politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » As long as the 2010 Lib Dem voters are splitting like this

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » As long as the 2010 Lib Dem voters are splitting like this then Cameron’s chances of remaining PM are slight

What will a Syrian intervention do?

Read the full story here

MarqueeMark

And those 32% of remaining LibDem voters are going to save how many LibDem seats?

There is a good reason why the Libdems should be painting Labour as Public Enemy Number One for the next 18 months....

Jonathan

Was there an analysis of the 2010 LD vote that showed where they themselves originated (2005,2001)?

I suspect a good proportion of these LAB switchers had been previously been LAB voters and are simply coming home. If true, there is not much the Tories (or anyone) will be able to do about that.

Despite, these voters returning to boost Labour's rating, I really don't get the impression that LAB have put Blair's big tent back together. Some jigsaw pieces are missing.

OblitusSumMe

I still reckon there's potential for Cameron to win over some of the centrist voters from Labour who stuck with the incumbent in 2010.

anotherDave

Since 2010 the swing voters have moved to Labour and UKIP. Those are the groups the Conservatives need to persuade.

JonC

Don't we need a bit more detail? Agree it is bad for the tories but not necessarily as terminal as it appears.

Tories can only win if they win most of the LD seats where they are second and Labour nowhere. There must be 20-25 of these seats, maybe more, in the South and South West. LDs switching to Labour here will HELP the tories. On these numbers LD seats are almost all up for grabs. How many LD seats have the tories 2nd, how many Labour? Anyone got the stats?

LDs switching to Lab in Tory seats where Labour are fairly close second is clearly bad for the tories, but a lot of savvy LDs will have tactically voted Lab here anyway last time (?)

The LDs got lots of votes in London, the midlands and North last time in Labour held seats as Labour fell to 29% - switching here will just make them safer for Lab but so what.

Also 24% of 2010 LDs amounts to 5.5% of the electorate - taking Labour up to 34.5%. Where else are they going to increase their vote from? Stay at home WWC? Surely these will be mainly in Lab held seats anyway.

Still all to play for and hung parliament favourite for me.

OblitusSumMe

Jonathan said:

Was there an analysis of the 2010 LD vote that showed where they themselves originated (2005,2001)?

In 2005, MORI had a past vote question for their "How Britain voted", but this was missing in 2010 [perhaps because it was thought to be unreliable?]

If we do trust this past vote recall, then the biggest movement between 2001 to 2005 was from Labour to the Lib Dems, though with a fairly large move from Lib Dems to Conservatives too.

TheScreamingEagles

Well there's a breaking headline on the times website that Iran says it will bomb Israel if the West bombs Syria.

Send for Doctor Strangelove.

Slackbladder

TheScreamingEagles said:

Well there's a breaking headline on the times website that Iran says it will bomb Israel if the West bombs Syria.

Send for Doctor Strangelove.

echoes of 1914 are blowing in the wind...

OblitusSumMe

JonC said:

LDs switching to Lab in Tory seats where Labour are fairly close second is clearly bad for the tories, but a lot of savvy LDs will have tactically voted Lab here anyway last time (?)

I *think* that it was in 3rd place seats that the Lib Dems picked up lots of votes at the last election.

Remember that the Lib Dems gained vote share, but lost seats, in 2010 - and this was because they gained votes in the wrong places.

Eastleigh suggests that the Lib Dems may be better at holding onto votes where it matters to them in terms of seats - so I would expect them to out-perform UNS.

Plato

This is bad for Tories - as is everything - apparently.

TheScreamingEagles

Slackbladder said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Well there's a breaking headline on the times website that Iran says it will bomb Israel if the West bombs Syria.

Send for Doctor Strangelove.

echoes of 1914 are blowing in the wind...

I blame the Liberals.

First it was Asquith, now it's Clegg.

These things happen when the Liberals are in power.

[Deleted User]

TSE

Syria is basically Obama's mess. His hand wringing apologising 'reset' foreign policy is a humiliating catastrophe. To the whole world of non-naive realpolitikkers (incl the entire Middle East) he looks clueless weak and manipulable. A black Jimmy Carter. There is no prospect of peace, respect, democracy or progress in the region. His bluff is called and he can't or won't follow through. What a mess.

RodCrosby

Sky: Former Head of RAF dissing the effectiveness or point of attacks.

'Is it the usual "something must be done" brigade, or perhaps something to do with "the world order..."? PM should say...'

Pulpstar

TheScreamingEagles said:

Well there's a breaking headline on the times website that Iran says it will bomb Israel if the West bombs Syria.

Send for Doctor Strangelove.

That's a bluff, Tehran will be reduced to a heap of glass if they bomb the Israelis.

anotherDave

OblitusSumMe said:

JonC said:

LDs switching to Lab in Tory seats where Labour are fairly close second is clearly bad for the tories, but a lot of savvy LDs will have tactically voted Lab here anyway last time (?)

I *think* that it was in 3rd place seats that the Lib Dems picked up lots of votes at the last election.

Remember that the Lib Dems gained vote share, but lost seats, in 2010 - and this was because they gained votes in the wrong places.

Eastleigh suggests that the Lib Dems may be better at holding onto votes where it matters to them in terms of seats - so I would expect them to out-perform UNS.

Their decline in Eastleigh was in line with their national numbers.

2010 Eastleigh: 47%
2013 Eastleigh: 32% (-15)

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/eastleigh/

2010 local elections: 26%
2013 local elections: 14% (-12)

Roger

@TSE

"Send for Doctor Strangelove."

I just heard Dr Strangelove on the radio*. Who at the BBC kept these guys telephone numbers I can't imagine but it's certainly sending a chill down my spine.

*David Owen

CD13

Sean T,

There's no doubt the Agent Orange drop in Vietnam was a disaster in every way. USAF personnel were also affected. I think it was intended to destroy the tree cover along the Ho Chi Minh Trail, but the collateral damage was high.

But dioxins are "natural" products of combustion (or high temperature synthesis without adequate quenching) and have been with us even before fire was discovered (earthquakes, volcanoes and bushfires).

As I said earlier, natural = dangerous. Give me my quota of e-numbers, at least they've been checked out. And proper drugs rather than herbal medicine.

Random

TheScreamingEagles said:

Well there's a breaking headline on the times website that Iran says it will bomb Israel if the West bombs Syria.

Send for Doctor Strangelove.

Did the article give any clue as to how Iran plans to achieve this? Their airforce is a joke (certainly no match for the IAF) - certainly at these sort of ranges.

