There's an Ipsos-Mori/Mumsnet poll in the Sunday TImes
The study by an organisation seen as a touchstone for women’s political views shows Cameron’s five-point lead over Labour among women voters at the last election has turned into a 13-point deficit.
However this did make me chuckle
Focus groups were also asked how they thought party leaders would cope on their household budgets. Many thought Cameron would be appalled at having so little money. One said the prime minister, who recently returned from his fourth break of the year, “might have to give up all his holidays to Ibiza and go on £9.50 trips to Skegness like we’ve had to”.
Miliband was thought by some to be likely to spend all the household budget and then take out a payday loan.
BTW Nick, as an act of personal decency (one you did NOT do for me) - before I take your remarks from one website and put them on another: I offer you a chance to finesse, or withdraw.
I am writing a Telegraph blog on Islamic dress. I MIGHT quote you on your belief that the niqab should be allowed in court in the witness box, even if worn by the accused. Do you stand by this?
Because I am noble and nice I firstly offer you the chance to *refine* your attitude.
Like I said before, noble sir, I don't mind you quoting what I said so long as you don't quote it selectively (for example by quoting the statement without the reason, as you've just done). I appreciate that you need to be brief in a blog, so let me reduce it a single sentence: I don't think that we should force women giving evidence to do it wearing clothing that they think indecent in a courtroom full of men. That's a pretty short sentence - feel free to quote it if you like. Good night!
No. You said that you see no reason why the ACCUSED - not just a witness - should not wear a niqab, if she chose, and if she felt it consonant with her religious beliefs. Even if this makes the jury's job harder.
Ergo, you will happily accommodate sharia law and the worst elements of misogynistic Islam even if it perverts British justice. This is what you believe.
As it happens I probably won't quote you, as your moral cowardice is so craven it might actively distract from my point, and people will think I am joking. You prove my case TOO WELL.
If the niqab perverts British justice when worn by the accused, it's going to do the same when worn by a witness. This is especially true if they're a witness for the prosecution, because if you need to see their face to tell whether somebody's lying then somebody could be jailed because the jury couldn't see that the witness was lying.
IMO a 5% Labour lead at this stage almost certainly means a hung parliament in 2015. Ed needed to be much further ahead with 20 months to go.
Would you still be saying that if in, say, September 2014 these average polls were recording an average 5% Tory lead (which is certainly possible if economically the next 12 months prove as successful as they presently appear)?
"UKIP surge hammers Tories in key marginals - poll
The rise of the UK Independence Party is squeezing Conservative support in key marginal constituencies around Britain and could put Ed Miliband in 10 Downing Street, a new opinion poll shows."
"Lord Ashcroft’s poll covers the 40 Tory seats with the slimmest majorities - and puts UKIP support in them in double figures, more than tripling the average three per cent vote share recorded by Nigel Farage’s party in the 2010 election."
ED MILIBAND is bracing himself for damaging revelations about “dirty tricks” and “bungling” when he was a key member of Gordon Brown’s government.
A long-awaited book by Brown’s former communications chief Damian McBride — called “McPoison” by his enemies — is expected to embarrass Miliband and his frontbench team.
It will lift the lid on their role in disasters of the Labour era such as the “election that never was” in 2007 and the feuding between Brown and Tony Blair, his predecessor.
The publication of Power Trip: A Decade of Policy, Plots and Spin on September 24 threatens to overshadow next week’s Labour conference.
According to Amazon, it's not due to be published until Tuesday week, 24 Sept. Described as "a riveting memoir and an eye-opening expose of politics in Britain", it's rather surprising that no serialisation deal has yet been announced.
ED MILIBAND is bracing himself for damaging revelations about “dirty tricks” and “bungling” when he was a key member of Gordon Brown’s government.
A long-awaited book by Brown’s former communications chief Damian McBride — called “McPoison” by his enemies — is expected to embarrass Miliband and his frontbench team.
It will lift the lid on their role in disasters of the Labour era such as the “election that never was” in 2007 and the feuding between Brown and Tony Blair, his predecessor.
The publication of Power Trip: A Decade of Policy, Plots and Spin on September 24 threatens to overshadow next week’s Labour conference.
According to Amazon, it's not due to be published until Tuesday week, 24 Sept. Described as "a riveting memoir and an eye-opening expose of politics in Britain", it's rather surprising that no serialisation deal has yet been announced.
