened to sue the corporation over Hair, a BBC Three programme released in early 2014 that was billed by the broadcaster as “a competition to find Britain’s best amateur hair stylist”, and was widely reported as being akin to a “Bake Off for hairdressing”. The corporation had agreed to a financial settlement with the production company, to prevent the case going to court.
Barely a year later, the corporation was accused of attempting a similar move over the BBC One show, The Big Painting Challenge, presented by Richard Bacon and Una Stubbs. The broadcaster billed the programme as a “nationwide search for Britain’s best amateur artist”, which Love again complained bore all the hallmarks of its own baking show.
Didn't SeanT once accuse them of nicking an idea he pitched to them?
They - and anyone else - is free to steal any idea. There's no copyright on ideas.
No but it is damn rudeness at the very leazt to use material you wrote, ring you up and email you questions about it and the general subject on numerous occasions and then neglect to mention you in the program credits.
Looking at the table produced by Anthony Wells of the new constituencies, the LD are in second place in:
10 Labour seats 50 Conservatives seats
Will this affect how they project themselves?
Doubtful. It's a bit late to (a) have a membership transplant and (b) elect Norman Lamb as leader. Their new strategy, in so far as anybody seems to have observed or commented upon one, is described as remaking themselves as the "Ukip of the 48%." Might help recover three lost seats in West London, but not necessarily a winning pitch to the Tory shires.
Even though we have entered the zone of selected amnesia about polling, my opinion has not changed.
British polls continue to be unreliable and unstable, because those conducting the polls have little faith in their own results, and have to constantly shift the numbers here and there until they conform to their own personal view.
Indeed, Survation had an eve of poll general election poll that was almost exactly right but did not publish. Had more pollsters focused only on those 10/10 certain to vote in EU ref they would also have been more accurate
There was a late one from Survey Monkey that had a large sample size and from memory was pretty accurate, using quite different methodology to UK polls.
Looking at the table produced by Anthony Wells of the new constituencies, the LD are in second place in:
10 Labour seats 50 Conservatives seats
Will this affect how they project themselves?
So the LDs will be relying on many more tactical Labour votes than tactical Tory votes!
Which is why the coalition was so electorally disastrous for them.
Indeed so - and also why any attempt to win back such voters will be easily repulsed by Labour shouting 'You cannot trust the LibDems not to put the Tories in!'
Love Productions is understood to have accused the BBC of “ripping off” the Bake Off format to create two new shows, involving the search for the nation’s leading amateur artist and hair stylist.
While the BBC has tried to portray the loss of the baking show as a purely financial matter, a source at the corporation said that there had been a “total breakdown of trust” between the broadcaster and the production company, which made it “impossible” to agree a deal.
It is understood that Love threatened to sue the corporation over Hair, a BBC Three programme released in early 2014 that was billed by the broadcaster as “a competition to find Britain’s best amateur hair stylist”, and was widely reported as being akin to a “Bake Off for hairdressing”. The corporation had agreed to a financial settlement with the production company, to prevent the case going to court.
Barely a year later, the corporation was accused of attempting a similar move over the BBC One show, The Big Painting Challenge, presented by Richard Bacon and Una Stubbs. The broadcaster billed the programme as a “nationwide search for Britain’s best amateur artist”, which Love again complained bore all the hallmarks of its own baking show.
Didn't SeanT once accuse them of nicking an idea he pitched to them?
They - and anyone else - is free to steal any idea. There's no copyright on ideas.
No but it is damn rudeness at the very leazt to use material you wrote, ring you up and email you questions about it and the general subject on numerous occasions and then neglect to mention you in the program credits.
There was an example in Private Eye a year or so ago. A production company took an idea to the BBC, who rejected it. Then, a coupe of years later, a program appeared on the BBC that was virtually identical to the pitch.
It was made by a production company that now included ... the head of the board that rejected the bid by the other production company!
Oh absolutely. But grammar schools were the private schools the middle class could not afford. They dominated them because their children came from homes where books were read, where homework was important, where ambition was encouraged. In latter times they could also afford the necessary tutoring. People who point to the odd working class exception there with a scholarship to pay for his or her uniform are guilty of either wishful thinking or deliberate blindness. They were not a ladder for more than a handful of the poor, they were an escalator built for the middle classes. And going back to that simply will not improve social mobility.
Grammar schools were also great for the children of immigrants. Mine was around a third Indian and a fifth other Asian. I'd say it was about 50/50 white British to non-white British. Speaking as the latter it was the only way I would ever have been able to get such a quality education. I got into a private school but my parents weren't able to work out the bursary in time and they could never have afforded the fees (~£4k per term iirc) without one.
There needs to be a type of schooling that recognises and nurtures academic excellence outside of the fee paying sector. Grammar schools are part of the answer.
I went to Plympton Grammar, Joshua Reynold's school (now The Hele School comprehensive). It had a very large catchment area. So yes we had most of the children of middle class professionals, but also a lot of children of farmers and associated trades. And, being a suburb of Plymouth, plenty of armed forces, merchant marine and dockyarders. It was pretty eclectic and not at all class-ridden, as I remember it.
Love Productions is understood to have accused the BBC of “ripping off” the Bake Off format to create two new shows, involving the search for the nation’s leading amateur artist and hair stylist.
While the BBC has tried to portray the loss of the baking show as a purely financial matter, a source at the corporation said that there had been a “total breakdown of trust” between the broadcaster and the production company, which made it “impossible” to agree a deal.
It is understood that Love threatened to sue the corporation over Hair, a BBC Three programme released in early 2014 that was billed by the broadcaster as “a competition to find Britain’s best amateur hair stylist”, and was widely reported as being akin to a “Bake Off for hairdressing”. The corporation had agreed to a financial settlement with the production company, to prevent the case going to court.
Barely a year later, the corporation was accused of attempting a similar move over the BBC One show, The Big Painting Challenge, presented by Richard Bacon and Una Stubbs. The broadcaster billed the programme as a “nationwide search for Britain’s best amateur artist”, which Love again complained bore all the hallmarks of its own baking show.
Didn't SeanT once accuse them of nicking an idea he pitched to them?
They - and anyone else - is free to steal any idea. There's no copyright on ideas.
No but it is damn rudeness at the very leazt to use material you wrote, ring you up and email you questions about it and the general subject on numerous occasions and then neglect to mention you in the program credits.
There was an example in Private Eye a year or so ago. A production company took an idea to the BBC, who rejected it. Then, a coupe of years later, a program appeared on the BBC that was virtually identical to the pitch. !
Isn't that how Deep Space Nine was created, after the guy who would be its creator pitched what became Babylon5 to the network?
Daily Mail reports the Camerons may be set to move to Manhattan after a British writer recently returned from the city was hosted at Chequers and Sam Cam was 'grilling the writer’s companion about life in Manhattan and where the best districts were to live.' She will focus on her fashion label while he writes his memoirs and joins the lecture circuit.
Cameron has also redrawn the guest list for his 50th birthday party next month, removing any former close friends who backed Leave and especially anyone who backed the Gove leadership bid. Steve Hilton may also not even get a mention in his memoirs as a punishment for his backing Brexit.
Finally, he is angry at the sacking of Osborne and 'he thinks the grammar schools decision is a complete disaster. He saw grammars as Eton writ small, and that stopping them helped ordinary people. Now, she is doing the opposite.’ His concerns over the direction May was taking clearly influenced his decision to stand down as an MP too.
Looking at the table produced by Anthony Wells of the new constituencies, the LD are in second place in:
10 Labour seats 50 Conservatives seats
Will this affect how they project themselves?
So the LDs will be relying on many more tactical Labour votes than tactical Tory votes!
Which is why the coalition was so electorally disastrous for them.
Indeed so - and also why any attempt to win back such voters will be easily repulsed by Labour shouting 'You cannot trust the LibDems not to put the Tories in!'
While that will definitely be true for a portion of Labour voters, I don't think it's universally true. Furthermore, Jeremy Corbyn is probably not a vote magnet for Labour voters in seats like Twickenham.
Love Productions is understood to have accused the BBC of “ripping off” the Bake Off format to create two new shows, involving the search for the nation’s leading amateur artist and hair stylist.
