Anyone with a pile of cash can probably put an arb together with that lot, but I reckon the 1/7 is free money given the reports on the ground.
The right odds must surely be in the 1-20 range, right?
Given the Tories got 56% in the 2015 election, Lab 17%, UKIP 16% and LD 6%, for a majority of over 24,000, and the LDs and UKIP seem to be making only a token contribution to campaigning - yes!
A serious house on serious earth it is. English Christians would be fools to neglect their incredible, almost peerless inheritance of beautiful, poetic, spellbinding churches.
French, Spanish, German and even many Italian churches are not the same - you walk in - you feel nothing. Zero. The place is either scraped clean by Revolution (France) or tediously neat (Germany).
We managed to preserve something in those buildings of ours. We bottled God. I dunno how, but we did it.
And now, Masterchef.
Now you know how us poor agnostics feel every day. We lack the belief gene, and we suffer for it.
Nonsense.....rejecting the gross stupidity of religion reaffirms human's belief that they should make the world a better place for all. Religion is a fucking cop out.
That said, the Santa Maria Novella in Firenze almost makes one believe that Jesus died on the cross for us all.....
I do find the history encompassed in Cathedrals fascinating, but from a religious point of view they leave me stone cold, too much idolatry.
Oddly, as some who is agnostic (*) but wants to believe, it's the other way around. I only ever feel religious spirituality in old churches or cathedrals. The informal churches I've been to in the past leave me cold. In fact, I get the same from old churches that were modernised (i.e. vandalised) by the Victorians, as if they lost some of their soul.
And on that note, night night everyone.
(*) I've never been fully sure if I'm really agnostic or not.
History is not my forte, but I believe Ely cathedral and others were vandelised by Henry the eighth, with Thomas Cromwell as his hammer.
Isn't there a wall there inset with dozens upon dozens of icons of saints, every one of which (bar one) was beheaded by Reformation vandals, Isis style?
It's, I think, wide spread, but not everywhere. I wonder whether Canterbury, Wells, Salisbury so suffered. Yes, ISIS-like. Fanatics do not suffer doubt. Or perhaps they do, and overcompensate.
A week or so ago, the Conservatives were c 1/25. The Richmond Park by election has altered things without real foundation but quite honestly you couldn't really get two different Conservative seats if that makes sense.
This seat has been Conservative for decades albeit in a slightly different guise and I suppose a shock is possible with it being a by election but from being out there today and other days I just don't see it. Screechy Victoria , a former Conservative, is patronising and the North Hykenham debacle won't help. If UKIP won it would be the biggest by election upset for years but working in the constituency for the past few weeks and I am not being complacent I genuinely can't see it being anything other than a Con win.
Take it from me, nothing is being taken for granted and it is being worked very hard.
Yes the centre of Lincoln is reminiscent of the best medieval cities in France or Germany, having studied at university
Weexperience.
Neens
Defi are they that good?), still got a couple on the continent to go. e.g. Chartres.
Ththe earth is without doubt one of the finest novels written about a cathedral - who would've thought it.
I useoul - of the old English cathedrals.
Why bewitching.
I do like the history encompassed in Cathedrals fascinating, but from a religious point of view leave me stone cold, too much idolatry.
VIBE.
I enjoy tbe history, Hagia Sopia in particular of those that you mention, but buildings are a distraction from religious experience in my opinion, and of many others.
It is why Christianity is dying in Episcopalian churches, but thriving in house churches and organisations like Vinyard.
A serious house on serious earth it is. English Christians would be fools to neglect their incredible, almost peerless inheritance of beautiful, poetic, spellbinding churches.
French, Spanish, German and even many Italian churches are not the same - you walk in - you feel nothing. Zero. The place is either scraped clean by Revolution (France) or tediously neat (Germany).
We managed to preserve something in those buildings of ours. We bottled God. I dunno how, but we did it.
And now, Masterchef.
Unduly parochial (chauvinist ?) I think. Try Saint-Bertrand-de-Comminges in Gascony, and reconsider. Some of the provincial French cathedrals are wonders.
I do find the history encompassed in Cathedrals fascinating, but from a religious point of view they leave me stone cold, too much idolatry.
Oddly, as some who is agnostic (*) but wants to believe, it's the other way around. I only ever feel religious spirituality in old churches or cathedrals. The informal churches I've been to in the past leave me cold. In fact, I get the same from old churches that were modernised (i.e. vandalised) by the Victorians, as if they lost some of their soul.
And on that note, night night everyone.
(*) I've never been fully sure if I'm really agnostic or not.
I can sense 'god' more through the ancient buildings than through people performing religious ceremonies.
People experiencing too deeply religious ceremonies I find somewhat scary.
A serious house on serious earth it is. English Christians would be fools to neglect their incredible, almost peerless inheritance of beautiful, poetic, spellbinding churches.
French, Spanish, German and even many Italian churches are not the same - you walk in - you feel nothing. Zero. The place is either scraped clean by Revolution (France) or tediously neat (Germany).
We managed to preserve something in those buildings of ours. We bottled God. I dunno how, but we did it.
Experiencing God is indeed a bit scary. To feel being in the Presence is a truly out of this world experience. I first encountered it in an underground House Church in India, in a state where the BJP had made evangelism a crime. I have experienced in other places since, but always triggered by a community of believers rather than buildings. It fades like a morning mist afterwards.
I am a Roundhead rather than a Cavalier by inclination, and see Cathedrals as museums rather than active faith communities.
I am an agnostic and believe Pope Francis to be a guru. I am drawn to the metaphysics of Hinduism.
Yes the centre of Lincoln is reminiscent of the best medieval cities in France or Germany, having studied at university
Weexperience.
Neens
Defi are they that good?), still got a couple on the continent to go. e.g. Chartres.
Ththe earth is without doubt one of the finest novels written about a cathedral - who would've thought it.
I useoul - of the old English cathedrals.
Why bewitching.
I do like the history encompassed in Cathedrals fascinating, but from a religious point of view leave me stone cold, too much idolatry.
VIBE.
I enjoy tbe history, Hagia Sopia in particular of those that you mention, but buildings are a distraction from religious experience in my opinion, and of many others.
It is why Christianity is dying in Episcopalian churches, but thriving in house churches and organisations like Vinyard.
A serious house on serious earth it is. English Christians would be fools to neglect their incredible, almost peerless inheritance of beautiful, poetic, spellbinding churches.
French, Spanish, German and even many Italian churches are not the same - you walk in - you feel nothing. Zero. The place is either scraped clean by Revolution (France) or tediously neat (Germany).
We managed to preserve something in those buildings of ours. We bottled God. I dunno how, but we did it.
And now, Masterchef.
Unduly parochial (chauvinist ?) I think. Try Saint-Bertrand-de-Comminges in Gascony, and reconsider. Some of the provincial French cathedrals are wonders.
Yes, I think what you perceive as religious depends a lot on your cultural heritage. My late wife was religious in her youth - a German Lutheran - and she considered English churches to be, in general, both sadly neglected and unnecessarily gaudy and to have little feeling of reverence at all. That was just her opinion though.
French, Spanish, German and even many Italian churches are not the same - you walk in - you feel nothing. Zero. The place is either scraped clean by Revolution (France) or tediously neat (Germany).
I got quite a jag from Toledo Cathedral, not enough to sling me from agnostic to believer, but still. Something about sensing an echo of the countless faithful that had passed before: sounds, smells, light.
Sky News - 'with the Government struggling to win the political argument No 10 will not have enjoyed the legal arguments in the Supreme Court today'.
Sky have become the mouth piece of the remainers and the EU.
I cannot think of one of their presenters who is not pro remain.
UK's own CNN
Interesting. Is Murdoch getting cold feet?
Increasingly it look as if TM will take a course of action suggested by Alistair, a one line enabling bill. If only she listened to advice...
There was someone on pb, can't remember the chap's name, but he has to be a cert for POTY, that suggested a one line enabling bill from day one...
The question is whether a one line enabling bill will be sufficient. My money would be on that not being enough.
What are the legal arguments against a short bill granting the PM the right to invoke article 50? Parliament can't act unlawfully (excluding human rights regs at the moment).
Sky News - 'with the Government struggling to win the political argument No 10 will not have enjoyed the legal arguments in the Supreme Court today'.
Sky have become the mouth piece of the remainers and the EU.
I cannot think of one of their presenters who is not pro remain.