IMO a 5% Labour lead at this stage almost certainly means a hung parliament in 2015. Ed needed to be much further ahead with 20 months to go.
Would you still be saying that if in, say, September 2014 these average polls were recording an average 5% Tory lead (which is certainly possible if economically the next 12 months prove as successful as they presently appear)?
I think the Tories have got no chance of winning an overall majority at the next election. As soon as they failed to get the new boundaries through parliament, that was it IMO. (Unless Scotland becomes independent).
Labour are the only party who could win a majority, but as I said before I think they needed to be a bit further ahead at this point.
Ashcroft's poll of marginals is very interesting but the fact is he's measuring what would happen if the election were held now, not May 2015.
ED MILIBAND is bracing himself for damaging revelations about “dirty tricks” and “bungling” when he was a key member of Gordon Brown’s government.
A long-awaited book by Brown’s former communications chief Damian McBride — called “McPoison” by his enemies — is expected to embarrass Miliband and his frontbench team.
It will lift the lid on their role in disasters of the Labour era such as the “election that never was” in 2007 and the feuding between Brown and Tony Blair, his predecessor.
The publication of Power Trip: A Decade of Policy, Plots and Spin on September 24 threatens to overshadow next week’s Labour conference.
According to Amazon, it's not due to be published until Tuesday week, 24 Sept. Described as "a riveting memoir and an eye-opening expose of politics in Britain", it's rather surprising that no serialisation deal has yet been announced.
@Andy - I'm not so sure...the electorate is volatile and ever more de-aligned. Things can move steeply and very quickly should a momentum develop. We shall see. Polling in late autumn 2014/early 2015 should provide solid indications...
ED MILIBAND is bracing himself for damaging revelations about “dirty tricks” and “bungling” when he was a key member of Gordon Brown’s government.
A long-awaited book by Brown’s former communications chief Damian McBride — called “McPoison” by his enemies — is expected to embarrass Miliband and his frontbench team.
It will lift the lid on their role in disasters of the Labour era such as the “election that never was” in 2007 and the feuding between Brown and Tony Blair, his predecessor.
The publication of Power Trip: A Decade of Policy, Plots and Spin on September 24 threatens to overshadow next week’s Labour conference.
According to Amazon, it's not due to be published until Tuesday week, 24 Sept. Described as "a riveting memoir and an eye-opening expose of politics in Britain", it's rather surprising that no serialisation deal has yet been announced.
I think it's going to be serialised in the Mail.
Must be (a) imminent and (b) very juicy in that case.
"His latest poll finds Labour with a comfortable 14-point lead in the top 32 closest Conservative-Labour marginals, and ahead on the economy, jobs, the NHS and education."
And on the ground in those seats the Tory Party is dying. Cameron is doing massive damage to his own party and the PB Tories are utterly blind to it
As I said Tim, leave them to the Ed is crap line....long may it last.
ED MILIBAND is bracing himself for damaging revelations about “dirty tricks” and “bungling” when he was a key member of Gordon Brown’s government.
A long-awaited book by Brown’s former communications chief Damian McBride — called “McPoison” by his enemies — is expected to embarrass Miliband and his frontbench team.
It will lift the lid on their role in disasters of the Labour era such as the “election that never was” in 2007 and the feuding between Brown and Tony Blair, his predecessor.
The publication of Power Trip: A Decade of Policy, Plots and Spin on September 24 threatens to overshadow next week’s Labour conference.
According to Amazon, it's not due to be published until Tuesday week, 24 Sept. Described as "a riveting memoir and an eye-opening expose of politics in Britain", it's rather surprising that no serialisation deal has yet been announced.
Daily Mail have it, starting next weekend IIRC
Fairy nuff, I did try googling it, but couldn't find any reference to its impending serialisation. McBride is now clearly out of politics for good, so he's no reason to hold anything back.
ED MILIBAND is bracing himself for damaging revelations about “dirty tricks” and “bungling” when he was a key member of Gordon Brown’s government.
A long-awaited book by Brown’s former communications chief Damian McBride — called “McPoison” by his enemies — is expected to embarrass Miliband and his frontbench team.
It will lift the lid on their role in disasters of the Labour era such as the “election that never was” in 2007 and the feuding between Brown and Tony Blair, his predecessor.
The publication of Power Trip: A Decade of Policy, Plots and Spin on September 24 threatens to overshadow next week’s Labour conference.