While the BBC has tried to portray the loss of the baking show as a purely financial matter, a source at the corporation said that there had been a “total breakdown of trust” between the broadcaster and the production company, which made it “impossible” to agree a deal.
It is understood that Love threatened to sue the corporation over Hair, a BBC Three programme released in early 2014 that was billed by the broadcaster as “a competition to find Britain’s best amateur hair stylist”, and was widely reported as being akin to a “Bake Off for hairdressing”. The corporation had agreed to a financial settlement with the production company, to prevent the case going to court.
Barely a year later, the corporation was accused of attempting a similar move over the BBC One show, The Big Painting Challenge, presented by Richard Bacon and Una Stubbs. The broadcaster billed the programme as a “nationwide search for Britain’s best amateur artist”, which Love again complained bore all the hallmarks of its own baking show.
Didn't SeanT once accuse them of nicking an idea he pitched to them?
They - and anyone else - is free to steal any idea. There's no copyright on ideas.
And of course many ideas are so simple and generic that even if that formula truly was blatantly ripped off, it is very easy to claim it was independently thought of. There's nothing new under the sun.
Love Productions is understood to have accused the BBC of “ripping off” the Bake Off format to create two new shows, involving the search for the nation’s leading amateur artist and hair stylist.
While the BBC has tried to portray the loss of the baking show as a purely financial matter, a source at the corporation said that there had been a “total breakdown of trust” between the broadcaster and the production company, which made it “impossible” to agree a deal.
It is understood that Love threatened to sue the corporation over Hair, a BBC Three programme released in early 2014 that was billed by the broadcaster as “a competition to find Britain’s best amateur hair stylist”, and was widely reported as being akin to a “Bake Off for hairdressing”. The corporation had agreed to a financial settlement with the production company, to prevent the case going to court.
Barely a year later, the corporation was accused of attempting a similar move over the BBC One show, The Big Painting Challenge, presented by Richard Bacon and Una Stubbs. The broadcaster billed the programme as a “nationwide search for Britain’s best amateur artist”, which Love again complained bore all the hallmarks of its own baking show.
Didn't SeanT once accuse them of nicking an idea he pitched to them?
They - and anyone else - is free to steal any idea. There's no copyright on ideas.
No but it is damn rudeness at the very leazt to use material you wrote, ring you up and email you questions about it and the general subject on numerous occasions and then neglect to mention you in the program credits.
It's standard practice in business, though. You do what you can to win.
I make it 30% Trump is ahead, 70% Clinton - though it could be underestimating Trump as he is closing the gap in polls with fieldwork less than 7 days out.
Looking at the table produced by Anthony Wells of the new constituencies, the LD are in second place in:
10 Labour seats 50 Conservatives seats
Will this affect how they project themselves?
So the LDs will be relying on many more tactical Labour votes than tactical Tory votes!
Which is why the coalition was so electorally disastrous for them.
Indeed so - and also why any attempt to win back such voters will be easily repulsed by Labour shouting 'You cannot trust the LibDems not to put the Tories in!'
Yes. The difficulty is they don't want to put off those who genuinely do want them to keep their options open, but there's a lot more votes in promising never to work for the Tories, but that too won't be believed for some time I imagine. They don't want to be Labour lapdogs, but there's more votes in that, and Labour don't trust them to be lapdogs anyway.
Love Productions is understood to have accused the BBC of “ripping off” the Bake Off format to create two new shows, involving the search for the nation’s leading amateur artist and hair stylist.
While the BBC has tried to portray the loss of the baking show as a purely financial matter, a source at the corporation said that there had been a “total breakdown of trust” between the broadcaster and the production company, which made it “impossible” to agree a deal.
It is understood that Love threatened to sue the corporation over Hair, a BBC Three programme released in early 2014 that was billed by the broadcaster as “a competition to find Britain’s best amateur hair stylist”, and was widely reported as being akin to a “Bake Off for hairdressing”. The corporation had agreed to a financial settlement with the production company, to prevent the case going to court.
Barely a year later, the corporation was accused of attempting a similar move over the BBC One show, The Big Painting Challenge, presented by Richard Bacon and Una Stubbs. The broadcaster billed the programme as a “nationwide search for Britain’s best amateur artist”, which Love again complained bore all the hallmarks of its own baking show.
Didn't SeanT once accuse them of nicking an idea he pitched to them?
They - and anyone else - is free to steal any idea. There's no copyright on ideas.
And of course many ideas are so simple and generic that even if that formula truly was blatantly ripped off, it is very easy to claim it was independently thought of. There's nothing new under the sun.
I would also point out that Top Chef is a reality TV show where people make food and one person is eliminated every week. TGBBO is just Top Chef with amateurs and only baking.
Love Productions is understood to have accused the BBC of “ripping off” the Bake Off format to create two new shows, involving the search for the nation’s leading amateur artist and hair stylist.
While the BBC has tried to portray the loss of the baking show as a purely financial matter, a source at the corporation said that there had been a “total breakdown of trust” between the broadcaster and the production company, which made it “impossible” to agree a deal.
It is understood that Love threatened to sue the corporation over Hair, a BBC Three programme released in early 2014 that was billed by the broadcaster as “a competition to find Britain’s best amateur hair stylist”, and was widely reported as being akin to a “Bake Off for hairdressing”. The corporation had agreed to a financial settlement with the production company, to prevent the case going to court.
Barely a year later, the corporation was accused of attempting a similar move over the BBC One show, The Big Painting Challenge, presented by Richard Bacon and Una Stubbs. The broadcaster billed the programme as a “nationwide search for Britain’s best amateur artist”, which Love again complained bore all the hallmarks of its own baking show.
Didn't SeanT once accuse them of nicking an idea he pitched to them?
They - and anyone else - is free to steal any idea. There's no copyright on ideas.
No but it is damn rudeness at the very leazt to use material you wrote, ring you up and email you questions about it and the general subject on numerous occasions and then neglect to mention you in the program credits.
It's standard practice in business, though. You do what you can to win.
Indeed - especially in what is broadly speaking showbusiness - it wouldnt have cost them anything though to stick my name on the credits - and all it has ensured is that any future requests will be met with Nyet, if there are ever any which to be fair is a big if.
Looking at the table produced by Anthony Wells of the new constituencies, the LD are in second place in:
10 Labour seats 50 Conservatives seats
Will this affect how they project themselves?
So the LDs will be relying on many more tactical Labour votes than tactical Tory votes!
Which is why the coalition was so electorally disastrous for them.
Indeed so - and also why any attempt to win back such voters will be easily repulsed by Labour shouting 'You cannot trust the LibDems not to put the Tories in!'
While that will definitely be true for a portion of Labour voters, I don't think it's universally true. Furthermore, Jeremy Corbyn is probably not a vote magnet for Labour voters in seats like Twickenham.
Perhaps true - though many former LibDems are now strong Corbyn supporters having deserted Labour in 2005 /2010 on account of Blair/Brown having been too rightwing. I suppose it is possible that professional middle class left of centre voters in Twickenham might be supportive of Corbyn.It seems to be more the traditional C2/D/E voters who reject him.
Looking at the table produced by Anthony Wells of the new constituencies, the LD are in second place in:
10 Labour seats 50 Conservatives seats
Will this affect how they project themselves?
So the LDs will be relying on many more tactical Labour votes than tactical Tory votes!
Which is why the coalition was so electorally disastrous for them.
Indeed so - and also why any attempt to win back such voters will be easily repulsed by Labour shouting 'You cannot trust the LibDems not to put the Tories in!'
While that will definitely be true for a portion of Labour voters, I don't think it's universally true. Furthermore, Jeremy Corbyn is probably not a vote magnet for Labour voters in seats like Twickenham.
Yes the libdems really ought to be winning back seats like twickenham and Yeovil in 2020
Looking at the table produced by Anthony Wells of the new constituencies, the LD are in second place in:
10 Labour seats 50 Conservatives seats
Will this affect how they project themselves?
So the LDs will be relying on many more tactical Labour votes than tactical Tory votes!
Which is why the coalition was so electorally disastrous for them.