They could use some of their home-made ballistic missiles I suppose, but some people might contend that that would be a sub-optimal course of action when directed at a country with nuclear weapons and a proven track record at lashing out hard when confronted with what it regards as an existential threat.

TheScreamingEagles

FYI - Because I'm in favour of military intervention in Syria, it would appear that PB.com is currently under attack from The Syrian Electronic Army.

So if PB is a bit slow today, that's why.

Although it's more likely to Wordpress being slow today than the SEA

My ego wishes it was the SEA

richardDodd

One attack from Iran on Israel and its bingo to all of its nuclear power/bomb making staions

RichardNabavi

This is Mike's favourite theme, but it really isn't right, or at least it's focusing too much on one narrow bit of a bigger picture.

Cameron's chances of remaining PM depend entirely on how many votes he can get, compared with Labour, in around 80 Con/Lab marginal seats, and to an extent on how many votes he can get, compared with the LibDems, in a couple of dozen Con/LD marginals. Of course, LibDem to Labour defectors help Labour, but that's already built in to the current Labour polling lead of around 5 to 6 percentage points. Even if those LibDem defectors all vote exactly as they currently say they will (a big if), Cameron doesn't need to persuade many people currently saying they don't know, or will vote Labour, or will vote UKIP, to vote for him in order to remain PM, especially if some of the Labour supporters don't actually turn out on the day.

What's more, where are these LibDem to Labour switchers? If they're in Con/LD marginals, they're actually helping the Tories. Obviously, in Con/Lab marginals, the opposite is true, but it's not obvious why those particular LibDem voters didn't vote Labour last time, if they didn't want a Tory-led government. If they're in safe Labour or Con seats, they're harmless. We could well see differential shifts in different types of seat, and of course geographically.

TheScreamingEagles

Random said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Well there's a breaking headline on the times website that Iran says it will bomb Israel if the West bombs Syria.

Send for Doctor Strangelove.

Did the article give any clue as to how Iran plans to achieve this? Their airforce is a joke (certainly no match for the IAF) - certainly at these sort of ranges.

They could use some of their home-made ballistic missiles I suppose, but some people might contend that that would be a sub-optimal course of action when directed at a country with nuclear weapons and a proven track record at lashing out hard when confronted with what it regards as an existential threat.

Sleeper cells via Hamas ( suicide bombers) and poorly mounted lorries.

TheScreamingEagles

Iranian lawmakers and commanders issued stark warnings to the United States and its allies Tuesday, saying any military strike on Syria would lead to a retaliatory attack on Israel fanned by “the flames of outrage.”

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/attack-on-syria-would-trigger-one-on-israel-iran-warns/article13992733/?service=mobile

TheScreamingEagles

Roger said:

@TSE

"Send for Doctor Strangelove."

I just heard Dr Strangelove on the radio*. Who at the BBC kept these guys telephone numbers I can't imagine but it's certainly sending a chill down my spine.

*David Owen

Nobody likes David Owen do they ?

Why is it?

Is it cause he is a vile splitter.

OblitusSumMe

anotherDave said:

OblitusSumMe said:

JonC said:

LDs switching to Lab in Tory seats where Labour are fairly close second is clearly bad for the tories, but a lot of savvy LDs will have tactically voted Lab here anyway last time (?)

I *think* that it was in 3rd place seats that the Lib Dems picked up lots of votes at the last election.

Remember that the Lib Dems gained vote share, but lost seats, in 2010 - and this was because they gained votes in the wrong places.

Eastleigh suggests that the Lib Dems may be better at holding onto votes where it matters to them in terms of seats - so I would expect them to out-perform UNS.

Their decline in Eastleigh was in line with their national numbers.

2010 Eastleigh: 47%
2013 Eastleigh: 32% (-15)

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/eastleigh/

2010 local elections: 26%
2013 local elections: 14% (-12)

Yes, but you would expect their decline in a by-election to be worse than the national numbers in opinion polls - as happened to the Conservatives in Corby, where the Tory vote declined by 15.6%, at a time when the national numbers only put the Tory vote down by 5%, if that much.

Roger

As well as those Lib Dems who have moved to Labour there will be another group of floaters who will vote for whoever has the best chance to keep the Tories out as there always are. Remember yesterday's poll where 55% of voters said they would sooner impale themselves on the statue of liberty than vote Tory (or something similar)

anotherDave

RichardNabavi said:

This is Mike's favourite theme, but it really isn't right, or at least it's focusing too much on one narrow bit of a bigger picture.

Cameron's chances of remaining PM depend entirely on how many votes he can get, compared with Labour, in around 80 Con/Lab marginal seats, and to an extent on how many votes he can get, compared with the LibDems, in a couple of dozen Con/LD marginals. Of course, LibDem to Labour defectors help Labour, but that's already built in to the current Labour polling lead of around 5 to 6 percentage points. Even if those LibDem defectors all vote exactly as they currently say they will (a big if), Cameron doesn't need to persuade many people currently saying they don't know, or will vote Labour, or will vote UKIP, to vote for him in order to remain PM, especially if some of the Labour supporters don't actually turn out on the day.

What's more, where are these LibDem to Labour switchers? If they're in Con/LD marginals, they're actually helping the Tories. Obviously, in Con/Lab marginals, the opposite is true, but it's not obvious why those particular LibDem voters didn't vote Labour last time, if they didn't want a Tory-led government. If they're in safe Labour or Con seats, they're harmless. We could well see differential shifts in different types of seat, and of course geographically.

In the Con/LD seats there is also the Lab tactical voters who supported the LDs in 2010, you'd expect them to back a different horse in 2015.

Rexel56

I'm sure there's a reason why some of the data points in the chart are positive and some negative... maybe someone could explain.

NickPalmer

RichardNabavi said:

What's more, where are these LibDem to Labour switchers? If they're in Con/LD marginals, they're actually helping the Tories. Obviously, in Con/Lab marginals, the opposite is true, but it's not obvious why those particular LibDem voters didn't vote Labour last time, if they didn't want a Tory-led government. If they're in safe Labour or Con seats, they're harmless. We could well see differential shifts in different types of seat, and of course geographically.

Each seat is different, of course. In Broxtowe, the LibDems got 17% by pointing to their strong local council base and claiming that Labour was obviously doomed but the LibDems had a surge which could keep the Tories out. Fortuitously, a Nottingham Post voodoo poll of 20 shoppers showed them two votes ahead of Labour - the LibDems circulated this widely without going into detail about the voodoo aspects. LibDem-Labour waverers switched back and forth with no obvious net gains.

I think it's be harder for them to do it next time, with a new candidate, almost no money, few activists (a key family has moved away, others have just dropped out), an 0.7% Con-Lab gap and hopefully no voodoo poll.

