Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Local By-Election Preview : September 12th 2013
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Local By-Election Preview : September 12th 2013
Dunstable, Northfields on Central Befordshire (Con Defence)
Last Local Election (2011): Con 48, Lib Dem 5, Ind 4, Lab 1 (Con overall majority of 38)
Result at last election (2011):
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/andy-mcsmiths-diary-this-old-trouper-is-well-placed-to-spot-a-loser-in-tory-leadership-contest-8812982.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/10304690/Even-Labour-supporters-dont-think-that-Ed-Milibands-up-to-it.html
Penis bite lands Anthony Watts eight-match ban, say reports
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/sep/11/penis-bite-anthony-watts-banned
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-benefits-on-welfare-at-labours-expense-8812897.html
When those who say the welfare bill is too high are asked who they believe is responsible for it,
54% Blame the last Lab Govt
5% Blame the coalition
31% blame both equally
Wreake villages is a true blue bit of Leics, lovely villages on the edge of the Vale of Belvoir.
Hard to see Ed Miliband winning here.
I've not published anything today
I did once ever experience multiple posts, and published the same post 5 times, concurrently.
Short thread...
And still may be worth a punt if Ed does call it quits, I cannot see a defenestration.
The Tories need to decide whether they want a wounded and lame Ed Miliband, or to kick away and try to get a Labour contest.
Iam beginning to agree with Fester on the last thread, I think Ed M is not the problem, but rather the disloyal colleagues he is surrounded by. Maybe they really would rather have five more years of opposition.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-24074756
Uncut poll reveals public blame last Labour government, not Tories, for today’s benefits bill
http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2013/09/12/uncut-poll-reveals-public-blame-last-labour-government-not-tories-for-today’s-benefits-bill/#more-17150
"Michael O'Neill @Michael_KSC 5m
#ausvotes Mike Kelly has conceded defeat in Eden Monaro. Another L/NP Victory. Bellwether seat retains its status. Via @2GB873
Expand"
https://twitter.com/search?q=eden monaro&src=typd
Tom Hanks jury case halted 'after prosecutor approached star'
A court case in which Tom Hanks was sitting as a juror came to a halt amid allegations of jury tampering after a "star-struck" prosecutor approached the Oscar-winning actor during a break in the hearing.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/10303507/Tom-Hanks-jury-case-halted-after-prosecutor-approached-star.html
1. They decide on the general theme: does Cam have credibility? Is Ed crap? Might Clegg resign?
2. They chat to 20 MPs who they've built up a friendly relationship with. They ask them their views on lots of things, including the theme they want
3. They pick the two or three who say something useful to the theme.
An absolutely disciplined MP knows this is happening and steers clear of anything usable - I've heard Ken Clarke being apparently indiscreet for 90 minutes and yet not saying anything really damaging. I was once interviewed for over two hours by that former TV programme that had Parliament as a crocodile - they used one and half sentences when I strayed momentarily into indiscretion. But in general, MPs like to chat and a few will cooperate. It's always worth taking with salt.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-13/tony-abbott-and-kevin-rudd-share-an-awkward-moment/4955280
http://www.independent.co.uk/student/news/birmingham-college-bans-the-burka-8807148.html
And incidentally for all staff at University Hospitals Leicester
Lab 361 Con 180 UKIP 148 Green 32 LD 31
We are likely to lose seats. If we are on 15% we would hold 30 seats, if we are on 17% we would hold 40 seats – and if we are on 13% we would hold 20 seats.
That has at least the merit of clarity and precision, unusual virtues for a LibDem. Do we think it's right?
Ind 434 Con 305 Lab 297 UKIP 227 LD 35
Independent gain from Conservative
Charnwood - Wreake Villages
Con 396 Lab 87
I don't have a specific forecast but I've been assuming something like 40 seats on a 15% vote share, and with a less steep reduction in the seats than Oakshott is suggesting if the votes share is less than 15%.
Personally i think they will be poll about 15% as voters drift back from Labour.
Lab 1250 Con 673 LD 246 UKIP 235 Green 212
An early start tomorrow so I'll leave you to foam alone.
Con 221 UKIP 163
Con gain fron Ind.
All results in. Good night
Taking the average of the polling numbers from each firm:
Centre/right parties: 45.14%
Centre/left + Linke: 45.14%
http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/index.htm
"RT @Sun_Politics YouGov/Sun poll tonight: Libs go to conference in 4th place and 5 points behind UKIP; CON 34%, LAB 38%, UKIP 13%, LDEM 8%.
The last time the Lib Dems were lower was July 2012....
You need to learn how to spell bellwether
Clue: it's a sheep with a bell round its neck.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/3597
But will PBC need a new tagline:
"Britain's most-read political blog but be careful what you say here in case SeanT tries to use it against you in the Telegraph's blogs"?
(third item down)
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/jul/08/hugh-muir-diary
Now the shoe's on the other foot. With the economy starting to surge, Osborne & Co. can point the finger at Labour and say: you screwed it up, but we fixed it. And they will hammer this point home time and time again over the next 20 months.