Indeed so - and also why any attempt to win back such voters will be easily repulsed by Labour shouting 'You cannot trust the LibDems not to put the Tories in!'
While that will definitely be true for a portion of Labour voters, I don't think it's universally true. Furthermore, Jeremy Corbyn is probably not a vote magnet for Labour voters in seats like Twickenham.
Yes the libdems really ought to be winning back seats like twickenham and Yeovil in 2020
Labour has actually performed quite strongly in Yeovil within living memory. In 1966 they were only just over 2000 votes from defeating John Peyton there.For that reason, Labour may wish to discourage tactical voting in such seats.
Indeed - especially in what is broadly speaking showbusiness - it wouldnt have cost them anything though to stick my name on the credits - and all it has ensured is that any future requests will be met with Nyet, if there are ever any which to be fair is a big if.
Their loss.
Makes me glad I dont work in the industry though.
Get paid up-front or at least have a contact setting out the duties on both sides. Twenty years ago myself and a chum came up with an idea for a TV series. He being a professional script writer had an agent. The agent pitched our idea to a TV company and came back with a contract to produce a one hour script for a pilot programme. We wrote it and we got paid (£12k from memory). For whatever reason the company never actually made the programme but some years later two different series based, loosely, on our idea did get made and did very well apparently. I didn't mind I had been paid for my work.
It takes the following wards from South Ribble: Hesketh-with-Becconsall, North Meols, Tarleton.
That's a lot of anti-Tory Labour to squeeze though.
Depends on enough of the remaining Labour vote not belonging to one of the following categories:
1. People looking for a credible PM who weren't put off Miliband, but would pick May over Corbyn 2. Traditional WWC Labour voters who tolerated Miliband, but for whom Corbyn is the last straw, and who decide to stay at home or vote either Tory or Ukip 3. People who are hard Left/like Corbyn, and therefore have no intention of ditching Labour 4. Tribal/habit Labour voters who would never think of voting any other way, regardless of circumstances 5. Lefties who don't think much of Labour, but have permanently abandoned the Lib Dems over the Coalition and would rather stay at home, or maybe vote Green
That's a lot of Labour voters who won't be available to help close the gap.
I make it 30% Trump is ahead, 70% Clinton - though it could be underestimating Trump as he is closing the gap in polls with fieldwork less than 7 days out.
I'm still confident about my average daily and weekly polls.
It was the first that picked up the Trump recovery, then the Trump stall, and now it's picking up another Trump surge in the last few days.
Today Hillary's lead shrunk to just above 1%, the second lowest that metric has ever shown.
And there is another thing, although I rubbish Reuters polls, I always look at the internals by past election to see what percentage of Romney/Obama vote shifts, and the results are very interesting.
Aggregated results for last 3 days per region:
North (Great Lakes, N.England, Mid-Atlantic)
Obama voters. Hillary 77% Trump 11% None 12%
Romney voters. Trump 84% Hillary 2% None 14%
South (S.East, S.West)
Obama voters Hillary 75% Trump 14% None 11%
Romney voters Trump 81% Hillary 4% None 15%
West (Far West, Rocky Mt, Plains)
Obama voters. Hillary 70% Trump 16% None 14%
Romney voters Trump 74% Hillary 4% None 22%
To sum up, Hillary gets as few Romney voters as Trump gets African-Americans, while a steady 10-15% of Obama voters go Trump, the NeverTrump's go 3rd party instead of Hillary.
This is not to gloat, but to note that some movement - either forwards to more union, or backwards to a Europe of capitals - is required as the current status quo is unstable.
Indeed - especially in what is broadly speaking showbusiness - it wouldnt have cost them anything though to stick my name on the credits - and all it has ensured is that any future requests will be met with Nyet, if there are ever any which to be fair is a big if.
Their loss.
Makes me glad I dont work in the industry though.
Get paid up-front or at least have a contact setting out the duties on both sides. Twenty years ago myself and a chum came up with an idea for a TV series. He being a professional script writer had an agent. The agent pitched our idea to a TV company and came back with a contract to produce a one hour script for a pilot programme. We wrote it and we got paid (£12k from memory). For whatever reason the company never actually made the programme but some years later two different series based, loosely, on our idea did get made and did very well apparently. I didn't mind I had been paid for my work.
Indeed, if it was my living that would be essential.
This was a fairly obscure subject which would never have seen the light of day on a commercial station in which I was happy to help - but a bit pissed off that they didnt acknowledge it.
The presenter of the show who then wrote a book on the subject - which I also provided said material for - did give generous acknowledgement in his book as well as a signed copy.
I would happily assist him again - thats the difference good manners makes.
The beeb researcher did buy me a cup of tea though when I met her in London to discuss it, so perhaps I should just know my place, tug my forelock and be grateful
I'd think the natural people for the Lib Dems to go after are the "Blairites". People who are Very Liberal, Very pro-Europe, economically centrist.
But I don't think anyone is listening to the Lib Dems at the moment, so it doesn't matter a great deal what they say.
The libdems really ought to be gaining ground given that Labour have gone mad and Theresa may has returned to Blue Toryism from Liberal Conservatism.
They gained a meaningful amount of ground at the locals this year, and they gained two seats at Holyrood (both of which they won quite well, and which bode well for 2020 in Scotland - in those two seats at least!).
But Farron is a poor leader. Hectoring and shrill when he's on TV. And just now he's invisible. They must be regretting not picking Lamb now.
This is not to gloat, but to note that some movement - either forwards to more union, or backwards to a Europe of capitals - is required as the current status quo is unstable.
Not for the first time will the people of the UK saved Europe from an unpleasant authoritarian construct.....
It takes the following wards from South Ribble: Hesketh-with-Becconsall, North Meols, Tarleton.
That's a lot of anti-Tory Labour to squeeze though.
Depends on enough of the remaining Labour vote not belonging to one of the following categories:
1. People looking for a credible PM who weren't put off Miliband, but would pick May over Corbyn 2. Traditional WWC Labour voters who tolerated Miliband, but for whom Corbyn is the last straw, and who decide to stay at home or vote either Tory or Ukip 3. People who are hard Left/like Corbyn, and therefore have no intention of ditching Labour 4. Tribal/habit Labour voters who would never think of voting any other way, regardless of circumstances 5. Lefties who don't think much of Labour, but have permanently abandoned the Lib Dems over the Coalition and would rather stay at home, or maybe vote Green
That's a lot of Labour voters who won't be available to help close the gap.
If John Pugh is the LibDem candidate, I think they'd stand a chance.
But he's 68 right now and will be 71 in 2020. I suspect he'll step down, and I suspect it'll be a comfortable Conservative hold. Without Pugh, the LibDems may drop to third or fourth.
Love Productions is understood to have accused the BBC of “ripping off” the Bake Off format to create two new shows, involving the search for the nation’s leading amateur artist and hair stylist.
While the BBC has tried to portray the loss of the baking show as a purely financial matter, a source at the corporation said that there had been a “total breakdown of trust” between the broadcaster and the production company, which made it “impossible” to agree a deal.
It is understood that Love threatened to sue the corporation over Hair, a BBC Three programme released in early 2014 that was billed by the broadcaster as “a competition to find Britain’s best amateur hair stylist”, and was widely reported as being akin to a “Bake Off for hairdressing”. The corporation had agreed to a financial settlement with the production company, to prevent the case going to court.
Barely a year later, the corporation was accused of attempting a similar move over the BBC One show, The Big Painting Challenge, presented by Richard Bacon and Una Stubbs. The broadcaster billed the programme as a “nationwide search for Britain’s best amateur artist”, which Love again complained bore all the hallmarks of its own baking show.
Didn't SeanT once accuse them of nicking an idea he pitched to them?
They - and anyone else - is free to steal any idea. There's no copyright on ideas.
No but it is damn rudeness at the very leazt to use material you wrote, ring you up and email you questions about it and the general subject on numerous occasions and then neglect to mention you in the program credits.
It's standard practice in business, though. You do what you can to win.
Indeed - especially in what is broadly speaking showbusiness - it wouldnt have cost them anything though to stick my name on the credits - and all it has ensured is that any future requests will be met with Nyet, if there are ever any which to be fair is a big if.