Random

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sleeper cells via Hamas ( suicide bombers) and poorly mounted lorries.

Colour me unimpressed - thanks to the security crackdown, there hasn't been a successful suicide bombing in Israel since 2008. There's a reason Hamas are more likely to use home made rockets these days (and even they're declining in use). A response like that is more likely to advertise Iran's impotence than it's power.

Roger

@TSE

"Is it cause he is a vile splitter."

If that's another word for cu*t then yes.

AveryLP

RichardNabavi said:

What's more, where are these LibDem to Labour switchers?

Last seen super glued to tent pegs outside Balcombe.

Now on the move North to convene an Anti-War rally in Parliament Square.

Will be passing through Mayfield between 16:00 and 16:30. Make sure all windows are closed, doors locked and pets secured inside.

anotherDave

OblitusSumMe said:

anotherDave said:

OblitusSumMe said:

JonC said:

LDs switching to Lab in Tory seats where Labour are fairly close second is clearly bad for the tories, but a lot of savvy LDs will have tactically voted Lab here anyway last time (?)

I *think* that it was in 3rd place seats that the Lib Dems picked up lots of votes at the last election.

Remember that the Lib Dems gained vote share, but lost seats, in 2010 - and this was because they gained votes in the wrong places.

Eastleigh suggests that the Lib Dems may be better at holding onto votes where it matters to them in terms of seats - so I would expect them to out-perform UNS.

Their decline in Eastleigh was in line with their national numbers.

2010 Eastleigh: 47%
2013 Eastleigh: 32% (-15)

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/eastleigh/

2010 local elections: 26%
2013 local elections: 14% (-12)

Yes, but you would expect their decline in a by-election to be worse than the national numbers in opinion polls - as happened to the Conservatives in Corby, where the Tory vote declined by 15.6%, at a time when the national numbers only put the Tory vote down by 5%, if that much.

They put the resources of the national party behind that by-election candidate. The point is, their Eastleigh vote did not outperform UNS. For whatever reason.

What saved them in Eastleigh, and may in 2015, is that the Conservative vote had also declined.

2010 Eastleigh: Con 39%, LD 47%, (UKIP 4%)
2013 Eastleigh: Con 25% (-14), LD 32% (-15), (UKIP 27% (+23))

2010 local elections: Con 35%, LD 26%
2013 local elections: Con 25% (-10), LD 14% (-12), (UKIP 23%)

TheScreamingEagles

Roger said:

@TSE

"Is it cause he is a vile splitter."

If that's another word for cu*t then yes.

Roger you're both a gentleman and a man of erudition.

Such language is unbecoming of you.

I mean Churchill was a vile splitter, twice.

JosiasJessop

Off-topic:

On a day when we might have weighty topics on our minds, something that might put a smile on the faces of Sunil and others:

London to Brighton non-stop in 1953, 1983 and 2013, side-by-side.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-23857210

Random

TheScreamingEagles said:

Roger said:

@TSE

"Send for Doctor Strangelove."

I just heard Dr Strangelove on the radio*. Who at the BBC kept these guys telephone numbers I can't imagine but it's certainly sending a chill down my spine.

*David Owen

Nobody likes David Owen do they ?

Why is it?

Is it cause he is a vile splitter.

"The good fairy gave him thick dark locks, matinee idol features and a lightning intellect. Unfortunately the bad fairy also made him a shit." -- Dennis Healey

RodCrosby

Colin Powell's former Chief of Staff said chemical attacks blamed on Assad could be an Israeli 'false flag' operation, or the rebels... Admitted that Powell's presentation to the UN before the Iraq adventure was 'a hoax'...
http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/west-of-eden/former-bush-administration-official-israel-may-be-behind-use-of-chemical-arms-in-syria.premium-1.519172

Theuniondivvie

TheScreamingEagles said:

Roger said:

@TSE

"Is it cause he is a vile splitter."

If that's another word for cu*t then yes.

Roger you're both a gentleman and a man of erudition.

Such language is unbecoming of you.

I mean Churchill was a vile splitter, twice.

cult [kʌlt]
n
2. a group that devotes itself to or venerates a person, ideal, fad, etc.

It consists of only one man, but David Owen is certainly an enormous cult.

foxinsoxuk

It may not be pretty, but that west bank security wall has worked.

It is getting a bit absurd if the Iranian mullahs attack Israel, because Obama attacked in support of Al Qaida. It really is difficult to see what good can come from any of this!

Random said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sleeper cells via Hamas ( suicide bombers) and poorly mounted lorries.

Colour me unimpressed - thanks to the security crackdown, there hasn't been a successful suicide bombing in Israel since 2008. There's a reason Hamas are more likely to use home made rockets these days (and even they're declining in use). A response like that is more likely to advertise Iran's impotence than it's power.

RodCrosby

Sky: "US, Britain and France helped terrorists use chemical weapons in Syria - Syrian official"

TheScreamingEagles

Theuniondivvie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Roger said:

@TSE

"Is it cause he is a vile splitter."

If that's another word for cu*t then yes.

Roger you're both a gentleman and a man of erudition.

Such language is unbecoming of you.

I mean Churchill was a vile splitter, twice.

cult [kʌlt]
n
2. a group that devotes itself to or venerates a person, ideal, fad, etc.

It consists of only one man, but David Owen is certainly an enormous cult.

A few years ago in Manchester during some protests by soap dodgers objecting to the "cuts" they came up with a catchy tune.

"The Tories putting the "n" in cuts"

anotherDave

foxinsoxuk said:

It may not be pretty, but that west bank security wall has worked.

It is getting a bit absurd if the Iranian mullahs attack Israel, because Obama attacked in support of Al Qaida. It really is difficult to see what good can come from any of this!

Random said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sleeper cells via Hamas ( suicide bombers) and poorly mounted lorries.

Colour me unimpressed - thanks to the security crackdown, there hasn't been a successful suicide bombing in Israel since 2008. There's a reason Hamas are more likely to use home made rockets these days (and even they're declining in use). A response like that is more likely to advertise Iran's impotence than it's power.

Perhaps a feng-shui consultant could help them with their PR? :-)

david_herdson

OblitusSumMe said:

JonC said:

LDs switching to Lab in Tory seats where Labour are fairly close second is clearly bad for the tories, but a lot of savvy LDs will have tactically voted Lab here anyway last time (?)

I *think* that it was in 3rd place seats that the Lib Dems picked up lots of votes at the last election.

Remember that the Lib Dems gained vote share, but lost seats, in 2010 - and this was because they gained votes in the wrong places.