I predict it will be another generation before Labour is trusted again on the economy. Remember last time this happened? Back to 1979 and, again, it took a generation to wash out the awful stain of Labour's 1974-79 screw up. Not until 1997 were they trusted again with the nation's purse.
It's also why Mike is completely wrong on this. The Conservatives will hammer it home ... and win.
"I thought they'd be all wishywashy gay poofy rubbish centrist lib-demmy wankfaffle. But no."
"But Oakeshott suggests the party needs to recognise the 2014 European and local elections represent a last chance for the party to save itself. He said: "This will be much the biggest test we've had on a nationwide basis of our support and our appeal since the general election, so that's why it will be crunch time. There will be no excuse when everyone has been voting, particularly in important areas like London. I think that's when everyone will focus on things and I hope we will have a good hard look at our prospects for the election. There will still be time, but next May/June will be the last chance."
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/sep/12/oakeshott-lib-dems-nick-clegg
However, I will concede my memory maybe faulty, as you do recall, I have the intelligence of a speculum used on Gordon Brown.
I had the same opinion of the sh*t who used Rik's comments here against him.
Where does individual liberty to dress in this way become a problem to other people? In a bank? In a courtroom? In a hospital? In a parliament? None of us has unlimited freedom to dress as we choose, we all accept that dressing inappropriately can impinge on the rights of others. That applies as much to over dressing as underdressing. In england at least we are not murdered for not following a dress code, even if we may be spurned. There are countries out there much less tolerant of the freedom to dress, and I know where It is better to live.
I had a look a John Redwood's figures last night.
In his two blog articles he culled them from different sources. The Red Book 2013 which was issued at the time of the 2013 Budget and then from Table 1.1 of the PESA 2013 report released in mid July.
The headline spending figures from the Red Book are slightly out of date and don't match those I used in my table. However the differences are not substantive and are no more than what you would expect of figures six months out of date.
My tables were based on PESA 2013 though so all Redwood's other figures are from the same hymn book. This means that they are consistent with the overall totals shown in my table.
Redwood has done a bit of cherry-picking, selecting those lines of expenditure which he intuitively dislikes and which have shown a rise (e.g. tax credits, public sector pensions and EU contributions). He should really have put his conclusions in the context of an overall fall in real terms spending but that would have weakened his political point.
The only figure I would question is Redwood's comparison of 2009-10 with 2011-12 on tax credits as there has been a major methodology change in accounting for tax credits between the two periods. The PESA note is:
Tax credits – Until PESA 2011 tax credits in HMRC’s AME did not include negative tax (i.e. where the amount paid is less than or equal to the tax liability of the household). In this PESA all tax credits are included in departmental AME, increasing dept AME by approximately £5bn to £6bn per year. This aligns to the way tax credits appear in resource accounts.
I am not saying Redwood is wrong - the Treasury may have adjusted earlier figures to make them consistent with the updated practice - but I suspect Redwood wasn't aware of the change nor of how the figures have been presented over the period of comparison.
[to be continued]
But this misses the wood for the trees. Redwood is making a political point that Osborne has not cut benefits and EU paymens as aggressively as he would like. This point is best made in a comment on his blog:
The cuts are essentially heavily loaded on corners of the state that are politically acceptable to target – which on their own are not enough to control escalating spending in the years ahead.
Two final points.
Redwood is wrong to compare UK public spending cut with US federal budget cuts. If the two countries are to be usefully compared (arguable) then he should compare with Federal plus State spending not Federal alone.
Finally, nothing Redwood has pointed out and no figures he has quoted conflict with the facts that Osborne has reduced and will reduce Total Managed Expenditure in real terms and as a ratio to GDP over the five year term. This means that Redwood's conclusion that austerity has been abandoned is incorrect: it just won't be austere enough for his liking.
Let me know if you want to see the figures.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIwBvjoLyZc
Talking of aliens, SeanT raised an interesting point, before he got into a spat, about David Milipeed. I think it's a very good point. Mr Bean wouldn't have been PM either, so who could Labour have chosen that would have been less a liability than EdM? Well surely Tessa Jowell? There are a couple of other (female) Labour MPs who would have been good but she was a standout candidate.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3488036.stm
Not a great loss to the HoC.......
Conservatives 396 (82% +4%)
Labour 87 18% -4%)
Con HOLD.
Swing: 4% from Lab to Con
It came from a different, innocent age when we thought John Taylor was a struggling victim of racism rather than the thief and liar he turned out to be. Nick Palmer was revealed to be an schoolboy sneak and tittle-tattle. And Ann Winterton showed that she was out of touch by telling jokes that had been funny two weeks earlier but by that point were boringly old hat.
LAB -12.8%,
GRN -5.6%,
CON -0.7%,
LD -0.6%.
UKIP +19.7%
"In 2007 guidelines issued by the Judicial Studies Board urged judges to remain sensitive when asking defendants to remove veils, suggesting there should be “no sense of obligation or pressure”.
Rather than the Judge:
Judge Murphy said: “I will not have the defendant dictating to the court how she wishes to appear.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10305828/Muslim-defendant-allowed-to-wear-face-veil-in-the-dock.html