Their loss.
Makes me glad I dont work in the industry though.
The area of business I know best is synthetic biology/genetic engineering. Stealing ideas in this field is a very bad idea. Virtually all big ideas in the field are so big they need collaboration. Stealing ideas is an effective way to shut yourself out completely.
It takes the following wards from South Ribble: Hesketh-with-Becconsall, North Meols, Tarleton.
That's a lot of anti-Tory Labour to squeeze though.
Depends on enough of the remaining Labour vote not belonging to one of the following categories:
1. People looking for a credible PM who weren't put off Miliband, but would pick May over Corbyn 2. Traditional WWC Labour voters who tolerated Miliband, but for whom Corbyn is the last straw, and who decide to stay at home or vote either Tory or Ukip 3. People who are hard Left/like Corbyn, and therefore have no intention of ditching Labour 4. Tribal/habit Labour voters who would never think of voting any other way, regardless of circumstances 5. Lefties who don't think much of Labour, but have permanently abandoned the Lib Dems over the Coalition and would rather stay at home, or maybe vote Green
That's a lot of Labour voters who won't be available to help close the gap.
If John Pugh is the LibDem candidate, I think they'd stand a chance.
But he's 68 right now and will be 71 in 2020. I suspect he'll step down, and I suspect it'll be a comfortable Conservative hold. Without Pugh, the LibDems may drop to third or fourth.
Southport looks like ground zero in the next election, 4 parties within 8000 votes, they will bury the place in leaflets.
This is not to gloat, but to note that some movement - either forwards to more union, or backwards to a Europe of capitals - is required as the current status quo is unstable.
The best and most proper thing is to abolish the commission and relegate it's responsibilities to the council of ministers.
I'd think the natural people for the Lib Dems to go after are the "Blairites". People who are Very Liberal, Very pro-Europe, economically centrist.
But I don't think anyone is listening to the Lib Dems at the moment, so it doesn't matter a great deal what they say.
The libdems really ought to be gaining ground given that Labour have gone mad and Theresa may has returned to Blue Toryism from Liberal Conservatism.
The Lib Dems' best hope of a modest revival lay in going after the Yellow Tory, soft centre-right vote. Problem is, the Orange Book tendency were discredited by the Coalition and the party membership swung leftwards, where they have found... nothing. The middle-class left-liberals have predominantly fallen for Corbyn, and those who deserted the LDs for Labour and the Greens whilst the ink on the Coalition Agreement was still wet show no signs of ever being interested in coming back.
The majority of the electorate is positioned to the Right of Farron, and the progressives and socialists are mostly clustering around Labour right now. There is very little space left in the political market for a party peddling a combination of Europhilia, social liberalism, and wet centrism on tax and welfare. That's why the LDs are stuck on their core vote and have shown, generally speaking, little sign of improvement for many years.
With regards to Cameron, am I mistaken in thinking that here was polling showing people were more likely to vote No if they thought he would stay on as Prime Minister in he event of a No Vote?
It takes the following wards from South Ribble: Hesketh-with-Becconsall, North Meols, Tarleton.
That's a lot of anti-Tory Labour to squeeze though.
Depends on enough of the remaining Labour vote not belonging to one of the following categories:
1. People looking for a credible PM who weren't put off Miliband, but would pick May over Corbyn 2. Traditional WWC Labour voters who tolerated Miliband, but for whom Corbyn is the last straw, and who decide to stay at home or vote either Tory or Ukip 3. People who are hard Left/like Corbyn, and therefore have no intention of ditching Labour 4. Tribal/habit Labour voters who would never think of voting any other way, regardless of circumstances 5. Lefties who don't think much of Labour, but have permanently abandoned the Lib Dems over the Coalition and would rather stay at home, or maybe vote Green
That's a lot of Labour voters who won't be available to help close the gap.
If John Pugh is the LibDem candidate, I think they'd stand a chance.
But he's 68 right now and will be 71 in 2020. I suspect he'll step down, and I suspect it'll be a comfortable Conservative hold. Without Pugh, the LibDems may drop to third or fourth.
Southport looks like ground zero in the next election, 4 parties within 8000 votes, they will bury the place in leaflets.
Four way marginals will be the LDs (and UKIP's) best hope for gains, because the winning vote share is likely to be relatively low.
Labour will need to win West Bridgford in order to win an overall majority in 2020. Notional Tory majority is 14.6%.
West Bridgford is the main town in Ken Clarke's Rushcliffe constituency which has been held by him since 1970.
14.6% notional majority.
So a 7.3% swing then, that would be a reversal of the 38-31 result from 2015.
Is that actually a LOWER swing than was needed under the current boundaries?
It's a new seat. The old seat was Rushcliffe but that's been divided between West Bridgford and Loughborough & Rushcliffe South. Therefore West Bridgford is easier for Labour to win than Rushcliffe was. It also includes some wards from Nottingham South.
I'd think the natural people for the Lib Dems to go after are the "Blairites". People who are Very Liberal, Very pro-Europe, economically centrist.
But I don't think anyone is listening to the Lib Dems at the moment, so it doesn't matter a great deal what they say.
The libdems really ought to be gaining ground given that Labour have gone mad and Theresa may has returned to Blue Toryism from Liberal Conservatism.
The Lib Dems' best hope of a modest revival lay in going after the Yellow Tory, soft centre-right vote. Problem is, the Orange Book tendency were discredited by the Coalition and the party membership swung leftwards, where they have found... nothing. The middle-class left-liberals have predominantly fallen for Corbyn, and those who deserted the LDs for Labour and the Greens whilst the ink on the Coalition Agreement was still wet show no signs of ever being interested in coming back.
The majority of the electorate is positioned to the Right of Farron, and the progressives and socialists are mostly clustering around Labour right now. There is very little space left in the political market for a party peddling a combination of Europhilia, social liberalism, and wet centrism on tax and welfare. That's why the LDs are stuck on their core vote and have shown, generally speaking, little sign of improvement for many years.
No one is suggesting the LibDems are going to get 15+% of the vote, or 60 seats, any time soon.
The question is: can they stage a modest recovery in 2020?
And your suggestion that they go the FDP route would make a lot of sense (it fits with my own views, for instance), except for the fact that that market is even smaller. The FDP, in a country with proportional representation, failed to clear the 5% hurdle last time around, and gets only 7% in current polls.
Really, the question is: can the LibDems get a few of the 48%, plus a few people who like their local MP, plus a few tactical votes, plus a few people who believe strongly in the legalisation of cannabis?
And I would suggest that yes they probably will. It will net them, as you've noted, 2-3 seats in West London, a couple of Scottish seats, Cambridge, and a few other places. And that will be about it.
It takes the following wards from South Ribble: Hesketh-with-Becconsall, North Meols, Tarleton.
That's a lot of anti-Tory Labour to squeeze though.
Depends on enough of the remaining Labour vote not belonging to one of the following categories:
1. People looking for a credible PM who weren't put off Miliband, but would pick May over Corbyn 2. Traditional WWC Labour voters who tolerated Miliband, but for whom Corbyn is the last straw, and who decide to stay at home or vote either Tory or Ukip 3. People who are hard Left/like Corbyn, and therefore have no intention of ditching Labour 4. Tribal/habit Labour voters who would never think of voting any other way, regardless of circumstances 5. Lefties who don't think much of Labour, but have permanently abandoned the Lib Dems over the Coalition and would rather stay at home, or maybe vote Green
That's a lot of Labour voters who won't be available to help close the gap.
If John Pugh is the LibDem candidate, I think they'd stand a chance.
But he's 68 right now and will be 71 in 2020. I suspect he'll step down, and I suspect it'll be a comfortable Conservative hold. Without Pugh, the LibDems may drop to third or fourth.
Southport looks like ground zero in the next election, 4 parties within 8000 votes, they will bury the place in leaflets.
Four way marginals will be the LDs (and UKIP's) best hope for gains, because the winning vote share is likely to be relatively low.
I agree with rcs1000 about Pugh retiring. Looks to be a nailed on LD loss.