UK's own CNN
Interesting. Is Murdoch getting cold feet?
Increasingly it look as if TM will take a course of action suggested by Alistair, a one line enabling bill. If only she listened to advice...
There was someone on pb, can't remember the chap's name, but he has to be a cert for POTY, that suggested a one line enabling bill from day one...
Me!
I was thinking of someone with a longer screen name...
I said something similar (as in why on Earth doesn't May just do this), but my username is no longer than his, and TBF I don't think I was the first...
I do find the history encompassed in Cathedrals fascinating, but from a religious point of view they leave me stone cold, too much idolatry.
Oddly, as some who is agnostic (*) but wants to believe, it's the other way around. I only ever feel religious spirituality in old churches or cathedrals. The informal churches I've been to in the past leave me cold. In fact, I get the same from old churches that were modernised (i.e. vandalised) by the Victorians, as if they lost some of their soul.
And on that note, night night everyone.
(*) I've never been fully sure if I'm really agnostic or not.
I can sense 'god' more through the ancient buildings than through people performing religious ceremonies.
People experiencing too deeply religious ceremonies I find somewhat scary.
A serious house on serious earth it is. English Christians would be fools to neglect their incredible, almost peerless inheritance of beautiful, poetic, spellbinding churches.
French, Spanish, German and even many Italian churches are not the same - you walk in - you feel nothing. Zero. The place is either scraped clean by Revolution (France) or tediously neat (Germany).
We managed to preserve something in those buildings of ours. We bottled God. I dunno how, but we did it.
Experiencing God is indeed a bit scary. To feel being in the Presence is a truly out of this world experience. I first encountered it in an underground House Church in India, in a state where the BJP had made evangelism a crime. I have experienced in other places since, but always triggered by a community of believers rather than buildings. It fades like a morning mist afterwards.
I am a Roundhead rather than a Cavalier by inclination, and see Cathedrals as museums rather than active faith communities.
Isn't there the possibility of a feedback loop in that situation ie only the really committed would be taking part and so they would be more likely to get the full intensity.
In my agnosticism I prefer a mild, forgiving CofE God as one end of the possibilities.
I do find the history encompassed in Cathedrals fascinating, but from a religious point of view they leave me stone cold, too much idolatry.
Oddly, as some who is agnostic (*) but wants to believe, it's the other way around. I only ever feel religious spirituality in old churches or cathedrals. The informal churches I've been to in the past leave me cold. In fact, I get the same from old churches that were modernised (i.e. vandalised) by the Victorians, as if they lost some of their soul.
And on that note, night night everyone.
(*) I've never been fully sure if I'm really agnostic or not.
I can sense 'god' more through the ancient buildings than through people performing religious ceremonies.
People experiencing too deeply religious ceremonies I find somewhat scary.
A serious house on serious earth it is. English Christians would be fools to neglect their incredible, almost peerless inheritance of beautiful, poetic, spellbinding churches.
French, Spanish, German and even many Italian churches are not the same - you walk in - you feel nothing. Zero. The place is either scraped clean by Revolution (France) or tediously neat (Germany).
We managed to preserve something in those buildings of ours. We bottled God. I dunno how, but we did it.
Experiencing God is indeed a bit scary. To feel being in the Presence is a truly out of this world experience. I first encountered it in an underground House Church in India, in a state where the BJP had made evangelism a crime. I have experienced in other places since, but always triggered by a community of believers rather than buildings. It fades like a morning mist afterwards.
I am a Roundhead rather than a Cavalier by inclination, and see Cathedrals as museums rather than active faith communities.
Isn't there the possibility of a feedback loop in that situation ie only the really committed would be taking part and so they would be more likely to get the full intensity.
In my agnosticism I prefer a mild, forgiving CofE God as one end of the possibilities.
As an atheist I prefer the deeply flawed Graeco-Roman pantheon of gods to an omnipotent, omnipresent deity. The idea of gods that are as flawed as we are, prone to fits of anger, jealousy etc is far more interesting.
A week or so ago, the Conservatives were c 1/25. The Richmond Park by election has altered things without real foundation but quite honestly you couldn't really get two different Conservative seats if that makes sense.
This seat has been Conservative for decades albeit in a slightly different guise and I suppose a shock is possible with it being a by election but from being out there today and other days I just don't see it. Screechy Victoria , a former Conservative, is patronising and the North Hykenham debacle won't help. If UKIP won it would be the biggest by election upset for years but working in the constituency for the past few weeks and I am not being complacent I genuinely can't see it being anything other than a Con win.
Take it from me, nothing is being taken for granted and it is being worked very hard.
I can't see any betting opportunity on this one. In different circumstances UKIP might be in with a chance, but with their current travails, candidate with a shady past, and lack of money or local organisation, it isn't going to happen. The LibDems may improve a little on the back of Richmond but the seat is way too leave for them to win. Labour is out of it and, although I know Marianne (a little) personally, she is not going to be able to make an impact in the current febrile atmosphere, with nothing particularly noteworthy to say on Brexit as far as I know. There may not be much enthusiasm for the Tories around, but without a credible challenger a sizeable win for them is nailed on, I'd say. Rather like the national situation right now.
Sky News - 'with the Government struggling to win the political argument No 10 will not have enjoyed the legal arguments in the Supreme Court today'.
Sky have become the mouth piece of the remainers and the EU.
I cannot think of one of their presenters who is not pro remain.
UK's own CNN
Interesting. Is Murdoch getting cold feet?
Increasingly it look as if TM will take a course of action suggested by Alistair, a one line enabling bill. If only she listened to advice...
Not sure he has any control over Sky News
Sky are the worst for it but all our tv news are anti- brexit,just watch bbc,ch4 and itv news.
Unsurprisingly - the tv news people tend to be privileged metropolitan globalists, have the corresponding mindset and lack of interest of things outside their comfort zone.
The Referendum results programs were good examples of this as huge Leave wins went through without comment whilst the presenters droned on repeatedly about London and Manchester.
I do find the history encompassed in Cathedrals fascinating, but from a religious point of view they leave me stone cold, too much idolatry.
Oddly, as some who is agnostic (*) but wants to believe, it's the other way around. I only ever feel religious spirituality in old churches or cathedrals. The informal churches I've been to in the past leave me cold. In fact, I get the same from old churches that were modernised (i.e. vandalised) by the Victorians, as if they lost some of their soul.
And on that note, night night everyone.
(*) I've never been fully sure if I'm really agnostic or not.
I can sense 'god' more through the ancient buildings than through people performing religious ceremonies.
People experiencing too deeply religious ceremonies I find somewhat scary.
A serious house on serious earth it is. English Christians would be fools to neglect their incredible, almost peerless inheritance of beautiful, poetic, spellbinding churches.
French, Spanish, German and even many Italian churches are not the same - you walk in - you feel nothing. Zero. The place is either scraped clean by Revolution (France) or tediously neat (Germany).
We managed to preserve something in those buildings of ours. We bottled God. I dunno how, but we did it.
Experiencing God is indeed a bit scary. To feel being in the Presence is a truly out of this world experience. I first encountered it in an underground House Church in India, in a state where the BJP had made evangelism a crime. I have experienced in other places since, but always triggered by a community of believers rather than buildings. It fades like a morning mist afterwards.
I am a Roundhead rather than a Cavalier by inclination, and see Cathedrals as museums rather than active faith communities.
Isn't there the possibility of a feedback loop in that situation ie only the really committed would be taking part and so they would be more likely to get the full intensity.
In my agnosticism I prefer a mild, forgiving CofE God as one end of the possibilities.
People spend far too much time arguing about whether there is a god, IMHO, and not enough on the equally pertinent issues of, supposing there might be, whether worshiping it makes any sense or is likely to make any difference, and whether there is anything in the myriad of religions that humanity has come up with over our history that is likely to be anything more than the product of fertile imaginations (and a keen awareness of the potential for keeping people in line), mostly from times when (some) people had a lot more time and a lot less knowledge.
I do find the history encompassed in Cathedrals fascinating, but from a religious point of view they leave me stone cold, too much idolatry.
Oddly, as some who is agnostic (*) but wants to believe, it's the other way around. I only ever feel religious spirituality in old churches or cathedrals. The informal churches I've been to in the past leave me cold. In fact, I get the same from old churches that were modernised (i.e. vandalised) by the Victorians, as if they lost some of their soul.