Eastleigh suggests that the Lib Dems may be better at holding onto votes where it matters to them in terms of seats - so I would expect them to out-perform UNS.

The Lib Dems held on to Eastleigh because of the fortuitous way in which the other parties' vote split. The Lib Dems' winning vote share was, if I recall correctly, the lowest in any by-election bar some unusual university seat, in more than a century and hence not the sort of thing to build a strategy on.

RodCrosby

tim said:

Your anti semitic conspiracy theories aren't very well researched.

Wtf? Is Haaretz 'anti-semitic' too?

stodge

Afternoon all

As an LD member (yes, a few of us still left), I know that in many seats the LD candidate in 2015 is going to be no more than a name on the ballot paper. That's probably also going to be true of the Conservatives in my constituency of East Ham, where they don't count the Labour vote as much as weigh it.

As Mike has said on numerous occasions and as always been the case. the LD "campaign" in 2015 will be ruthlessly focused on seats being defended and a few prospects - say 75-80 seats in total. Let's be fair - neither the Conservatives nor Labour campaign in every seat either so in no sense is a GE a national contest but a series of local battles with vast areas (the "safe" seats) left alone.

My guess is the Conservative effort will be focussed on perhaps 150 existing seats, 20-30 LD seats and a small number of Labour marginals while Labour will probably do the minimum in 200 seats and work perhaps 100 Conservative seats and 20-30 LD seats .

To imagine all parties fight all seats is to have little or no understanding of how politics works.

Indeed, if you've not seen much up to now, you probably won't see much in 2015.

AveryLP

tim said:

David Smith ‏@dsmitheconomics 1m
In his first big speech Mark Carney says the markets are wrong to think the Bank of England's 7% unemployment threshold will be hit quickly.

Thats why the 5/2 at Paddy Power 7-8% this morning was such a rick, market disappeared now.

Did you take the bet on inflation too?

edmundintokyo

david_herdson said:

OblitusSumMe said:

JonC said:

LDs switching to Lab in Tory seats where Labour are fairly close second is clearly bad for the tories, but a lot of savvy LDs will have tactically voted Lab here anyway last time (?)

I *think* that it was in 3rd place seats that the Lib Dems picked up lots of votes at the last election.

Remember that the Lib Dems gained vote share, but lost seats, in 2010 - and this was because they gained votes in the wrong places.

Eastleigh suggests that the Lib Dems may be better at holding onto votes where it matters to them in terms of seats - so I would expect them to out-perform UNS.

The Lib Dems held on to Eastleigh because of the fortuitous way in which the other parties' vote split. The Lib Dems' winning vote share was, if I recall correctly, the lowest in any by-election bar some unusual university seat, in more than a century and hence not the sort of thing to build a strategy on.

They got a little bit jammy with the vote share split, not to mention very lucky with the Tory candidate, but they presumably lost quite a few voters to UKIP too.

Y0kel

Syria:

Its all in place for the US, last re-deployments in the region have been done yesterday and are largely based around defending against any retaliation against countries in the region and the possibility of extras being needed in terms of manned missions.

Question, what exactly are the UK going to do, fire off 5 missiles and patrol East Med for 3 hours a day?

I'm genuinely curious.

AveryLP

tim said:

TV News ‏@itvnews 3m
UN inspectors need four days to finish Syria chemical attack investigation and analyse findings, Ban Ki-moon says http://itv.co/16QbzcQ

Makes the parliamentary debate tomorrow look mistimed.

Bang on schedule for a UNSC showdown this weekend.

Parliament hasn't been recalled to authorise airstrikes. MPs are losing their holidays so that they can parade before Russian TV cameras.

Ed knows that. That is why he is trying to steal Cameron's thunder by demanding the UN is involved. And that is why you are jumping on the bandwagon by trying to pretend Cameron is running to the UN at Miliband's urging.

Otherwise you are quite solid on these matters.

taffys

''It is getting a bit absurd if the Iranian mullahs attack Israel, because Obama attacked in support of Al Qaida.''

Somebody had better stop this now it is going to get completely out of hand.

If the west bombs Syria Iran will have to respond or risk losing face completely. It's surely foolish to expect otherwise.

RodCrosby

And for idiots like tim with his 'conspiracy theory' nonsense.

Wilkerson was one of the CONSPIRATORS, who subsequently blew the whistle...

"My participation in that presentation at the UN constitutes the lowest point in my professional life. I participated in a hoax on the American people, the international community and the United Nations Security Council."

Just because the MSM won't tell you about it, doesn't make it any less of a fact...

Neil

david_herdson said:

OblitusSumMe said:

JonC said:

LDs switching to Lab in Tory seats where Labour are fairly close second is clearly bad for the tories, but a lot of savvy LDs will have tactically voted Lab here anyway last time (?)

I *think* that it was in 3rd place seats that the Lib Dems picked up lots of votes at the last election.

Remember that the Lib Dems gained vote share, but lost seats, in 2010 - and this was because they gained votes in the wrong places.

Eastleigh suggests that the Lib Dems may be better at holding onto votes where it matters to them in terms of seats - so I would expect them to out-perform UNS.

The Lib Dems held on to Eastleigh because of the fortuitous way in which the other parties' vote split. The Lib Dems' winning vote share was, if I recall correctly, the lowest in any by-election bar some unusual university seat, in more than a century and hence not the sort of thing to build a strategy on.

By-elections are unusual. Look at the local election results before the by-election. If Huhne had driven responsibly I dont think there is any doubt he would have walked Eastleigh in 2015.

AveryLP

While Dave dusts down his rifle, George hits his target

News from the Council of Mortgage Lenders this morning confirms that first time buyers, even in London, are the major growth driver in the mortgage and housing market.

The 11,200 mortgages given to those buying their first home in the U.K. capital in the second quarter was a 38 percent increase from a year earlier and the most since the end of 2007, the Council of Mortgage Lenders said today in a statement. First-time buyers accounted for 56 percent of London home loans in the period compared with 46 percent in all of Britain.

Perhaps George should be running the armed forces too?

taffys

I see Farage has come out against a missile strike.

Ruddy UKIP hippie peaceniks....

david_herdson

Neil said:

david_herdson said:

OblitusSumMe said:

JonC said:

LDs switching to Lab in Tory seats where Labour are fairly close second is clearly bad for the tories, but a lot of savvy LDs will have tactically voted Lab here anyway last time (?)

I *think* that it was in 3rd place seats that the Lib Dems picked up lots of votes at the last election.

Remember that the Lib Dems gained vote share, but lost seats, in 2010 - and this was because they gained votes in the wrong places.