Labour will need to win West Bridgford in order to win an overall majority in 2020. Notional Tory majority is 14.6%.
West Bridgford is the main town in Ken Clarke's Rushcliffe constituency which has been held by him since 1970.
14.6% notional majority.
So a 7.3% swing then, that would be a reversal of the 38-31 result from 2015.
Is that actually a LOWER swing than was needed under the current boundaries?
It's a new seat. The old seat was Rushcliffe but that's been divided between West Bridgford and Loughborough & Rushcliffe South. Therefore West Bridgford is easier for Labour to win than Rushcliffe was. It also includes some wards from Nottingham South.
I understand that, but I meant in general to get a majority -- I thought under the current boundaries that Labour would need a more than 10% lead for a majority, rather than "just" a 7% lead that would apparently be required under the new ones.
I'd think the natural people for the Lib Dems to go after are the "Blairites". People who are Very Liberal, Very pro-Europe, economically centrist.
But I don't think anyone is listening to the Lib Dems at the moment, so it doesn't matter a great deal what they say.
The libdems really ought to be gaining ground given that Labour have gone mad and Theresa may has returned to Blue Toryism from Liberal Conservatism.
The Lib Dems' best hope of a modest revival lay in going after the Yellow Tory, soft centre-right vote. Problem is, the Orange Book tendency were discredited by the Coalition and the party membership swung leftwards, where they have found... nothing. The middle-class left-liberals have predominantly fallen for Corbyn, and those who deserted the LDs for Labour and the Greens whilst the ink on the Coalition Agreement was still wet show no signs of ever being interested in coming back.
The majority of the electorate is positioned to the Right of Farron, and the progressives and socialists are mostly clustering around Labour right now. There is very little space left in the political market for a party peddling a combination of Europhilia, social liberalism, and wet centrism on tax and welfare. That's why the LDs are stuck on their core vote and have shown, generally speaking, little sign of improvement for many years.
Good post. It's a long hard road back for them.
It feels weird sometimes, as I live in a place where if you are anti-Tory you vote LD, Labour don't get a look in, but most places are very much not like that, to put it mildly.
It takes the following wards from South Ribble: Hesketh-with-Becconsall, North Meols, Tarleton.
That's a lot of anti-Tory Labour to squeeze though.
Depends on enough of the remaining Labour vote not belonging to one of the following categories:
1. People looking for a credible PM who weren't put off Miliband, but would pick May over Corbyn 2. Traditional WWC Labour voters who tolerated Miliband, but for whom Corbyn is the last straw, and who decide to stay at home or vote either Tory or Ukip 3. People who are hard Left/like Corbyn, and therefore have no intention of ditching Labour 4. Tribal/habit Labour voters who would never think of voting any other way, regardless of circumstances 5. Lefties who don't think much of Labour, but have permanently abandoned the Lib Dems over the Coalition and would rather stay at home, or maybe vote Green
That's a lot of Labour voters who won't be available to help close the gap.
If John Pugh is the LibDem candidate, I think they'd stand a chance.
But he's 68 right now and will be 71 in 2020. I suspect he'll step down, and I suspect it'll be a comfortable Conservative hold. Without Pugh, the LibDems may drop to third or fourth.
This is part of the reason why my view of the LDs prospects in the next GE is so pessimistic: the additional difficulty they have in challenging without the incumbency advantage. Your assessment of Southport seems sound, but also what about Clegg in Sheffield Hallam - up against a notional Labour majority of 4,000 and doubtless a very determined campaign to finish him off this time, do you think he'll have the fight left in him?
If they can't make any gains then that would leave them down to their last six seats: four remaining notional majorities, plus Brake and Mulholland incumbent in close marginals.
Goodnight all, on this incredibly hot September evening.
I wonder if the hottest day of the year has ever been in September before?
Good question. In 1906 and 1911 (both of which had hotter September dates than today) I suspect September commanded the hottest day of the year. Unusual, but not unprecedented, I don't think.
It looks like Labour would need a 10% swing to win an overall majority if the targets are restricted to England and Wales. Not sure what's going to happen in Scotland as far as boundary changes are concerned.
It feels weird sometimes, as I live in a place where if you are anti-Tory you vote LD, Labour don't get a look in, but most places are very much not like that, to put it mildly.
Indeed. They were so badly battered during the last Parliament that they lost a huge proportion of second places to Labour or Ukip. In my own neck of the woods (a Tory heartland seat) they fell from a distant but creditable second in 2010 to a puny fourth (and only about a thousand votes clear of the Green) in 2015. Such calamities were, of course, typical.
One of the excuses I've actually heard given by Labourites crying foul over the boundary changes is that they're unfair because it takes so many more voters already to elect a Labour MP than a Tory one, but that situation was reversed prior to the last election. The Lib Dem collapse was so dramatic that Labour found itself weighing great bundles of leftist minority votes in places, all over the South in particular, where it had previously been nowhere. You can kind of understand why the LDs would be so keen to try to win those sorts of voters back, and why they might think that the rise of Corbyn would give them a fair chance of success, but evidence to date suggests that they are (probably) on a hiding to nothing.
It would appear that middle-class, middle-income lefties find a dose of radicalism quite intoxicating - especially when they secretly know that they and their bank balances are quite safe from it, given that Labour has little realistic prospect of beating those nasty Tories for a long, long time.
What's the swing needed for the Tories to lose their majority under the proposed boundaries?
I think it's around 2.2%.
So in retrospect, the new boundaries simply reduce the chances of a hung parliament by a bit, since it also reduces the swing Labour needs for a majority.
Goodnight all, on this incredibly hot September evening.
I wonder if the hottest day of the year has ever been in September before?
Good question. In 1906 and 1911 (both of which had hotter September dates than today) I suspect September commanded the hottest day of the year. Unusual, but not unprecedented, I don't think.
It takes the following wards from South Ribble: Hesketh-with-Becconsall, North Meols, Tarleton.
That's a lot of anti-Tory Labour to squeeze though.
Depends on enough of the remaining Labour vote not belonging to one of the following categories:
1. People looking for a credible PM who weren't put off Miliband, but would pick May over Corbyn 2. Traditional WWC Labour voters who tolerated Miliband, but for whom Corbyn is the last straw, and who decide to stay at home or vote either Tory or Ukip 3. People who are hard Left/like Corbyn, and therefore have no intention of ditching Labour 4. Tribal/habit Labour voters who would never think of voting any other way, regardless of circumstances 5. Lefties who don't think much of Labour, but have permanently abandoned the Lib Dems over the Coalition and would rather stay at home, or maybe vote Green
That's a lot of Labour voters who won't be available to help close the gap.
If John Pugh is the LibDem candidate, I think they'd stand a chance.
But he's 68 right now and will be 71 in 2020. I suspect he'll step down, and I suspect it'll be a comfortable Conservative hold. Without Pugh, the LibDems may drop to third or fourth.
This is part of the reason why my view of the LDs prospects in the next GE is so pessimistic: the additional difficulty they have in challenging without the incumbency advantage. Your assessment of Southport seems sound, but also what about Clegg in Sheffield Hallam - up against a notional Labour majority of 4,000 and doubtless a very determined campaign to finish him off this time, do you think he'll have the fight left in him?
If they can't make any gains then that would leave them down to their last six seats: four remaining notional majorities, plus Brake and Mulholland incumbent in close marginals.
OK. I think the LibDems will get about 12% in 2020, up from 8% last time.
I think they'll win:
* 2-3 seats in South West London, where there were big Remain votes. * Cambridge, where the seat has become rather less Labour friendly. * Edinburgh West and North East Fife, where they comfortably gained the Holyrood seats from the SNP.
Then probably four to six of their existing seats, and maybe a couple elsewhere which gets to my 10-14 seats forecast.
In principle, subsequent polls should reflect postal votes already in the bag. ie how will you vote or how did you vote? Assuming the measured swing to Remain over the last couple of weeks is accurate, it suggests the polls underestimated Leave all along.
It takes the following wards from South Ribble: Hesketh-with-Becconsall, North Meols, Tarleton.
That's a lot of anti-Tory Labour to squeeze though.
Depends on enough of the remaining Labour vote not belonging to one of the following categories:
1.