And on that note, night night everyone.
(*) I've never been fully sure if I'm really agnostic or not.
I can sense 'god' more through the ancient buildings than through people performing religious ceremonies.
People experiencing too deeply religious ceremonies I find somewhat scary.
A serious house on serious earth it is. English Christians would be fools to neglect their incredible, almost peerless inheritance of beautiful, poetic, spellbinding churches.
French, Spanish, German and even many Italian churches are not the same - you walk in - you feel nothing. Zero. The place is either scraped clean by Revolution (France) or tediously neat (Germany).
We managed to preserve something in those buildings of ours. We bottled God. I dunno how, but we did it.
Experiencing God is indeed a bit scary. To feel being in the Presence is a truly out of this world experience. I first encountered it in an underground House Church in India, in a state where the BJP had made evangelism a crime. I have experienced in other places since, but always triggered by a community of believers rather than buildings. It fades like a morning mist afterwards.
I am a Roundhead rather than a Cavalier by inclination, and see Cathedrals as museums rather than active faith communities.
Isn't there the possibility of a feedback loop in that situation ie only the really committed would be taking part and so they would be more likely to get the full intensity.
In my agnosticism I prefer a mild, forgiving CofE God as one end of the possibilities.
As an atheist I prefer the deeply flawed Graeco-Roman pantheon of gods to an omnipotent, omnipresent deity. The idea of gods that are as flawed as we are, prone to fits of anger, jealousy etc is far more interesting.
I once had a thought that the Greek gods were a group of scientists who had created this world as an experiment (or possibly as an amusement) and examples of divine intervention were scientific adjustments or tests.
I do find the history encompassed in Cathedrals fascinating, but from a religious point of view they leave me stone cold, too much idolatry.
Oddly, as some who is agnostic (*) but wants to believe, it's the other way around. I only ever feel religious spirituality in old churches or cathedrals. The informal churches I've been to in the past leave me cold. In fact, I get the same from old churches that were modernised (i.e. vandalised) by the Victorians, as if they lost some of their soul.
And on that note, night night everyone.
(*) I've never been fully sure if I'm really agnostic or not.
I can sense 'god' more through the ancient buildings than through people performing religious ceremonies.
People experiencing too deeply religious ceremonies I find somewhat scary.
A serious house on serious earth it is. English Christians would be fools to neglect their incredible, almost peerless inheritance of beautiful, poetic, spellbinding churches.
French, Spanish, German and even many Italian churches are not the same - you walk in - you feel nothing. Zero. The place is either scraped clean by Revolution (France) or tediously neat (Germany).
We managed to preserve something in those buildings of ours. We bottled God. I dunno how, but we did it.
Experiencing God is indeed a bit scary. To feel being in the Presence is a truly out of this world experience. I first encountered it in an underground House Church in India, in a state where the BJP had made evangelism a crime. I have experienced in other places since, but always triggered by a community of believers rather than buildings. It fades like a morning mist afterwards.
I am a Roundhead rather than a Cavalier by inclination, and see Cathedrals as museums rather than active faith communities.
Isn't there the possibility of a feedback loop in that situation ie only the really committed would be taking part and so they would be more likely to get the full intensity.
In my agnosticism I prefer a mild, forgiving CofE God as one end of the possibilities.
As an atheist I prefer the deeply flawed Graeco-Roman pantheon of gods to an omnipotent, omnipresent deity. The idea of gods that are as flawed as we are, prone to fits of anger, jealousy etc is far more interesting.
Maybe the Klingons had the right approach - they killed their gods. "They were more trouble than they were worth"
Sky News - 'with the Government struggling to win the political argument No 10 will not have enjoyed the legal arguments in the Supreme Court today'.
Sky have become the mouth piece of the remainers and the EU.
I cannot think of one of their presenters who is not pro remain.
UK's own CNN
Interesting. Is Murdoch getting cold feet?
Increasingly it look as if TM will take a course of action suggested by Alistair, a one line enabling bill. If only she listened to advice...
There was someone on pb, can't remember the chap's name, but he has to be a cert for POTY, that suggested a one line enabling bill from day one...
The question is whether a one line enabling bill will be sufficient. My money would be on that not being enough.
What are the legal arguments against a short bill granting the PM the right to invoke article 50? Parliament can't act unlawfully (excluding human rights regs at the moment).
I believe the argument is that if it would impliedly repeal fundamental primary legislation then that would require an explicit Act.
Sky News - 'with the Government struggling to win the political argument No 10 will not have enjoyed the legal arguments in the Supreme Court today'.
Sky have become the mouth piece of the remainers and the EU.
I cannot think of one of their presenters who is not pro remain.
UK's own CNN
Interesting. Is Murdoch getting cold feet?
Increasingly it look as if TM will take a course of action suggested by Alistair, a one line enabling bill. If only she listened to advice...
There was someone on pb, can't remember the chap's name, but he has to be a cert for POTY, that suggested a one line enabling bill from day one...
The question is whether a one line enabling bill will be sufficient. My money would be on that not being enough.
What are the legal arguments against a short bill granting the PM the right to invoke article 50? Parliament can't act unlawfully (excluding human rights regs at the moment).
I believe the argument is that if it would impliedly repeal fundamental primary legislation then that would require an explicit Act.
The bottom line is that the approaches being (rightly) urged on HMG all involve asking more questions than they answer, and the sad truth is that the government already feels overwhelmed with questions that it cannot (yet) answer.
I cannot see past a Conservative win (one to hold against me there!)
But I think the interesting stories will be elsewhere, particularly with UKIP and the Lib Dems. The Lib Dems were a poor fourth last year with just 5.7% of the vote, with UKIP closely behind Labour in third on 15.7.
I'll be looking at: *) If, and how much, UKIP eat into the Conservative vote; *) How much the Lib Dems manage to hoover up the 38% who voted remain in the constituency. Especially if, as Mrs B claims, they have the only remain candidate standing.
Both these are indicators of how the referendum has affected traditional voting patterns. I see this as much more of a 'normal' by-election than Richmond Park.
Lib Dem Ross Pepper is definitely the only Remain supporter. I will stick my neck out and say I think UKIP are likely to go backwards in this election. Their campaigning is shambolic. They have some very keen support - but I believe the noise it generates is out of proportion to its numbers. And like Marmite, you either love it or you hate it - so transfers to UKIP from other parties' soft voters does not seem likely. Plus anyone thinking the turnout will reach 50% is delusional. Richmond was a frenzy of activity compared to S&NH. However, I can report that a significant number of Lib Dem poster boards went up today. Had too many disappointments in the past to be optimistic or accurate in guessing the result, but will say I am hopeful the Lib Dems will do better than the 5.7% we got in 2015.
I cannot see past a Conservative win (one to hold against me there!)
But I think the interesting stories will be elsewhere, particularly with UKIP and the Lib Dems. The Lib Dems were a poor fourth last year with just 5.7% of the vote, with UKIP closely behind Labour in third on 15.7.
I'll be looking at: *) If, and how much, UKIP eat into the Conservative vote; *) How much the Lib Dems manage to hoover up the 38% who voted remain in the constituency. Especially if, as Mrs B claims, they have the only remain candidate standing.
Both these are indicators of how the referendum has affected traditional voting patterns. I see this as much more of a 'normal' by-election than Richmond Park.
Lib Dem Ross Pepper is definitely the only Remain supporter. I will stick my neck out and say I think UKIP are likely to go backwards in this election. Their campaigning is shambolic. They have some very keen support - but I believe the noise it generates is out of proportion to its numbers. And like Marmite, you either love it or you hate it - so transfers to UKIP from other parties' soft voters does not seem likely. Plus anyone thinking the turnout will reach 50% is delusional. Richmond was a frenzy of activity compared to S&NH. However, I can report that a significant number of Lib Dem poster boards went up today. Had too many disappointments in the past to be optimistic or accurate in guessing the result, but will say I am hopeful the Lib Dems will do better than the 5.7% we got in 2015.
As you probably know, the LibDems are getting offers of help fired up by Richmond and stepping up their campaign both on the ground and remotely. But in the last few days and post the PV deadline it is hard to see this doing much more than solidifying the potential support they already had,
I cannot see past a Conservative win (one to hold against me there!)
But I think the interesting stories will be elsewhere, particularly with UKIP and the Lib Dems. The Lib Dems were a poor fourth last year with just 5.7% of the vote, with UKIP closely behind Labour in third on 15.7.