Eastleigh suggests that the Lib Dems may be better at holding onto votes where it matters to them in terms of seats - so I would expect them to out-perform UNS.

The Lib Dems held on to Eastleigh because of the fortuitous way in which the other parties' vote split. The Lib Dems' winning vote share was, if I recall correctly, the lowest in any by-election bar some unusual university seat, in more than a century and hence not the sort of thing to build a strategy on.

By-elections are unusual. Look at the local election results before the by-election. If Huhne had driven responsibly I dont think there is any doubt he would have walked Eastleigh in 2015.

This one was particularly unusual. Fact is it's probable that either a(n even) worse Tory performance or a moderately better one would have lost the Lib Dems the seat - something they had very little control over. Anyway, it wasn't Huhne driving irresponsibly that cost him his seat; it was his lying about it.

anotherDave

Mr Farage interviewed on BBC about Syria.

http://youtu.be/5pxp61tYJcw

Neil

david_herdson said:

Neil said:

david_herdson said:

OblitusSumMe said:

JonC said:

LDs switching to Lab in Tory seats where Labour are fairly close second is clearly bad for the tories, but a lot of savvy LDs will have tactically voted Lab here anyway last time (?)

I *think* that it was in 3rd place seats that the Lib Dems picked up lots of votes at the last election.

Remember that the Lib Dems gained vote share, but lost seats, in 2010 - and this was because they gained votes in the wrong places.

Eastleigh suggests that the Lib Dems may be better at holding onto votes where it matters to them in terms of seats - so I would expect them to out-perform UNS.

The Lib Dems held on to Eastleigh because of the fortuitous way in which the other parties' vote split. The Lib Dems' winning vote share was, if I recall correctly, the lowest in any by-election bar some unusual university seat, in more than a century and hence not the sort of thing to build a strategy on.

By-elections are unusual. Look at the local election results before the by-election. If Huhne had driven responsibly I dont think there is any doubt he would have walked Eastleigh in 2015.

This one was particularly unusual. Fact is it's probable that either a(n even) worse Tory performance or a moderately better one would have lost the Lib Dems the seat - something they had very little control over. Anyway, it wasn't Huhne driving irresponsibly that cost him his seat; it was his lying about it.

But the main point is that if this had gone on to a general election contest then the Lib Dems would have almost certainly won and that Eastleigh is indeed representative of a type of seat where the Lib Dems are better at holding onto votes where it matters.

anotherDave

Neil said:

david_herdson said:

Neil said:

david_herdson said:

OblitusSumMe said:

JonC said:

LDs switching to Lab in Tory seats where Labour are fairly close second is clearly bad for the tories, but a lot of savvy LDs will have tactically voted Lab here anyway last time (?)

I *think* that it was in 3rd place seats that the Lib Dems picked up lots of votes at the last election.

Remember that the Lib Dems gained vote share, but lost seats, in 2010 - and this was because they gained votes in the wrong places.

Eastleigh suggests that the Lib Dems may be better at holding onto votes where it matters to them in terms of seats - so I would expect them to out-perform UNS.

The Lib Dems held on to Eastleigh because of the fortuitous way in which the other parties' vote split. The Lib Dems' winning vote share was, if I recall correctly, the lowest in any by-election bar some unusual university seat, in more than a century and hence not the sort of thing to build a strategy on.

By-elections are unusual. Look at the local election results before the by-election. If Huhne had driven responsibly I dont think there is any doubt he would have walked Eastleigh in 2015.

This one was particularly unusual. Fact is it's probable that either a(n even) worse Tory performance or a moderately better one would have lost the Lib Dems the seat - something they had very little control over. Anyway, it wasn't Huhne driving irresponsibly that cost him his seat; it was his lying about it.

But the main point is that if this had gone on to a general election contest then the Lib Dems would have almost certainly won and that Eastleigh is indeed representative of a type of seat where the Lib Dems are better at holding onto votes where it matters.

The LDs lost seats in Eastleigh in the 2013 locals.

http://www.eastleighnews.co.uk/2013/05/2013-county-election-results/

Neil

anotherDave said:

Neil said:

david_herdson said:

Neil said:

david_herdson said:

OblitusSumMe said:

JonC said:

LDs switching to Lab in Tory seats where Labour are fairly close second is clearly bad for the tories, but a lot of savvy LDs will have tactically voted Lab here anyway last time (?)

I *think* that it was in 3rd place seats that the Lib Dems picked up lots of votes at the last election.

Remember that the Lib Dems gained vote share, but lost seats, in 2010 - and this was because they gained votes in the wrong places.

Eastleigh suggests that the Lib Dems may be better at holding onto votes where it matters to them in terms of seats - so I would expect them to out-perform UNS.

The Lib Dems held on to Eastleigh because of the fortuitous way in which the other parties' vote split. The Lib Dems' winning vote share was, if I recall correctly, the lowest in any by-election bar some unusual university seat, in more than a century and hence not the sort of thing to build a strategy on.

By-elections are unusual. Look at the local election results before the by-election. If Huhne had driven responsibly I dont think there is any doubt he would have walked Eastleigh in 2015.

This one was particularly unusual. Fact is it's probable that either a(n even) worse Tory performance or a moderately better one would have lost the Lib Dems the seat - something they had very little control over. Anyway, it wasn't Huhne driving irresponsibly that cost him his seat; it was his lying about it.

But the main point is that if this had gone on to a general election contest then the Lib Dems would have almost certainly won and that Eastleigh is indeed representative of a type of seat where the Lib Dems are better at holding onto votes where it matters.

The LDs lost seats in Eastleigh in the 2013 locals.

http://www.eastleighnews.co.uk/2013/05/2013-county-election-results/

That's why I said look at the local election results before the by-election. I accept that the by-election changed things. I'd still back the Lib Dems to hold on there but it's a lot less certain than it would have been.

Andy_JS

Mark Carney arrives at the East Midlands Conference Centre at Nottingham University:

http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/Governor-Bank-England-arrives-Nottingham/story-19716073-detail/story.html#axzz2dGrWR5l5

Andy_JS

Is there a procedure for removing someone's Nobel Prize?

Financier

ON Thread

Of course different pollsters come up with different numbers but the trend is similar. If you look at the last few YouGov's for the same information, the destination of the LD 2010 votes is roughly:

Cons:11, LAB: 25; LD: 24; UKIP 8; Green: 5; Nats: 1; Others 1; WNV + DK; 25

With a strong UKIP and a very large DK, surely it is all to play for.

Neil

Andy_JS said:

Is there a procedure for removing someone's Nobel Prize?