That's a lot of Labour voters who won't be available to help close the gap.
If John Pugh is the LibDem candidate, I think they'd stand a chance.
But he's 68 right now and will be 71 in 2020. I suspect he'll step down, and I suspect it'll be a comfortable Conservative hold. Without Pugh, the LibDems may drop to third or fourth.
This is part of the reason why my view of the LDs prospects in the next GE is so pessimistic: the additional difficulty they have in challenging without the incumbency advantage. Your assessment of Southport seems sound, but also what about Clegg in Sheffield Hallam - up against a notional Labour majority of 4,000 and doubtless a very determined campaign to finish him off this time, do you think he'll have the fight left in him?
If they can't make any gains then that would leave them down to their last six seats: four remaining notional majorities, plus Brake and Mulholland incumbent in close marginals.
OK. I think the LibDems will get about 12% in 2020, up from 8% last time.
I think they'll win:
* 2-3 seats in South West London, where there were big Remain votes. * Cambridge, where the seat has become rather less Labour friendly. * Edinburgh West and North East Fife, where they comfortably gained the Holyrood seats from the SNP.
Then probably four to six of their existing seats, and maybe a couple elsewhere which gets to my 10-14 seats forecast.
Well, my recollection is you called their 2015 performance better than most, so everyone listen to rcs!
I'm quite interested in my proposed parliamentary seat in the review, as it includes several LD inclined areas that made up part of a LD seat lost in 2015, and divests itself of quite a bit of prime Tory rural heartland. I doubt it would make it competitive for the LDs, but I can see the notional Tory majority being quite a bit less than now.
It takes the following wards from South Ribble: Hesketh-with-Becconsall, North Meols, Tarleton.
That's a lot of anti-Tory Labour to squeeze though.
Depends on enough of the remaining Labour vote not belonging to one of the following categories:
1. People looking for a credible PM who weren't put off Miliband, but would pick May over Corbyn 2. Traditional WWC Labour voters who tolerated Miliband, but for whom Corbyn is the last straw, and who decide to stay at home or vote either Tory or Ukip 3. People who are hard Left/like Corbyn, and therefore have no intention of ditching Labour 4. Tribal/habit Labour voters who would never think of voting any other way, regardless of circumstances 5. Lefties who don't think much of Labour, but have permanently abandoned the Lib Dems over the Coalition and would rather stay at home, or maybe vote Green
That's a lot of Labour voters who won't be available to help close the gap.
If John Pugh is the LibDem candidate, I think they'd stand a chance.
But he's 68 right now and will be 71 in 2020. I suspect he'll step down, and I suspect it'll be a comfortable Conservative hold. Without Pugh, the LibDems may drop to third or fourth.
Southport looks like ground zero in the next election, 4 parties within 8000 votes, they will bury the place in leaflets.
Four way marginals will be the LDs (and UKIP's) best hope for gains, because the winning vote share is likely to be relatively low.
I agree with rcs1000 about Pugh retiring. Looks to be a nailed on LD loss.
Norman Lamb maybe another retirement. 62 in 2020.
I think Lamb will stick around; I think being a LibDem MP is his life.
If Mark Williams, the MP for Ceredgion, were to step down (which I think is probable/possible), then I think Ceredgion and North Pembrokshire would likely fall to Plaid/Con.
OK. I think the LibDems will get about 12% in 2020, up from 8% last time.
I think they'll win:
* 2-3 seats in South West London, where there were big Remain votes. * Cambridge, where the seat has become rather less Labour friendly. * Edinburgh West and North East Fife, where they comfortably gained the Holyrood seats from the SNP.
I agree with most of those, but odds are surely against them in Cambridge - Labour notionally won the seat by about 20% in the local elections this year.
It takes the following wards from South Ribble: Hesketh-with-Becconsall, North Meols, Tarleton.
That's a lot of anti-Tory Labour to squeeze though.
Depends on enough of the remaining Labour vote not belonging to one of the following categories:
1.
That's a lot of Labour voters who won't be available to help close the gap.
If John Pugh is the LibDem candidate, I think they'd stand a chance.
But he's 68 right now and will be 71 in 2020. I suspect he'll step down, and I suspect it'll be a comfortable Conservative hold. Without Pugh, the LibDems may drop to third or fourth.
This is part of the reason why my view of the LDs prospects in the next GE is so pessimistic: the additional difficulty they have in challenging without the incumbency advantage. Your assessment of Southport seems sound, but also what about Clegg in Sheffield Hallam - up against a notional Labour majority of 4,000 and doubtless a very determined campaign to finish him off this time, do you think he'll have the fight left in him?
If they can't make any gains then that would leave them down to their last six seats: four remaining notional majorities, plus Brake and Mulholland incumbent in close marginals.
OK. I think the LibDems will get about 12% in 2020, up from 8% last time.
I think they'll win:
* 2-3 seats in South West London, where there were big Remain votes. * Cambridge, where the seat has become rather less Labour friendly. * Edinburgh West and North East Fife, where they comfortably gained the Holyrood seats from the SNP.
Then probably four to six of their existing seats, and maybe a couple elsewhere which gets to my 10-14 seats forecast.
Well, my recollection is you called their 2015 performance better than most, so everyone listen to rcs!
I'm quite interested in my proposed parliamentary seat in the review, as it includes several LD inclined areas that made up part of a LD seat lost in 2015, and divests itself of quite a bit of prime Tory rural heartland. I doubt it would make it competitive for the LDs, but I can see the notional Tory majority being quite a bit less than now.
I was by far the most bearish person on here, and I still wasn't bearish enough. (My friend in Cambridge Labour kept assuring me that they were going to get creamed by Julian Huppert!)
It looks like Labour would need a 10% swing to win an overall majority if the targets are restricted to England and Wales. Not sure what's going to happen in Scotland as far as boundary changes are concerned.
I counted 122 Tory constituencies with victory margins of less than 20%.
It takes the following wards from South Ribble: Hesketh-with-Becconsall, North Meols, Tarleton.
That's a lot of anti-Tory Labour to squeeze though.
Depends on enough of the remaining Labour vote not belonging to one of the following categories:
1.
That's a lot of Labour voters who won't be available to help close the gap.
If John Pugh is the LibDem candidate, I think they'd stand a chance.
But he's 68 right now and will be 71 in 2020. I suspect he'll step down, and I suspect it'll be a comfortable Conservative hold. Without Pugh, the LibDems may drop to third or fourth.
This is part of the reason why my view of the LDs prospects in the next GE is so pessimistic: the additional difficulty they have in challenging without the incumbency advantage. Your assessment of Southport seems sound, but also what about Clegg in Sheffield Hallam - up against a notional Labour majority of 4,000 and doubtless a very determined campaign to finish him off this time, do you think he'll have the fight left in him?
If they can't make any gains then that would leave them down to their last six seats: four remaining notional majorities, plus Brake and Mulholland incumbent in close marginals.
OK. I think the LibDems will get about 12% in 2020, up from 8% last time.
I think they'll win:
* 2-3 seats in South West London, where there were big Remain votes. * Cambridge, where the seat has become rather less Labour friendly. * Edinburgh West and North East Fife, where they comfortably gained the Holyrood seats from the SNP.
Then probably four to six of their existing seats, and maybe a couple elsewhere which gets to my 10-14 seats forecast.
Well, my recollection is you called their 2015 performance better than most, so everyone listen to rcs!
I'm quite interested in my proposed parliamentary seat in the review, as it includes several LD inclined areas that made up part of a LD seat lost in 2015, and divests itself of quite a bit of prime Tory rural heartland. I doubt it would make it competitive for the LDs, but I can see the notional Tory majority being quite a bit less than now.
As an aside, I would also point out that I called the Euros exactly correctly for the LibDems, and was too pessimistic (although I was the most optimistic person on the site!) about their prospects in the Holyrood elections this year.
It looks like Labour would need a 10% swing to win an overall majority if the targets are restricted to England and Wales. Not sure what's going to happen in Scotland as far as boundary changes are concerned.
Given how overwhelmingly dominant the SNP are, I doubt that the boundary changes will make much difference to anything (though FWIW I understand that Scotland is losing six seats.)