I'll be looking at: *) If, and how much, UKIP eat into the Conservative vote; *) How much the Lib Dems manage to hoover up the 38% who voted remain in the constituency. Especially if, as Mrs B claims, they have the only remain candidate standing.
Both these are indicators of how the referendum has affected traditional voting patterns. I see this as much more of a 'normal' by-election than Richmond Park.
Lib Dem Ross Pepper is definitely the only Remain supporter. I will stick my neck out and say I think UKIP are likely to go backwards in this election. Their campaigning is shambolic. They have some very keen support - but I believe the noise it generates is out of proportion to its numbers. And like Marmite, you either love it or you hate it - so transfers to UKIP from other parties' soft voters does not seem likely. Plus anyone thinking the turnout will reach 50% is delusional. Richmond was a frenzy of activity compared to S&NH. However, I can report that a significant number of Lib Dem poster boards went up today. Had too many disappointments in the past to be optimistic or accurate in guessing the result, but will say I am hopeful the Lib Dems will do better than the 5.7% we got in 2015.
Who is going to bother to turnout to vote Tory in a by election on a cold December day when they will probably win anyway and the government is proposing to continue paying contributions to the EU. The Tory candidate is also pro single market access so unlikely to lose many of the few Remain voters in Sleaford to the LDs, if they lose voters it will be Leave voters to UKIP and both Nuttall and Farage have visited the seat. The LDs might beat Labour for third and probably will but I expect the UKIP vote to be up on a relatively low turnout
I cannot see past a Conservative win (one to hold against me there!)
But I think the interesting stories will be elsewhere, particularly with UKIP and the Lib Dems. The Lib Dems were a poor fourth last year with just 5.7% of the vote, with UKIP closely behind Labour in third on 15.7.
I'll be looking at: *) If, and how much, UKIP eat into the Conservative vote; *) How much the Lib Dems manage to hoover up the 38% who voted remain in the constituency. Especially if, as Mrs B claims, they have the only remain candidate standing.
Both these are indicators of how the referendum has affected traditional voting patterns. I see this as much more of a 'normal' by-election than Richmond Park.
Lib Dem Ross Pepper is definitely the only Remain supporter. I will stick my neck out and say I think UKIP are likely to go backwards in this election. Their campaigning is shambolic. They have some very keen support - but I believe the noise it generates is out of proportion to its numbers. And like Marmite, you either love it or you hate it - so transfers to UKIP from other parties' soft voters does not seem likely. Plus anyone thinking the turnout will reach 50% is delusional. Richmond was a frenzy of activity compared to S&NH. However, I can report that a significant number of Lib Dem poster boards went up today. Had too many disappointments in the past to be optimistic or accurate in guessing the result, but will say I am hopeful the Lib Dems will do better than the 5.7% we got in 2015.
Who is going to bother to turnout to vote Tory in a by election on a cold December day when they will probably win anyway and the government is proposing to continue paying contributions to the EU. The Tory candidate is also pro single market access so unlikely to lose many of the few Remain voters in Sleaford to the LDs, if they lose voters it will be Leave voters to UKIP and both Nuttall and Farage have visited the seat. The LDs might beat Labour for third and probably will but I expect the UKIP vote to be up on a relatively low turnout
Probably more people than will turn out on the same cold day to vote for candidates who will probably lose anyway?
I am an agnostic and believe Pope Francis to be a guru. I am drawn to the metaphysics of Hinduism.
An interesting post. Here's a thought experiment I had many moons ago. Imagine Americans were rather more different to us (or we more different to them) - perhaps the most common American skin tone is bright blue, with various minorities in shades of green or purple, and speak a language as incomprehensible to the typical Brit as Mandarin or Sanskrit. Or vice versa if it pleases you better. Imagine a cleavage of our cultural heritage - that Britain had evolved with some other national religion than our peculiar blend of Catholicism and Protestantism, and that the basic concepts of Christian theology were alien to us.
In that circumstance, consider the intrepid cultural explorers who first "discover" and "translate" Billy Graham's flavour of evangelicalism and bring it to this corner of western Europe - I could see it being taken up here by the hippyish and the multicultural magpies in a similar vein (as you put it) to the gurus of eastern spirituality. Love as the supreme and dominant characteristic of the universal creator, the washing away of sin and so on - without its historical and cultural associations, one can easily visualise that philosophy becoming rather trendy, slotting in seamlessly with Buddha garden ornaments and Obijwe dreamcatcher nets hanging on their car mirror by the fluffy dice.
Not so much to Dr Fox's spiritual tastes, but one can repeat the thought experiment with a deeply Catholic society, perhaps Latin American - the devotion and iconography of the saints, the meditative potential of the rosary, all would lay ripe for cultural appropriation.
I cannot see past a Conservative win (one to hold against me there!)
But I think the interesting stories will be elsewhere, particularly with UKIP and the Lib Dems. The Lib Dems were a poor fourth last year with just 5.7% of the vote, with UKIP closely behind Labour in third on 15.7.
I'll be looking at: *) If, and how much, UKIP eat Park.
Lib Dem Ross will reach 50% be optimistic or accurate in guessing the result, but will say I am hopeful the Lib Dems will do better than the 5.7% we got in 2015.
Who is going to bother to turnout to vote Tory in a by election on a cold December day when they and probably will but I expect the UKIP vote to be up on a relatively low turnout
Probably more people than will turn out on the same cold day to vote for candidates who will probably lose anyway?
Probably but it may well be a lot tighter than some expect, especially if a low turnout, UKIP voters will be more motivated to send a message on Brexit than Tory voters who are relatively happy with the status quo
I cannot see past a Conservative win (one to hold against me there!)
But I think the interesting stories will be elsewhere, particularly with UKIP and the Lib Dems. The Lib Dems were a poor fourth last year with just 5.7% of the vote, with UKIP closely behind Labour in third on 15.7.
I'll be looking at: *) If, and how much, UKIP eat Park.
Lib Dem Ross will reach 50% be optimistic or accurate in guessing the result, but will say I am hopeful the Lib Dems will do better than the 5.7% we got in 2015.
Who is going to bother to turnout to vote Tory in a by election on a cold December day when they and probably will but I expect the UKIP vote to be up on a relatively low turnout
Probably more people than will turn out on the same cold day to vote for candidates who will probably lose anyway?
Probably but it may well be a lot tighter than some expect, especially if a low turnout, UKIP voters will be more motivated to send a message on Brexit than Tory voters who are relatively happy with the status quo
I cannot see past a Conservative win (one to hold against me there!)
But I think the interesting stories will be elsewhere, particularly with UKIP and the Lib Dems. The Lib Dems were a poor fourth last year with just 5.7% of the vote, with UKIP closely behind Labour in third on 15.7.
I'll be looking at: *) If, and how much, UKIP eat Park.
Lib Dem Ross will reach 50% be optimistic or accurate in guessing the result, but will say I am hopeful the Lib Dems will do better than the 5.7% we got in 2015.
Who is going to bother to turnout to vote Tory in a by election on a cold December day when they and probably will but I expect the UKIP vote to be up on a relatively low turnout
Probably more people than will turn out on the same cold day to vote for candidates who will probably lose anyway?
Probably but it may well be a lot tighter than some expect, especially if a low turnout, UKIP voters will be more motivated to send a message on Brexit than Tory voters who are relatively happy with the status quo
so, what's your 'line' on ukip vote share? 35%?
If the Tory vote fractures to a mixture of UKIP, the Lib Dems and Marianne Overton the arithmetic could get interesting. A lot will depend on what Labour voters do.
I cannot see past a Conservative win (one to hold against me there!)
But I think the interesting stories will be elsewhere, particularly with UKIP and the Lib Dems. The Lib Dems were a poor fourth last year with just 5.7% of the vote, with UKIP closely behind Labour in third on 15.7.
I'll be looking at: *) If, and how much, UKIP eat Park.
Lib Dem Ross will reach 50% be optimistic or accurate in guessing the result, but will say I am hopeful the Lib Dems will do better than the 5.7% we got in 2015.
Who is going to bother to turnout to vote Tory in a by election on a cold December day when they and probably will but I expect the UKIP vote to be up on a relatively low turnout
Probably more people than will turn out on the same cold day to vote for candidates who will probably lose anyway?