Kissinger still has his so I doubt it.

edmundintokyo

david_herdson said:

Neil said:

david_herdson said:

OblitusSumMe said:

JonC said:

LDs switching to Lab in Tory seats where Labour are fairly close second is clearly bad for the tories, but a lot of savvy LDs will have tactically voted Lab here anyway last time (?)

I *think* that it was in 3rd place seats that the Lib Dems picked up lots of votes at the last election.

Remember that the Lib Dems gained vote share, but lost seats, in 2010 - and this was because they gained votes in the wrong places.

Eastleigh suggests that the Lib Dems may be better at holding onto votes where it matters to them in terms of seats - so I would expect them to out-perform UNS.

The Lib Dems held on to Eastleigh because of the fortuitous way in which the other parties' vote split. The Lib Dems' winning vote share was, if I recall correctly, the lowest in any by-election bar some unusual university seat, in more than a century and hence not the sort of thing to build a strategy on.

By-elections are unusual. Look at the local election results before the by-election. If Huhne had driven responsibly I dont think there is any doubt he would have walked Eastleigh in 2015.

This one was particularly unusual. Fact is it's probable that either a(n even) worse Tory performance or a moderately better one would have lost the Lib Dems the seat - something they had very little control over. Anyway, it wasn't Huhne driving irresponsibly that cost him his seat; it was his lying about it.

LD were nearly 2000 votes clear of UKIP and getting on for 3000 votes clear of Con. The Tories would have had to do quite a lot worse to give away that much net to UKIP, especially as if they'd sucked even more than they did LD would have got at least some of their votes, cancelling out part of the resulting move to UKIP.

anotherDave

Mr Farage writing in the Express:
"If we are to spend money in this area I would rather our foreign aid budget is redirected to ensure we ease the suffering of civilians by assisting the refugees in Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon.

The Government has stated it has proof these attacks were done by Assad, so in which case instead of rushing this country into military action, why are they not trying to continue the diplomatic route, showing Russia and China this evidence? "

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/425185/EXCLUSIVE-We-re-tired-of-wars-Nigel-Farage-explains-why-we-MUST-resist-striking-Syria

Roger

@Foxy.

"It may not be pretty, but that west bank security wall has worked."

Unless of course you're a Palestinian.

Neil

tim said:

All male, just how the chums like it.

The NSC is not all male.

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/national-security/groups/national-security-council

AveryLP

tim said:

UK Prime Minister ‏@Number10gov 2m
Photo: PM chairs NSC meeting, it agreed use of #chemicalweapons by Assad was unacceptable & world should not stand by pic.twitter.com/bFxGWWFelo

All male, just how the chums like it.

But the head of the UN Chemical Weapons inspectorate in Syria is a woman, tim.

Godfrey would approve.

Men make the decisions in the cabinet while women find the mustard gas in the larder.

RichardNabavi

tim said:

UK Prime Minister ‏@Number10gov 2m
Photo: PM chairs NSC meeting, it agreed use of #chemicalweapons by Assad was unacceptable & world should not stand by pic.twitter.com/bFxGWWFelo

All male, just how the chums like it.

Theresa May and Justine Greening are members, but I can't vouch for whether there were any women on the equivalent in 2003.

taffys

All male, just how the chums like it.

I'm surprised they didn't agree that it was 'dashed unsporting'

richardDodd

The Cheshire Farmer, with his finger on the pulse..as usual

MonikerDiCanio

RodCrosby said:

And for idiots like tim with his 'conspiracy theory' nonsense.

Wilkerson was one of the CONSPIRATORS, who subsequently blew the whistle...

"My participation in that presentation at the UN constitutes the lowest point in my professional life. I participated in a hoax on the American people, the international community and the United Nations Security Council."

Just because the MSM won't tell you about it, doesn't make it any less of a fact...

Colin Powell himself has described his infamous speech to the UN as a blot on his reputation ;

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-03/colin-powell-says-iraq-blot-teaches-need-for-skepticism.html

malcolmg

AveryLP said:

While Dave dusts down his rifle, George hits his target

News from the Council of Mortgage Lenders this morning confirms that first time buyers, even in London, are the major growth driver in the mortgage and housing market.

The 11,200 mortgages given to those buying their first home in the U.K. capital in the second quarter was a 38 percent increase from a year earlier and the most since the end of 2007, the Council of Mortgage Lenders said today in a statement. First-time buyers accounted for 56 percent of London home loans in the period compared with 46 percent in all of Britain.

Perhaps George should be running the armed forces too?

Neither could run a bath

AveryLP

malcolmg said:

AveryLP said:

While Dave dusts down his rifle, George hits his target

News from the Council of Mortgage Lenders this morning confirms that first time buyers, even in London, are the major growth driver in the mortgage and housing market.

The 11,200 mortgages given to those buying their first home in the U.K. capital in the second quarter was a 38 percent increase from a year earlier and the most since the end of 2007, the Council of Mortgage Lenders said today in a statement. First-time buyers accounted for 56 percent of London home loans in the period compared with 46 percent in all of Britain.

Perhaps George should be running the armed forces too?

Neither could run a bath

You stupid scotch twit.

Everyone knows you draw a bath not run it.

malcolmg

taffys said:

I see Farage has come out against a missile strike.

Ruddy UKIP hippie peaceniks....

Bad day when Farage is the most sensible political opinion in the UK

malcolmg

AveryLP said:

malcolmg said:

AveryLP said:

While Dave dusts down his rifle, George hits his target

News from the Council of Mortgage Lenders this morning confirms that first time buyers, even in London, are the major growth driver in the mortgage and housing market.

The 11,200 mortgages given to those buying their first home in the U.K. capital in the second quarter was a 38 percent increase from a year earlier and the most since the end of 2007, the Council of Mortgage Lenders said today in a statement. First-time buyers accounted for 56 percent of London home loans in the period compared with 46 percent in all of Britain.

Perhaps George should be running the armed forces too?

Neither could run a bath

You stupid scotch twit.

Everyone knows you draw a bath not run it.

Avery we have been over this before in your previous incarnation , Scotch is a drink and only butler's draw a bath, which I thought a poshie liek you would have known.

AveryLP

tim said:

RichardNabavi said:

tim said:

UK Prime Minister ‏@Number10gov 2m
Photo: PM chairs NSC meeting, it agreed use of #chemicalweapons by Assad was unacceptable & world should not stand by pic.twitter.com/bFxGWWFelo

All male, just how the chums like it.

Theresa May and Justine Greening are members, but I can't vouch for whether there were any women on the equivalent in 2003.