The Fabians published a leaflet soon after the election, which would've been informed by the abandoned 2013 review that generated results not too radically different from the current proposals. They calculated that - after boundary change - the following swings would produce a Labour majority of 1:
(a) uniform swing of 9.5% across Great Britain, implying a UK vote share of 40% (b) in the event of a modest recovery in Scotland, a swing of 8.7% in E&W, implying a UK vote share of 39% (c) if no recovery in Scotland, a swing of 11.4% in E&W, implying a UK vote share of 42%
An anti-Tory coalition with a majority of 1 could be produced if Labour reached between 36-38%, depending on whether or not the Lib Dems were to achieve a modest recovery and take some seats back off the Tories down South.
I stand to be corrected by events, but I think that Corbyn Labour will have to perform almost incredibly well (and May's Tories correspondingly awfully) just to make 30%. 36% looks like cloud cuckoo land.
It looks like Labour would need a 10% swing to win an overall majority if the targets are restricted to England and Wales. Not sure what's going to happen in Scotland as far as boundary changes are concerned.
I counted 122 Tory constituencies with victory margins of less than 20%.
There is a rumour that Hillary Clinton's medical records are going to get released in the next 24-28 hours and not by Clinton campaign.
Guess which fantastic organ apparently has them....
On another note, in Europe there is what can be best described as a hell of a lot of terror and anti-terror activity. IS inspired/directed bods are getting compromised and IS knows it so its desperately trying to get its operatives to act.
So far ain't working out to well but they will get a shot in and don't forget Al Qaeda either, especially around these parts. They'd really like to get a hit in.
OK. I think the LibDems will get about 12% in 2020, up from 8% last time.
I think they'll win:
* 2-3 seats in South West London, where there were big Remain votes. * Cambridge, where the seat has become rather less Labour friendly. * Edinburgh West and North East Fife, where they comfortably gained the Holyrood seats from the SNP.
I agree with most of those, but odds are surely against them in Cambridge - Labour notionally won the seat by about 20% in the local elections this year.
Fortunately Cambridge has local elections almost every year, so we'll get a sense of momentum over the next few years. I'd point out that it gains Queen Edith's and Milton, which is not good news for Labour. I'd also suggest that existence of Corbyn as leader of the Labour party makes it more likely that Tories will tactically vote LibDem.
From what I hear from my (totally unreliable) friend in Cambridge Labour that Zeichner is not popular with the rank and file. But then again, my friend totally called 2015 wrong, so I'd treat his views with caution.
Wasn't there a poll just before referendum carried out at ten thousand atm machines that got the result almost spot on ? Maybe that's the way of the future for better sampling
Wasn't there a poll just before referendum carried out at ten thousand atm machines that got the result almost spot on ? Maybe that's the way of the future for better sampling
It looks like Labour would need a 10% swing to win an overall majority if the targets are restricted to England and Wales. Not sure what's going to happen in Scotland as far as boundary changes are concerned.
I counted 122 Tory constituencies with victory margins of less than 20%.
Wasn't there a poll just before referendum carried out at ten thousand atm machines that got the result almost spot on ? Maybe that's the way of the future for better sampling
There is a rumour that Hillary Clinton's medical records are going to get released in the next 24-28 hours and not by Clinton campaign.
Guess which fantastic organ apparently has them....
On another note, in Europe there is what can be best described as a hell of a lot of terror and anti-terror activity. IS inspired/directed bods are getting compromised and IS knows it so its desperately trying to get its operatives to act.
So far ain't working out to well but they will get a shot in and don't forget Al Qaeda either, especially around these parts. They'd really like to get a hit in.
There's another Gufficer data dump just now according to Wikileaks
It takes the following wards from South Ribble: Hesketh-with-Becconsall, North Meols, Tarleton.
That's a lot of anti-Tory Labour to squeeze though.
Depends on enough of the remaining Labour vote not belonging to one of the following categories:
1.
That's a lot of Labour voters who won't be available to help close the gap.
If John Pugh is the LibDem candidate, I think they'd stand a chance.
But he's 68 right now and will be 71 in 2020. I suspect he'll step down, and I suspect it'll be a comfortable Conservative hold. Without Pugh, the LibDems may drop to third or fourth.
This is part of the reason why my view of the LDs prospects in the next GE is so pessimistic: the additional difficulty they have in challenging without the incumbency advantage. Your assessment of Southport seems sound, but also what about Clegg in Sheffield Hallam - up against a notional Labour majority of 4,000 and doubtless a very determined campaign to finish him off this time, do you think he'll have the fight left in him?
If they can't make any gains then that would leave them down to their last six seats: four remaining notional majorities, plus Brake and Mulholland incumbent in close marginals.
OK. I think the LibDems will get about 12% in 2020, up from 8% last time.
I think they'll win:
* 2-3 seats in South West London, where there were big Remain votes. * Cambridge, where the seat has become rather less Labour friendly. * Edinburgh West and North East Fife, where they comfortably gained the Holyrood seats from the SNP.
Then probably four to six of their existing seats, and maybe a couple elsewhere which gets to my 10-14 seats forecast.
Well, my recollection is you called their 2015 performance better than most, so everyone listen to rcs!
I'm quite interested in my proposed parliamentary seat in the review, as it includes several LD inclined areas that made up part of a LD seat lost in 2015, and divests itself of quite a bit of prime Tory rural heartland. I doubt it would make it competitive for the LDs, but I can see the notional Tory majority being quite a bit less than now.
He lost money on betting they would at least 12 seats, I bet no one thought he would lose that bet.
It takes the following wards from South Ribble: Hesketh-with-Becconsall, North Meols, Tarleton.
That's a lot of anti-Tory Labour to squeeze though.
Depends on enough of the remaining Labour vote not belonging to one of the following categories:
1.
That's a lot of Labour voters who won't be available to help close the gap.
If John Pugh is the LibDem candidate, I think they'd stand a chance.
But he's 68 right now and will be 71 in 2020. I suspect he'll step down, and I suspect it'll be a comfortable Conservative hold. Without Pugh, the LibDems may drop to third or fourth.
This is part of the reason why my view of the LDs prospects in the next GE is so pessimistic: the additional difficulty they have in challenging without the incumbency advantage. Your assessment of Southport seems sound, but also what about Clegg in Sheffield Hallam - up against a notional Labour majority of 4,000 and doubtless a very determined campaign to finish him off this time, do you think he'll have the fight left in him?
If they can't make any gains then that would leave them down to their last six seats: four remaining notional majorities, plus Brake and Mulholland incumbent in close marginals.
OK. I think the LibDems will get about 12% in 2020, up from 8% last time.
I think they'll win:
* 2-3 seats in South West London, where there were big Remain votes. * Cambridge, where the seat has become rather less Labour friendly. * Edinburgh West and North East Fife, where they comfortably gained the Holyrood seats from the SNP.
Then probably four to six of their existing seats, and maybe a couple elsewhere which gets to my 10-14 seats forecast.
Well, my recollection is you called their 2015 performance better than most, so everyone listen to rcs!
I'm quite interested in my proposed parliamentary seat in the review, as it includes several LD inclined areas that made up part of a LD seat lost in 2015, and divests itself of quite a bit of prime Tory rural heartland. I doubt it would make it competitive for the LDs, but I can see the notional Tory majority being quite a bit less than now.
He lost money on betting they would at least 12 seats, I bet no one thought he would lose that bet.
I had most of my money on the 11 to 20 band at 4-1, but I also had some money on the 10 or less at 16-1. I ended up flat.
Comments
10 Labour seats
50 Conservatives seats
Will this affect how they project themselves?
Con: 16,575
LD: 13,730
Lab: 10,300
UKIP: 8,593
Green: 1,230
Others: 992
It takes the following wards from South Ribble: Hesketh-with-Becconsall, North Meols, Tarleton.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/13/jeremy-corbyn-plans-academies-to-train-labour-activists
I can just imagine what the lessons will be like. Antisemitism vs Anti-Zionism, Hamas are our friends not our enemies, Mao Little Red book...