Probably but it may well be a lot tighter than some expect, especially if a low turnout, UKIP voters will be more motivated to send a message on Brexit than Tory voters who are relatively happy with the status quo
O/T French election - First poll published after Valls candidacy (but polled before) Ifop fiducial for Paris Match (2/3 nov)
Three scenarios depending on the winner of the left wing primary (comparison with 28/30 nov BEFORE the Hollande decision not to run)
Scenario Valls Fillon 27.5 (-0.5) Le Pen 24 (=) Macron 13.5 (-1,5) Mélenchon 12.5 (+1,5) Valls 10 (=) Bayrou 7 (+1,5) all others 5.5 (-1)
Scenario Montebourg Fillon 28 (-1) Le Pen 24 (=) Macron 16 (-1) Mélenchon 12,5 (+1) Bayrou 8 (+2) Montebourg 6 (=) all others 5,5 (-1)
Scenario Hamon Fillon 28 Le Pen 24 Macron 16 Mélenchon 13.5 Bayrou 9 Hamon 4 (!) All others 5.5
Second round Fillon 65 Le Pen 35 Macron 62 Le Pen 38 (no other scenario tested)
Main lessons: - Valls starts the race in fifth position, 14 points behind second place... - Montebourg and Hamon have even worse numbers, falling in sixth place behind Bayrou. - Valls would clearly harm Macron the most as they are competing for the same voters. Melenchon could well beat both for third place in that scenario. - Macron remains in third place, but remains well below Le Pen
It is bizarre that the poll did not test a Fillon / Macron second round. It is unlikely, but certainly more likely at this stage than a Macron/Le Pen one.
Main lessons: - Valls starts the race in fifth position, 14 points behind second place... - Montebourg and Hamon have even worse numbers, falling in sixth place behind Bayrou. - Valls would clearly harm Macron the most as they are competing for the same voters. Melenchon could well beat both for third place in that scenario. - Macron remains in third place, but remains well below Le Pen
I've been selling Macron at 8.4 or thereabouts, having acquired him around 20s (Thanks rcs).
I cannot see past a Conservative win (one to hold against me there!)
But I think the interesting stories will be elsewhere, particularly with UKIP and the Lib Dems. The Lib Dems were a poor fourth last year with just 5.7% of the vote, with UKIP closely behind Labour in third on 15.7.
I'll be looking at: *) If, and how much, UKIP eat Park.
Lib Dem Ross will reach 50% be optimistic or accurate in guessing the result, but will say I am hopeful the Lib Dems will do better than the 5.7% we got in 2015.
Who is going to bother to turnout to vote Tory in a by election on a cold December day when they and probably will but I expect the UKIP vote to be up on a relatively low turnout
Probably more people than will turn out on the same cold day to vote for candidates who will probably lose anyway?
Probably but it may well be a lot tighter than some expect, especially if a low turnout, UKIP voters will be more motivated to send a message on Brexit than Tory voters who are relatively happy with the status quo
so, what's your 'line' on ukip vote share? 35%?
If the Tory vote fractures to a mixture of UKIP, the Lib Dems and Marianne Overton the arithmetic could get interesting. A lot will depend on what Labour voters do.
Pick their noses rather than vote for Jezza's Labour party.
Main lessons: - Valls starts the race in fifth position, 14 points behind second place... - Montebourg and Hamon have even worse numbers, falling in sixth place behind Bayrou. - Valls would clearly harm Macron the most as they are competing for the same voters. Melenchon could well beat both for third place in that scenario. - Macron remains in third place, but remains well below Le Pen
I've been selling Macron at 8.4 or thereabouts, having acquired him around 20s (Thanks rcs).
Macron at 20 was a very good bet but then the price collapsed at ridiculous levels. I layed him at 7.2 on Monday.
Betfair had added Christiane Taubira to the market. She has not given any indication she wants to run. If she did, she could be dangerous for Valls in the primary (as she is beloved by activists) ... and a catastrophic candidate for the general election. Probably one of the very few people outside Hollande that Le Pen would have a good chance to beat.
This is an excellent piece on how & why some (many?) undecideds broke for Trump:
There was one moment when I saw more undecided voters shift to Trump than any other, when it all changed, when voters began to speak differently about their choice. It wasn’t FBI Director James Comey, Part One or Part Two; it wasn’t Benghazi or the e-mails or Bill Clinton’s visit with Attorney General Loretta Lynch on the tarmac. No, the conversation shifted the most during the weekend of Sept. 9, after Clinton said, “You can put half of Trump supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables.”
This is an excellent piece on how & why some (many?) undecideds broke for Trump:
There was one moment when I saw more undecided voters shift to Trump than any other, when it all changed, when voters began to speak differently about their choice. It wasn’t FBI Director James Comey, Part One or Part Two; it wasn’t Benghazi or the e-mails or Bill Clinton’s visit with Attorney General Loretta Lynch on the tarmac. No, the conversation shifted the most during the weekend of Sept. 9, after Clinton said, “You can put half of Trump supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables.”
What was the full quotation? (This reminds me of Dave's 'We're not Little Englanders' - a perfectly justified dig at Nigel Farage and his psychology, but one which was brilliantly twisted by Leave to become a slander upon the entire English race.)
This is an excellent piece on how & why some (many?) undecideds broke for Trump:
There was one moment when I saw more undecided voters shift to Trump than any other, when it all changed, when voters began to speak differently about their choice. It wasn’t FBI Director James Comey, Part One or Part Two; it wasn’t Benghazi or the e-mails or Bill Clinton’s visit with Attorney General Loretta Lynch on the tarmac. No, the conversation shifted the most during the weekend of Sept. 9, after Clinton said, “You can put half of Trump supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables.”
What was the full quotation? (This reminds me of Dave's 'We're not Little Englanders' - a perfectly justified dig at Nigel Farage and his psychology, but one which was brilliantly twisted by Leave to become a slander upon the entire English race.)
You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic -- you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people -- now 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks -- they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America."
This is an excellent piece on how & why some (many?) undecideds broke for Trump:
There was one moment when I saw more undecided voters shift to Trump than any other, when it all changed, when voters began to speak differently about their choice. It wasn’t FBI Director James Comey, Part One or Part Two; it wasn’t Benghazi or the e-mails or Bill Clinton’s visit with Attorney General Loretta Lynch on the tarmac. No, the conversation shifted the most during the weekend of Sept. 9, after Clinton said, “You can put half of Trump supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables.”
What was the full quotation? (This reminds me of Dave's 'We're not Little Englanders' - a perfectly justified dig at Nigel Farage and his psychology, but one which was brilliantly twisted by Leave to become a slander upon the entire English race.)
You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic -- you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people -- now 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks -- they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America."
That was 30 million voters she alienated.
Thanks! Yes, that was quite devastatingly stupid. Of course, all politicians hate big chunks of the electorate - Jeremy Corbyn will despise posh farmers in Oxfordshire, Nigel Farage the bohemians of Brighton etc. - but the unwritten rule is surely that you focus your ire upon their representatives. The voters themselves must always be beyond criticism.
Defi are they that good?), still got a couple on the continent to go. e.g. Chartres.
Ththe ead've thought it.
I useoul - of the old English cathedrals.
Why bewitching.
I ne cold, too much idolatry.
VIBE.
I enjoy tbe history, d organisations like Vinyard.
A s And now, Masterchef.
Unduly parochial (chauvinist ?) I think. Try Saint-Bertrand-de-Comminges in Gascony, and reconsider. Some of the provincial French cathedrals are wonders.
Hmm. Thing is I have actually been to Saint Bertrand de Comminges (the cathedral of the Pyrenees!) and also Toledo Cathedral (I go to a LOT of churches) and I would agree both have that numinousness, that buzz, that shiver inducing quality, yet I still believe both are exceptions that prove the rule.
In terms of theophany per square metre of church-ground, England is yer place. Not sure why, but it is, perhaps, something to do with our tendency to conserve and hoard, untidily. English churches are like the artist's studio where you can see works in progress, the odd finished masterpiece, and smell the paint thinner. Continental churches are more like art galleries, carefully organised.
But there are many many exceptions. And I'm talking only about western Europe. Orthodox churches in eastern Europe can be intensely moving.
And as for Bhutanese Buddhist temples! - oh my word.