Where are they, Theresa taking the photo and Justine making the tea?

Arranging the flowers, tim.

RichardNabavi

@tim - Everyone knows that, when there's work to be done, the women get on with it.

OldKingCole

Random said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Roger said:

@TSE

"Send for Doctor Strangelove."

I just heard Dr Strangelove on the radio*. Who at the BBC kept these guys telephone numbers I can't imagine but it's certainly sending a chill down my spine.

*David Owen

Nobody likes David Owen do they ?

Why is it?

Is it cause he is a vile splitter.

"The good fairy gave him thick dark locks, matinee idol features and a lightning intellect. Unfortunately the bad fairy also made him a shit." -- Dennis Healey

Thanks; been trying to remember that!

edmundintokyo

anotherDave said:

Mr Farage writing in the Express:
"If we are to spend money in this area I would rather our foreign aid budget is redirected to ensure we ease the suffering of civilians by assisting the refugees in Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon.

Fits with Yglesias's point the other day that even if you think the war is justified and helps people in the country you're bombing, you could help people more by spending the money on something else.

Better still, give refugees visas and you can actually turn a profit from helping them.

Neil

tim said:

Why is the disaster area known as Ollie Letwin on the NSC

So there is someone with Jewish connections for the sceptics to blame for everything.

AveryLP

malcolmg said:

AveryLP said:

malcolmg said:

AveryLP said:

While Dave dusts down his rifle, George hits his target

News from the Council of Mortgage Lenders this morning confirms that first time buyers, even in London, are the major growth driver in the mortgage and housing market.

The 11,200 mortgages given to those buying their first home in the U.K. capital in the second quarter was a 38 percent increase from a year earlier and the most since the end of 2007, the Council of Mortgage Lenders said today in a statement. First-time buyers accounted for 56 percent of London home loans in the period compared with 46 percent in all of Britain.

Perhaps George should be running the armed forces too?

Neither could run a bath

You stupid scotch twit.

Everyone knows you draw a bath not run it.

Avery we have been over this before in your previous incarnation , Scotch is a drink and only butler's draw a bath, which I thought a poshie liek you would have known.

But isn't it scotch pies that cause Eck to prefer a shower to a bath?

taffys

Bad day when Farage is the most sensible political opinion in the UK

Quite. Still we haven;t really found Ed's position yet. The Large Hadron Collider is busy on other stuff today, apparently.

Neil

taffys said:

Still we haven;t really found Ed's position yet.

He issued a very clear statement yesterday.

SimonStClare

Love stories like this – “A man who uploaded cannabis-growing tutorials to YouTube has been imprisoned after mistakenly filming himself in one of his videos.

In one video his face could be seen reflected in a shiny surface. In another he filmed a parcel of marijuana seeds he had delivered from the UK which revealed his name and address.

"He's not the brightest person in the world," said Sheriff Michael Downing.”

http://news.sky.com/story/1134076/busted-dopey-cannabis-grower-takes-selfie

AveryLP

tim said:

AveryLP said:

tim said:

RichardNabavi said:

tim said:

UK Prime Minister ‏@Number10gov 2m
Photo: PM chairs NSC meeting, it agreed use of #chemicalweapons by Assad was unacceptable & world should not stand by pic.twitter.com/bFxGWWFelo

All male, just how the chums like it.

Theresa May and Justine Greening are members, but I can't vouch for whether there were any women on the equivalent in 2003.

Where are they, Theresa taking the photo and Justine making the tea?

Arranging the flowers, tim.

The PM Porpoise may be obscuring four or five people from the camera view

Better a PM with porpoise than a LOTO who whales.

Neil

@SimonStCLare

What a sad waste of taxpayer money.

OldKingCole

edmundintokyo said:

anotherDave said:

Mr Farage writing in the Express:
"If we are to spend money in this area I would rather our foreign aid budget is redirected to ensure we ease the suffering of civilians by assisting the refugees in Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon.

Fits with Yglesias's point the other day that even if you think the war is justified and helps people in the country you're bombing, you could help people more by spending the money on something else.

Better still, give refugees visas and you can actually turn a profit from helping them.

Visas? To go where? You're surely not suggesting Mr Farage would welcome them here?

RichardNabavi

Neil said:

What a sad waste of taxpayer money.

Does the taxpayer subsidise YouTube?

OblitusSumMe

david_herdson said:

OblitusSumMe said:

JonC said:

LDs switching to Lab in Tory seats where Labour are fairly close second is clearly bad for the tories, but a lot of savvy LDs will have tactically voted Lab here anyway last time (?)

I *think* that it was in 3rd place seats that the Lib Dems picked up lots of votes at the last election.

Remember that the Lib Dems gained vote share, but lost seats, in 2010 - and this was because they gained votes in the wrong places.

Eastleigh suggests that the Lib Dems may be better at holding onto votes where it matters to them in terms of seats - so I would expect them to out-perform UNS.

The Lib Dems held on to Eastleigh because of the fortuitous way in which the other parties' vote split. The Lib Dems' winning vote share was, if I recall correctly, the lowest in any by-election bar some unusual university seat, in more than a century and hence not the sort of thing to build a strategy on.

Perhaps, but the Lib Dems still held onto Eastleigh while the Tories lost Corby.

The evidence does support the contention that the Lib Dems will be better at hanging onto their seats than their Coalition partners.

david_herdson

OblitusSumMe said:

david_herdson said:

OblitusSumMe said:

JonC said:

LDs switching to Lab in Tory seats where Labour are fairly close second is clearly bad for the tories, but a lot of savvy LDs will have tactically voted Lab here anyway last time (?)

I *think* that it was in 3rd place seats that the Lib Dems picked up lots of votes at the last election.

Remember that the Lib Dems gained vote share, but lost seats, in 2010 - and this was because they gained votes in the wrong places.

Eastleigh suggests that the Lib Dems may be better at holding onto votes where it matters to them in terms of seats - so I would expect them to out-perform UNS.

The Lib Dems held on to Eastleigh because of the fortuitous way in which the other parties' vote split. The Lib Dems' winning vote share was, if I recall correctly, the lowest in any by-election bar some unusual university seat, in more than a century and hence not the sort of thing to build a strategy on.

Perhaps, but the Lib Dems still held onto Eastleigh while the Tories lost Corby.

The evidence does support the contention that the Lib Dems will be better at hanging onto their seats than their Coalition partners.

The Conservatives' main challenger in Corby was the principal opposition. The Lib Dems' main challenger at the previous election was the other government party. There is a substantial difference. We'd need a by-election in a LD-Lab marginal to make a proper comparison.