Mwhahahahahanananananana. Mwhahahahahahahahaha.......
It was made by a production company that now included ... the head of the board that rejected the bid by the other production company!
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Skm9h4JuRxhr0zQnKSExnmMwFoZt-1hrGnDlotJ4Jd8/edit?usp=sharing
Oh yeah, and Mel and Sue.
Their loss.
Makes me glad I dont work in the industry though.
But I don't think anyone is listening to the Lib Dems at the moment, so it doesn't matter a great deal what they say.
1. People looking for a credible PM who weren't put off Miliband, but would pick May over Corbyn
2. Traditional WWC Labour voters who tolerated Miliband, but for whom Corbyn is the last straw, and who decide to stay at home or vote either Tory or Ukip
3. People who are hard Left/like Corbyn, and therefore have no intention of ditching Labour
4. Tribal/habit Labour voters who would never think of voting any other way, regardless of circumstances
5. Lefties who don't think much of Labour, but have permanently abandoned the Lib Dems over the Coalition and would rather stay at home, or maybe vote Green
That's a lot of Labour voters who won't be available to help close the gap.
It was the first that picked up the Trump recovery, then the Trump stall, and now it's picking up another Trump surge in the last few days.
Today Hillary's lead shrunk to just above 1%, the second lowest that metric has ever shown.
And there is another thing, although I rubbish Reuters polls, I always look at the internals by past election to see what percentage of Romney/Obama vote shifts, and the results are very interesting.
Aggregated results for last 3 days per region:
North (Great Lakes, N.England, Mid-Atlantic)
Obama voters.
Hillary 77%
Trump 11%
None 12%
Romney voters.
Trump 84%
Hillary 2%
None 14%
South (S.East, S.West)
Obama voters
Hillary 75%
Trump 14%
None 11%
Romney voters
Trump 81%
Hillary 4%
None 15%
West (Far West, Rocky Mt, Plains)
Obama voters.
Hillary 70%
Trump 16%
None 14%
Romney voters
Trump 74%
Hillary 4%
None 22%
To sum up, Hillary gets as few Romney voters as Trump gets African-Americans, while a steady 10-15% of Obama voters go Trump, the NeverTrump's go 3rd party instead of Hillary.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/13/authoritarian-european-commission-created-brexit-and-could-destr/
This is not to gloat, but to note that some movement - either forwards to more union, or backwards to a Europe of capitals - is required as the current status quo is unstable.
This was a fairly obscure subject which would never have seen the light of day on a commercial station in which I was happy to help - but a bit pissed off that they didnt acknowledge it.
The presenter of the show who then wrote a book on the subject - which I also provided said material for - did give generous acknowledgement in his book as well as a signed copy.
I would happily assist him again - thats the difference good manners makes.
The beeb researcher did buy me a cup of tea though when I met her in London to discuss it, so perhaps I should just know my place, tug my forelock and be grateful
But Farron is a poor leader. Hectoring and shrill when he's on TV. And just now he's invisible. They must be regretting not picking Lamb now.
But he's 68 right now and will be 71 in 2020. I suspect he'll step down, and I suspect it'll be a comfortable Conservative hold. Without Pugh, the LibDems may drop to third or fourth.
The majority of the electorate is positioned to the Right of Farron, and the progressives and socialists are mostly clustering around Labour right now. There is very little space left in the political market for a party peddling a combination of Europhilia, social liberalism, and wet centrism on tax and welfare. That's why the LDs are stuck on their core vote and have shown, generally speaking, little sign of improvement for many years.
West Bridgford is the main town in Ken Clarke's Rushcliffe constituency which has been held by him since 1970.
The tories were seen as in a similarly terminal situation in the early years of this millenium
I wonder if the hottest day of the year has ever been in September before?
So a 7.3% swing then, that would be a reversal of the 38-31 result from 2015.
Portsmouth South
Hillingdon & Uxbridge
Canterbury & Faversham
Eddisbury & Northwich
Shipley
https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/775801841523326976
The question is: can they stage a modest recovery in 2020?
And your suggestion that they go the FDP route would make a lot of sense (it fits with my own views, for instance), except for the fact that that market is even smaller. The FDP, in a country with proportional representation, failed to clear the 5% hurdle last time around, and gets only 7% in current polls.
Really, the question is: can the LibDems get a few of the 48%, plus a few people who like their local MP, plus a few tactical votes, plus a few people who believe strongly in the legalisation of cannabis?
And I would suggest that yes they probably will. It will net them, as you've noted, 2-3 seats in West London, a couple of Scottish seats, Cambridge, and a few other places. And that will be about it.
Norman Lamb maybe another retirement. 62 in 2020.
It feels weird sometimes, as I live in a place where if you are anti-Tory you vote LD, Labour don't get a look in, but most places are very much not like that, to put it mildly.
If they can't make any gains then that would leave them down to their last six seats: four remaining notional majorities, plus Brake and Mulholland incumbent in close marginals.
One of the excuses I've actually heard given by Labourites crying foul over the boundary changes is that they're unfair because it takes so many more voters already to elect a Labour MP than a Tory one, but that situation was reversed prior to the last election. The Lib Dem collapse was so dramatic that Labour found itself weighing great bundles of leftist minority votes in places, all over the South in particular, where it had previously been nowhere. You can kind of understand why the LDs would be so keen to try to win those sorts of voters back, and why they might think that the rise of Corbyn would give them a fair chance of success, but evidence to date suggests that they are (probably) on a hiding to nothing.
It would appear that middle-class, middle-income lefties find a dose of radicalism quite intoxicating - especially when they secretly know that they and their bank balances are quite safe from it, given that Labour has little realistic prospect of beating those nasty Tories for a long, long time.
I think they'll win:
* 2-3 seats in South West London, where there were big Remain votes.
* Cambridge, where the seat has become rather less Labour friendly.
* Edinburgh West and North East Fife, where they comfortably gained the Holyrood seats from the SNP.
Then probably four to six of their existing seats, and maybe a couple elsewhere which gets to my 10-14 seats forecast.
I'm quite interested in my proposed parliamentary seat in the review, as it includes several LD inclined areas that made up part of a LD seat lost in 2015, and divests itself of quite a bit of prime Tory rural heartland. I doubt it would make it competitive for the LDs, but I can see the notional Tory majority being quite a bit less than now.
If Mark Williams, the MP for Ceredgion, were to step down (which I think is probable/possible), then I think Ceredgion and North Pembrokshire would likely fall to Plaid/Con.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15YjlKdqKFETupccZOYV19bIe75QlpnHUyzS9CZqFHO8/edit#gid=0
The Fabians published a leaflet soon after the election, which would've been informed by the abandoned 2013 review that generated results not too radically different from the current proposals. They calculated that - after boundary change - the following swings would produce a Labour majority of 1:
(a) uniform swing of 9.5% across Great Britain, implying a UK vote share of 40%
(b) in the event of a modest recovery in Scotland, a swing of 8.7% in E&W, implying a UK vote share of 39%
(c) if no recovery in Scotland, a swing of 11.4% in E&W, implying a UK vote share of 42%
An anti-Tory coalition with a majority of 1 could be produced if Labour reached between 36-38%, depending on whether or not the Lib Dems were to achieve a modest recovery and take some seats back off the Tories down South.
I stand to be corrected by events, but I think that Corbyn Labour will have to perform almost incredibly well (and May's Tories correspondingly awfully) just to make 30%. 36% looks like cloud cuckoo land.
Guess which fantastic organ apparently has them....
On another note, in Europe there is what can be best described as a hell of a lot of terror and anti-terror activity. IS inspired/directed bods are getting compromised and IS knows it so its desperately trying to get its operatives to act.
So far ain't working out to well but they will get a shot in and don't forget Al Qaeda either, especially around these parts. They'd really like to get a hit in.
From what I hear from my (totally unreliable) friend in Cambridge Labour that Zeichner is not popular with the rank and file. But then again, my friend totally called 2015 wrong, so I'd treat his views with caution.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10EJPl37xhc_B_TkHObNrahfzZBCFU4TW8MM_QB3PaXE/edit#gid=0
The new boundaries seem to have shifted the field by 4% to the Tories.