This is an excellent piece on how & why some (many?) undecideds broke for Trump:
There was one moment when I saw more undecided voters shift to Trump than any other, when it all changed, when voters began to speak differently about their choice. It wasn’t FBI Director James Comey, Part One or Part Two; it wasn’t Benghazi or the e-mails or Bill Clinton’s visit with Attorney General Loretta Lynch on the tarmac. No, the conversation shifted the most during the weekend of Sept. 9, after Clinton said, “You can put half of Trump supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables.”
What was the full quotation? (This reminds me of Dave's 'We're not Little Englanders' - a perfectly justified dig at Nigel Farage and his psychology, but one which was brilliantly twisted by Leave to become a slander upon the entire English race.)
It was worse than that because although her qoute was also twisted ahw said a quarter of the population are bigoted and even worse (in a much more religious country than ours) irredeemable.
"You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic -- you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up."
This is an excellent piece on how & why some (many?) undecideds broke for Trump:
There was one moment when I saw more undecided voters shift to Trump than any other, when it all changed, when voters began to speak differently about their choice. It wasn’t FBI Director James Comey, Part One or Part Two; it wasn’t Benghazi or the e-mails or Bill Clinton’s visit with Attorney General Loretta Lynch on the tarmac. No, the conversation shifted the most during the weekend of Sept. 9, after Clinton said, “You can put half of Trump supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables.”
What was the full quotation? (This reminds me of Dave's 'We're not Little Englanders' - a perfectly justified dig at Nigel Farage and his psychology, but one which was brilliantly twisted by Leave to become a slander upon the entire English race.)
It was worse than that because although her qoute was also twisted ahw said a quarter of the population are bigoted and even worse (in a much more religious country than ours) irredeemable.
"You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic -- you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up."
This is an excellent piece on how & why some (many?) undecideds broke for Trump:
There was one moment when I saw more undecided voters shift to Trump than any other, when it all changed, when voters began to speak differently about their choice. It wasn’t FBI Director James Comey, Part One or Part Two; it wasn’t Benghazi or the e-mails or Bill Clinton’s visit with Attorney General Loretta Lynch on the tarmac. No, the conversation shifted the most during the weekend of Sept. 9, after Clinton said, “You can put half of Trump supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables.”
BVA 2-4 december No direct comparison with previous polls because they did not the same combinations of candidates in the past.
Scenario 1 Valls Fillon 24 Le Pen 24 Mélenchon 14 Macron 14 Valls 13 Bayrou 6 All others 5.5
Scenario 2 Montebourg Le Pen 24 Fillon 23 Macron 19 Melenchon 13 Bayrou 8 Montebourg 6.5 All others 5.5
Scenario 3 Valls without Macron and without Bayrou (Unlikely but BVA explains they test it as a best-case scenario for Valls) Fillon 29 Le Pen 26 Valls 21 Mélenchon 17 All others 7
Second round Fillon 67 Le Pen 33
Main lessons: - BVA confirms its reputation as a "creative" pollster, tending to imagine questions to fit a narrative. Scenario 3 is a good example. It was probably designed to show that a single candidate for socialists and centrists could qualify for the second round. Alas, it did not work as Valls would stay 5 points behind Le Pen. The only possibility for such a scenario would be for both Macron and Bayrou to fail to get 500 signatures of mayors and councillors. Very unlikely and if they wer a bit short, some right-wingers would probably come discretely to the rescue.
- Scenario 1 is the most probable and the nightmare scenario for the left. It confirms that Valls is best placed to harm Macron, but not much more at this stage. As BVA has in the past overstated a bit the socialists, it has to be a concern.
- Scenario 2 confirms that Montebourg would be a dreadful general election candidate. I guess that additional exposure during the primary would help. Still, Macron would certainly love to face him.
- All scenarios confirm that Mélenchon could finish third, especially against Valls, but cannot hop to get higher than 15. In 2012 he got much less than his poll numbers (11,1%, compared to polling between 13 and 16).
He's surely too old, will be 78 in 2020, four years older than Trump. He should have run this year as incumbent VP, but was understandably worried about his family and also the Clinton machine - which was well ingrained in the Dem establishment and wanted to win at any cost. Time now for the next generation's Obama to step up, whoever he or she happens to be.
The Democrats (and the Republicans TBH) need to take a long, hard look at who are are and what they represent, before they choose their candidate for 2020. They not only chose the wrong candidate this time, but they excluded most sensible candidates from even running - and they were talking about things that appealed only to their base and put off undecided voters, well before Hillary called them the deplorables.
My suggestion would be for the Dems to spend a couple of years working out who they are, then run their primaries a year earlier than usual - have the chosen candidate in place in the middle of 2019, and have them act as a LotO type figure opposing the President.
This relies on the primary process being one of polite disagreement rather than name calling, and requires the whole party to agree in advance to unite behind the candidate. Of the candidate, it means making sure they don't mess it up and being in campaign mode for eighteen months. Of the party it means getting at least a skeleton campaign infrastructure and fundraising in early, which should be easy if the incumbent Trump is unpopular mid-term.
I cannot see past a Conservative win (one to hold against me there!)
But I think the interesting stories will be elsewhere, particularly with UKIP and the Lib Dems. The Lib Dems were a poor fourth last year with just 5.7% of the vote, with UKIP closely behind Labour in third on 15.7.
I'll be looking at: *) If, and how much, UKIP eat Park.
Lib Dem Ross will reach 50% be optimistic or accurate in guessing the result, but will say I am hopeful the Lib Dems will do better than the 5.7% we got in 2015.
Who is going to bother to turnout to vote Tory in a by election on a cold December day when they and probably will but I expect the UKIP vote to be up on a relatively low turnout
Probably more people than will turn out on the same cold day to vote for candidates who will probably lose anyway?
Probably but it may well be a lot tighter than some expect, especially if a low turnout, UKIP voters will be more motivated to send a message on Brexit than Tory voters who are relatively happy with the status quo
so, what's your 'line' on ukip vote share? 35%?
If the Tory vote fractures to a mixture of UKIP, the Lib Dems and Marianne Overton the arithmetic could get interesting. A lot will depend on what Labour voters do.
Yes, Labour were second with 17.3%. I would guess that they will lose some of that support this time.
I cannot see past a Conservative win (one to hold against me there!)
But I think the interesting stories will be elsewhere, particularly with UKIP and the Lib Dems. The Lib Dems were a poor fourth last year with just 5.7% of the vote, with UKIP closely behind Labour in third on 15.7.
I'll be looking at: *) If, and how much, UKIP eat Park.
Lib Dem Ross will reach 50% be optimistic or accurate in guessing the result, but will say I am hopeful the Lib Dems will do better than the 5.7% we got in 2015.
Who is going to bother to turnout to vote Tory in a by election on a cold December day when they and probably will but I expect the UKIP vote to be up on a relatively low turnout
Probably more people than will turn out on the same cold day to vote for candidates who will probably lose anyway?
Probably but it may well be a lot tighter than some expect, especially if a low turnout, UKIP voters will be more motivated to send a message on Brexit than Tory voters who are relatively happy with the status quo
so, what's your 'line' on ukip vote share? 35%?
If the Tory vote fractures to a mixture of UKIP, the Lib Dems and Marianne Overton the arithmetic could get interesting. A lot will depend on what Labour voters do.
Yes, Labour were second with 17.3%. I would guess that they will lose some of that support this time.
Lol. A by-election being defended by the government at a time when it is in a mess and being attacked by some of its own backbenchers, and we are debating to whom the opposition party candidate will lose the most votes!
I cannot see past a Conservative win (one to hold against me there!)
But I think the interesting stories will be elsewhere, particularly with UKIP and the Lib Dems. The Lib Dems were a poor fourth last year with just 5.7% of the vote, with UKIP closely behind Labour in third on 15.7.
I'll be looking at: *) If, and how much, UKIP eat Park.
Lib Dem Ross will reach 50% be optimistic or accurate in guessing the result, but will say I am hopeful the Lib Dems will do better than the 5.7% we got in 2015.
Who is going to bother to turnout to vote Tory in a by election on a cold December day when they and probably will but I expect the UKIP vote to be up on a relatively low turnout
Probably more people than will turn out on the same cold day to vote for candidates who will probably lose anyway?
Probably but it may well be a lot tighter than some expect, especially if a low turnout, UKIP voters will be more motivated to send a message on Brexit than Tory voters who are relatively happy with the status quo
so, what's your 'line' on ukip vote share? 35%?