Jonathan

david_herdson said:

OblitusSumMe said:

david_herdson said:

OblitusSumMe said:

JonC said:

LDs switching to Lab in Tory seats where Labour are fairly close second is clearly bad for the tories, but a lot of savvy LDs will have tactically voted Lab here anyway last time (?)

I *think* that it was in 3rd place seats that the Lib Dems picked up lots of votes at the last election.

Remember that the Lib Dems gained vote share, but lost seats, in 2010 - and this was because they gained votes in the wrong places.

Eastleigh suggests that the Lib Dems may be better at holding onto votes where it matters to them in terms of seats - so I would expect them to out-perform UNS.

The Lib Dems held on to Eastleigh because of the fortuitous way in which the other parties' vote split. The Lib Dems' winning vote share was, if I recall correctly, the lowest in any by-election bar some unusual university seat, in more than a century and hence not the sort of thing to build a strategy on.

Perhaps, but the Lib Dems still held onto Eastleigh while the Tories lost Corby.

The evidence does support the contention that the Lib Dems will be better at hanging onto their seats than their Coalition partners.

The Conservatives' main challenger in Corby was the principal opposition. The Lib Dems' main challenger at the previous election was the other government party. There is a substantial difference. We'd need a by-election in a LD-Lab marginal to make a proper comparison.

LD-Lab marginals are very rare.

richardDodd

The Cheshire Chubby Chaser is in high sweat mode today, must be all those pics of his new fetish idol

OblitusSumMe

david_herdson said:

OblitusSumMe said:

david_herdson said:

OblitusSumMe said:

JonC said:

LDs switching to Lab in Tory seats where Labour are fairly close second is clearly bad for the tories, but a lot of savvy LDs will have tactically voted Lab here anyway last time (?)

I *think* that it was in 3rd place seats that the Lib Dems picked up lots of votes at the last election.

Remember that the Lib Dems gained vote share, but lost seats, in 2010 - and this was because they gained votes in the wrong places.

Eastleigh suggests that the Lib Dems may be better at holding onto votes where it matters to them in terms of seats - so I would expect them to out-perform UNS.

The Lib Dems held on to Eastleigh because of the fortuitous way in which the other parties' vote split. The Lib Dems' winning vote share was, if I recall correctly, the lowest in any by-election bar some unusual university seat, in more than a century and hence not the sort of thing to build a strategy on.

Perhaps, but the Lib Dems still held onto Eastleigh while the Tories lost Corby.

The evidence does support the contention that the Lib Dems will be better at hanging onto their seats than their Coalition partners.

The Conservatives' main challenger in Corby was the principal opposition. The Lib Dems' main challenger at the previous election was the other government party. There is a substantial difference. We'd need a by-election in a LD-Lab marginal to make a proper comparison.

I'm confused. The contention downthread was that in Lib Dem - Con seats the Lib Dems only held the seat because of votes leant by Labour supporters - who after the Coalition would no longer do so - thus gifting the Tories the 20-odd Lib Dem seats they need for an overall majority.

Are you saying this isn't so?

edmundintokyo

OldKingCole said:

edmundintokyo said:

anotherDave said:

Mr Farage writing in the Express:
"If we are to spend money in this area I would rather our foreign aid budget is redirected to ensure we ease the suffering of civilians by assisting the refugees in Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon.

Fits with Yglesias's point the other day that even if you think the war is justified and helps people in the country you're bombing, you could help people more by spending the money on something else.

Better still, give refugees visas and you can actually turn a profit from helping them.

Visas? To go where? You're surely not suggesting Mr Farage would welcome them here?

I'm suggesting that would be a good policy, but as you say it may not be Farage's.

Quincel

Hmm, thoughts? It's basically a bet on the economy. Tough to beat the market I'd imagine.

http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/economics/why-were-hoping-the-wisdom-of-crowds-can-beat-mark-carney

OldKingCole

edmundintokyo said:

OldKingCole said:

edmundintokyo said:

anotherDave said:

Mr Farage writing in the Express:
"If we are to spend money in this area I would rather our foreign aid budget is redirected to ensure we ease the suffering of civilians by assisting the refugees in Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon.

Fits with Yglesias's point the other day that even if you think the war is justified and helps people in the country you're bombing, you could help people more by spending the money on something else.

Better still, give refugees visas and you can actually turn a profit from helping them.

Visas? To go where? You're surely not suggesting Mr Farage would welcome them here?

I'm suggesting that would be a good policy, but as you say it may not be Farage's.

Hmmm. Difficult in these days to see where they would be welcome. Canada perhaps?

stodge

Neil said:

taffys said:

Still we haven;t really found Ed's position yet.

He issued a very clear statement yesterday.

To be fair, I don't think we "know" where anyone really stands on the issue at this point apart from those who would oppose any kind of intervention under any circumstances. The first key event isn't tomorrow though that may be entertaining up to a point but the publication of the report of the UN Inspectors.

IF said report unequivocally points the finger at Assad, then any resolution put to the Security Council will have considerable weight and it will be for Russia and China to explain any veto. Until then, we have a strong supposition but no verified fact which will keep everything simmering nicely until the weekend.

IF the report fails conclusively to prove that Assad's men initiated the chemical attack (whether Assad personally ordered it or not), it will prove much harder for the US/UK to carry out any kind of airstrike.

Slackbladder

edmundintokyo said:

OldKingCole said:

edmundintokyo said:

anotherDave said:

Mr Farage writing in the Express:
"If we are to spend money in this area I would rather our foreign aid budget is redirected to ensure we ease the suffering of civilians by assisting the refugees in Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon.

Fits with Yglesias's point the other day that even if you think the war is justified and helps people in the country you're bombing, you could help people more by spending the money on something else.

Better still, give refugees visas and you can actually turn a profit from helping them.

Visas? To go where? You're surely not suggesting Mr Farage would welcome them here?

I'm suggesting that would be a good policy, but as you say it may not be Farage's.

Yep, because we clearly have more than enough jobs and houses for a few hundred thousand (if not more) unskilled workers which largely don't speak English....

Charles

AveryLP said:

RichardNabavi said:

What's more, where are these LibDem to Labour switchers?

Last seen super glued to tent pegs outside Balcombe.

Now on the move North to convene an Anti-War rally in Parliament Square.

Will be passing through Mayfield between 16:00 and 16:30. Make sure all windows are closed, doors locked and pets secured inside.

Perhaps they are in a badger camp in Somerset.

Although it did amuse me that one paper reported that "approximately 20 people, including several journalists" attended a midnight ramble to try and protect the disease-ridden vermin. And the badgers ;-)