If the Tory vote fractures to a mixture of UKIP, the Lib Dems and Marianne Overton the arithmetic could get interesting. A lot will depend on what Labour voters do.
Yes, Labour were second with 17.3%. I would guess that they will lose some of that support this time.
Lol. A by-election being defended by the government at a time when it is in a mess and being attacked by some of its own backbenchers
Confronted by an Opposition in an even bigger mess with a leader loathed by both its parliamentary party and the public......
I cannot see past a Conservative win (one to hold against me there!)
But I think the interesting stories will be elsewhere, particularly with UKIP and the Lib Dems. The Lib Dems were a poor fourth last year with just 5.7% of the vote, with UKIP closely behind Labour in third on 15.7.
I'll be looking at: *) If, and how much, UKIP eat Park.
Lib Dem Ross will reach 50% be optimistic or accurate in guessing the result, but will say I am hopeful the Lib Dems will do better than the 5.7% we got in 2015.
Who is going to bother to turnout to vote Tory in a by election on a cold December day when they and probably will but I expect the UKIP vote to be up on a relatively low turnout
Probably more people than will turn out on the same cold day to vote for candidates who will probably lose anyway?
Probably but it may well be a lot tighter than some expect, especially if a low turnout, UKIP voters will be more motivated to send a message on Brexit than Tory voters who are relatively happy with the status quo
so, what's your 'line' on ukip vote share? 35%?
If the Tory vote fractures to a mixture of UKIP, the Lib Dems and Marianne Overton the arithmetic could get interesting. A lot will depend on what Labour voters do.
Yes, Labour were second with 17.3%. I would guess that they will lose some of that support this time.
Lol. A by-election being defended by the government at a time when it is in a mess and being attacked by some of its own backbenchers, and we are debating to whom the opposition party candidate will lose the most votes!
I think Labour will hold second place, they have a sane WWC candidate who favours a Brexit that maintains workers rights.
Witney showed that even in Shire England the Labour vote is low but pretty resilient.
Sky News - 'with the Government struggling to win the political argument No 10 will not have enjoyed the legal arguments in the Supreme Court today'.
Sky have become the mouth piece of the remainers and the EU.
I cannot think of one of their presenters who is not pro remain.
UK's own CNN
Interesting. Is Murdoch getting cold feet?
Increasingly it look as if TM will take a course of action suggested by Alistair, a one line enabling bill. If only she listened to advice...
The delay bring the'fault' of the court case has probably been useful, and I guess it was worth seeing if they could win as it works clarify handy executive power. But that they always had other options always made the case more an academic exercise.a one line bill will be presented as some kick in the face to those out of touch judges, but I would think they'd be perfectly content, since if they rule agai st the government it will be due to lack of specific authorisation by parliament and the bill would be an unambiguous way to provide it.
Some hearteningly mundane and pleasant tone returned, let's hope not briefly, to PBers last night I see.
This is an excellent piece on how & why some (many?) undecideds broke for Trump:
There was one moment when I saw more undecided voters shift to Trump than any other, when it all changed, when voters began to speak differently about their choice. It wasn’t FBI Director James Comey, Part One or Part Two; it wasn’t Benghazi or the e-mails or Bill Clinton’s visit with Attorney General Loretta Lynch on the tarmac. No, the conversation shifted the most during the weekend of Sept. 9, after Clinton said, “You can put half of Trump supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables.”
Oliver Letwin on the Supreme Court case: We may find out things about the constitution that we don't want to know.
Not a bad live. Given how many things we go which are conventions rather than law, and many people dont know which is which, our system seems to generally work just fine so long as people don't go poking around, as some surprisingly senior people end up surprised at even basic principles.
Biden would not have won. For a start, he is not a good campaigner: he has twice run for president and twice flopped. And if he had run this time, he'd be even more vulnerable than Hillary to charges of being "continuity Obama" and a Washington insider because for the past eight years he has been vice-president. It is not even clear he'd have beaten Bernie Sanders.
Theyre perfectly at liberty to boycott a product... It's just kinda funny they are doing it for such a feeble reason.
Of course they're free to not purchase a product, the reason for doing so is the only amusement. It's very snowflake like. The mean company upset me politically,so now no one of my politics should use it. Course, we know the left do it.
Theyre perfectly at liberty to boycott a product... It's just kinda funny they are doing it for such a feeble reason.
Of course they're free to not purchase a product, the reason for doing so is the only amusement.
Fresh from polishing their jackboots and preparing to meet their manifest destiny, they pause only to screech in despair at a snub at the breakfast table.
This'll probably harm them in the long run. Other large advertisers will be put off advertising with them.
Quite - 'If you don't advertise with us we'll encourage our readers to boycott you' isn't the greatest sales pitch......Kellogs will maintain a dignified silence and never again advertise with Breitbart.....
This'll probably harm them in the long run. Other large advertisers will be put off advertising with them.
Quite - 'If you don't advertise with us we'll encourage our readers to boycott you' isn't the greatest sales pitch......Kellogs will maintain a dignified silence and never again advertise with Breitbart.....
Probably have a brief boost in sales from leftists purchasing to post mocking pictures with cereal boxes.
Theyre perfectly at liberty to boycott a product... It's just kinda funny they are doing it for such a feeble reason.
Of course they're free to not purchase a product, the reason for doing so is the only amusement.
Fresh from polishing their jackboots and preparing to meet their manifest destiny, they pause only to screech in despair at a snub at the breakfast table.
Sugar Puffs.
In fairness I never enjoy getting a serving of bigotry at the breakfast table. what's wrong with toast? Soft, white toast turning a crispy brown...wait a minute! God damn multiculturalists breakfast wanting to darken everyone up.
Kellogs clearly aren't the only ones making Fruit Loops:
Breitbart news is the largest platform for pro-family content anywhere on the Internet. We advocate for traditional American values, perhaps most important among them is freedom of speech. For Kellogg’s, an iconic American brand, to blacklist Breitbart News in order to placate left-wing totalitarians is a disgraceful act of cowardice. They insult our incredibly diverse staff and spit in the face of our 45,000,000 highly engaged, highly perceptive, highly loyal readers, many of whom are Kellogg’s customers. Boycotting mainstream American ideas is an act of discrimination and intense prejudice. If you serve Kellogg’s products to your family, you are serving up bigotry at your breakfast table.
Theyre perfectly at liberty to boycott a product... It's just kinda funny they are doing it for such a feeble reason.
Of course they're free to not purchase a product, the reason for doing so is the only amusement.
Fresh from polishing their jackboots and preparing to meet their manifest destiny, they pause only to screech in despair at a snub at the breakfast table.
Sugar Puffs.
In fairness I never enjoy getting a serving of bigotry at the breakfast table. what's wrong with toast? Soft, white toast turning a crispy brown...wait a minute! God damn multiculturalists breakfast wanting to darken everyone up.
Milk should only ever be white at the breakfast table though.
Worth noting I'm sure no one would like to be told or hear it implied they are, shall we say, deplorable, but reaction to such minor things as advertising, well, theres a subset on left and right who want to feel important, part of a crusade, or the victim of a crusade, no matter what.
Comments
That said, the Santa Maria Novella in Firenze almost makes one believe that Jesus died on the cross for us all.....
Sky have become the mouth piece of the remainers and the EU.
I cannot think of one of their presenters who is not pro remain.
UK's own CNN
This seat has been Conservative for decades albeit in a slightly different guise and I suppose a shock is possible with it being a by election but from being out there today and other days I just don't see it. Screechy Victoria , a former Conservative, is patronising and the North Hykenham debacle won't help. If UKIP won it would be the biggest by election upset for years but working in the constituency for the past few weeks and I am not being complacent I genuinely can't see it being anything other than a Con win.
Take it from me, nothing is being taken for granted and it is being worked very hard.
Increasingly it look as if TM will take a course of action suggested by Alistair, a one line enabling bill. If only she listened to advice...
Try Saint-Bertrand-de-Comminges in Gascony, and reconsider. Some of the provincial French cathedrals are wonders.
I am an agnostic and believe Pope Francis to be a guru. I am drawn to the metaphysics of Hinduism.
The more you look at May , the less there is to see.
Theresa Murray.
Something about sensing an echo of the countless faithful that had passed before: sounds, smells, light.
In my agnosticism I prefer a mild, forgiving CofE God as one end of the possibilities.
The Referendum results programs were good examples of this as huge Leave wins went through without comment whilst the presenters droned on repeatedly about London and Manchester.
Pause.
Peasants...!
I will stick my neck out and say I think UKIP are likely to go backwards in this election. Their campaigning is shambolic. They have some very keen support - but I believe the noise it generates is out of proportion to its numbers. And like Marmite, you either love it or you hate it - so transfers to UKIP from other parties' soft voters does not seem likely.
Plus anyone thinking the turnout will reach 50% is delusional. Richmond was a frenzy of activity compared to S&NH. However, I can report that a significant number of Lib Dem poster boards went up today.
Had too many disappointments in the past to be optimistic or accurate in guessing the result, but will say I am hopeful the Lib Dems will do better than the 5.7% we got in 2015.
In that circumstance, consider the intrepid cultural explorers who first "discover" and "translate" Billy Graham's flavour of evangelicalism and bring it to this corner of western Europe - I could see it being taken up here by the hippyish and the multicultural magpies in a similar vein (as you put it) to the gurus of eastern spirituality. Love as the supreme and dominant characteristic of the universal creator, the washing away of sin and so on - without its historical and cultural associations, one can easily visualise that philosophy becoming rather trendy, slotting in seamlessly with Buddha garden ornaments and Obijwe dreamcatcher nets hanging on their car mirror by the fluffy dice.
Not so much to Dr Fox's spiritual tastes, but one can repeat the thought experiment with a deeply Catholic society, perhaps Latin American - the devotion and iconography of the saints, the meditative potential of the rosary, all would lay ripe for cultural appropriation.
Ifop fiducial for Paris Match (2/3 nov)
Three scenarios depending on the winner of the left wing primary (comparison with 28/30 nov BEFORE the Hollande decision not to run)
Scenario Valls
Fillon 27.5 (-0.5) Le Pen 24 (=) Macron 13.5 (-1,5) Mélenchon 12.5 (+1,5) Valls 10 (=)
Bayrou 7 (+1,5) all others 5.5 (-1)
Scenario Montebourg
Fillon 28 (-1) Le Pen 24 (=) Macron 16 (-1) Mélenchon 12,5 (+1) Bayrou 8 (+2)
Montebourg 6 (=) all others 5,5 (-1)
Scenario Hamon
Fillon 28 Le Pen 24 Macron 16 Mélenchon 13.5 Bayrou 9
Hamon 4 (!) All others 5.5
Second round
Fillon 65 Le Pen 35
Macron 62 Le Pen 38
(no other scenario tested)
Main lessons:
- Valls starts the race in fifth position, 14 points behind second place...
- Montebourg and Hamon have even worse numbers, falling in sixth place behind Bayrou.
- Valls would clearly harm Macron the most as they are competing for the same voters. Melenchon could well beat both for third place in that scenario.
- Macron remains in third place, but remains well below Le Pen
It is bizarre that the poll did not test a Fillon / Macron second round. It is unlikely, but certainly more likely at this stage than a Macron/Le Pen one.
Betfair had added Christiane Taubira to the market. She has not given any indication she wants to run. If she did, she could be dangerous for Valls in the primary (as she is beloved by activists) ... and a catastrophic candidate for the general election. Probably one of the very few people outside Hollande that Le Pen would have a good chance to beat.
There was one moment when I saw more undecided voters shift to Trump than any other, when it all changed, when voters began to speak differently about their choice. It wasn’t FBI Director James Comey, Part One or Part Two; it wasn’t Benghazi or the e-mails or Bill Clinton’s visit with Attorney General Loretta Lynch on the tarmac. No, the conversation shifted the most during the weekend of Sept. 9, after Clinton said, “You can put half of Trump supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables.”
All hell broke loose.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/11/21/understanding-undecided-voters/9EjNHVkt99b4re2VAB8ziI/story.html
You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic -- you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people -- now 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks -- they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America."
That was 30 million voters she alienated.
Remind me which was the last election or by-election seat UKIP have that was not already held by the incumbent?
"You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic -- you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/sep/11/context-hillary-clinton-basket-deplorables/
I understand what she was trying to say but ffs don't say it like that.
It was a catastrophic own goal.
http://www.npr.org/2016/12/05/504500990/biden-hints-hes-leaving-the-door-open-to-a-2020-run
BVA 2-4 december
No direct comparison with previous polls because they did not the same combinations of candidates in the past.
Scenario 1 Valls
Fillon 24 Le Pen 24 Mélenchon 14 Macron 14 Valls 13
Bayrou 6 All others 5.5
Scenario 2 Montebourg
Le Pen 24 Fillon 23 Macron 19 Melenchon 13 Bayrou 8
Montebourg 6.5 All others 5.5
Scenario 3 Valls without Macron and without Bayrou
(Unlikely but BVA explains they test it as a best-case scenario for Valls)
Fillon 29 Le Pen 26 Valls 21 Mélenchon 17
All others 7
Second round
Fillon 67 Le Pen 33
Main lessons:
- BVA confirms its reputation as a "creative" pollster, tending to imagine questions to fit a narrative. Scenario 3 is a good example. It was probably designed to show that a single candidate for socialists and centrists could qualify for the second round. Alas, it did not work as Valls would stay 5 points behind Le Pen. The only possibility for such a scenario would be for both Macron and Bayrou to fail to get 500 signatures of mayors and councillors. Very unlikely and if they wer a bit short, some right-wingers would probably come discretely to the rescue.
- Scenario 1 is the most probable and the nightmare scenario for the left. It confirms that Valls is best placed to harm Macron, but not much more at this stage.
As BVA has in the past overstated a bit the socialists, it has to be a concern.
- Scenario 2 confirms that Montebourg would be a dreadful general election candidate. I guess that additional exposure during the primary would help.
Still, Macron would certainly love to face him.
- All scenarios confirm that Mélenchon could finish third, especially against Valls, but cannot hop to get higher than 15. In 2012 he got much less than his poll numbers (11,1%, compared to polling between 13 and 16).
He should have run this year as incumbent VP, but was understandably worried about his family and also the Clinton machine - which was well ingrained in the Dem establishment and wanted to win at any cost. Time now for the next generation's Obama to step up, whoever he or she happens to be.
The Democrats (and the Republicans TBH) need to take a long, hard look at who are are and what they represent, before they choose their candidate for 2020. They not only chose the wrong candidate this time, but they excluded most sensible candidates from even running - and they were talking about things that appealed only to their base and put off undecided voters, well before Hillary called them the deplorables.
My suggestion would be for the Dems to spend a couple of years working out who they are, then run their primaries a year earlier than usual - have the chosen candidate in place in the middle of 2019, and have them act as a LotO type figure opposing the President.
This relies on the primary process being one of polite disagreement rather than name calling, and requires the whole party to agree in advance to unite behind the candidate. Of the candidate, it means making sure they don't mess it up and being in campaign mode for eighteen months. Of the party it means getting at least a skeleton campaign infrastructure and fundraising in early, which should be easy if the incumbent Trump is unpopular mid-term.
Witney showed that even in Shire England the Labour vote is low but pretty resilient.
Some hearteningly mundane and pleasant tone returned, let's hope not briefly, to PBers last night I see.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38167910
This'll probably harm them in the long run. Other large advertisers will be put off advertising with them.
http://www.breitbart.com/dumpkelloggs/
Never mind, Geoff, I'm sure Trump will have a word in the Kellogg Board's ear.
I suspect Kellogg's won't be adding 'like serving bigotry at the breakfast table' to their slogans though
Single, pure, grain cheerios, none of this multigrain crap.
Is this the first sacking by the new regime?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38231532
Sugar Puffs.
Breitbart news is the largest platform for pro-family content anywhere on the Internet. We advocate for traditional American values, perhaps most important among them is freedom of speech. For Kellogg’s, an iconic American brand, to blacklist Breitbart News in order to placate left-wing totalitarians is a disgraceful act of cowardice. They insult our incredibly diverse staff and spit in the face of our 45,000,000 highly engaged, highly perceptive, highly loyal readers, many of whom are Kellogg’s customers. Boycotting mainstream American ideas is an act of discrimination and intense prejudice. If you serve Kellogg’s products to your family, you are serving up bigotry at your breakfast table.
http://www.breitbart.com/dumpkelloggs/