According to Amazon, it's not due to be published until Tuesday week, 24 Sept. Described as "a riveting memoir and an eye-opening expose of politics in Britain", it's rather surprising that no serialisation deal has yet been announced.
Daily Mail have it, starting next weekend IIRC
Fairy nuff, I did try googling it, but couldn't find any reference to its impending serialisation. McBride is now clearly out of politics for good, so he's no reason to hold anything back.
Modesty and veiling is a curious thing, In Leicester it is not unusual to see muslim teenage girls wearing skin tight jeans, short skirts or hot-pants with their headscarves, a combination that seems a bit illogical to me!
Headscarves are not an issue, Lancashire lasses of my grandmothers generation would not have considered themselves dressed without, and the Queen frequently wears one. The issue is facial coverings, which have very different cultural significance in Arabia and in Europe. Historically to conceal ones face in Europe is a sign of villany, not modesty. There is also a practical issue of identification, and lipreading (beards are also incidentally a problem for this).
My hospital bans facial coverings for staff, and I think that very reasonable.
Because I am noble and nice I firstly offer you the chance to *refine* your attitude.
No. You said that you see no reason why the ACCUSED - not just a witness - should not wear a niqab, if she chose, and if she felt it consonant with her religious beliefs. Even if this makes the jury's job harder.
Ergo, you will happily accommodate sharia law and the worst elements of misogynistic Islam even if it perverts British justice. This is what you believe.
As it happens I probably won't quote you, as your moral cowardice is so craven it might actively distract from my point, and people will think I am joking. You prove my case TOO WELL.
If the niqab perverts British justice when worn by the accused, it's going to do the same when worn by a witness. This is especially true if they're a witness for the prosecution, because if you need to see their face to tell whether somebody's lying then somebody could be jailed because the jury couldn't see that the witness was lying.
@Andy - I'm not so sure...the electorate is volatile and ever more de-aligned. Things can move steeply and very quickly should a momentum develop. We shall see. Polling in late autumn 2014/early 2015 should provide solid indications...
I'd buy "dealigned" but there's no sign of any volatility at all. In previous parliaments you'd sometimes get a news event that would provide a big short-term boost to the government or opposition, which would point to volatile support, but there's nothing like that at all, except for the Tories who jumped to UKIP or won't-vote after the pasty tax thing and are gradually going back.
Up here in Scotland, the spare bedroom subsidy is being treated like the poll tax by the SNP, hence the ill advised rush to claim that Labour would reverse it by Jackie Baillie. The way the SNP are acting you would think Labour's position on this issue is going to be a make or break argument for Independence. I should be having flash backs to the Poll tax the way the SNP are going on about it, but I can't quite get up the enthusiasm for some thing that isn't a tax that effects the whole adult working population of Scotland.
At the risk of being labelled a bit thick, but following a quick straw poll at my employment about the bedroom tax/spare room subsidy, I (having not really been following the policy all that closely) am struggling to see why it is regarded as so heinous by the left, and thus such a vote winner to target so strongly.
What I mean is, even if I don't agree with a party's approach on a policy, I like to think I can see why they choose to make their support/opposition so vocal on that particular issue, and I'm just struggling to see why the opposition to it (which I get) is given such a massive profile.
Are those more closely involved with politics and public opinion finding that this issue is a crunch issue that the government can be decisively made to look like the bad guy (the UN lady's comments I don't think have really factored into the perceptions), or are their figures showing the public by and large support it and it's just lefty politicos who are getting all in a fuss over it, in which case why stake so much on opposing it?
I would actively fight to protect the right of Muslim women in the UK when it came to being able to cover their hair with the Hijab. But when it comes to the burqa, I am totally against it and the pressure that it puts on women throughout the Muslim community in the UK.
Modesty and veiling is a curious thing, In Leicester it is not unusual to see muslim teenage girls wearing skin tight jeans, short skirts or hot-pants with their headscarves, a combination that seems a bit illogical to me!
Headscarves are not an issue, Lancashire lasses of my grandmothers generation would not have considered themselves dressed without, and the Queen frequently wears one. The issue is facial coverings, which have very different cultural significance in Arabia and in Europe. Historically to conceal ones face in Europe is a sign of villany, not modesty. There is also a practical issue of identification, and lipreading (beards are also incidentally a problem for this).
My hospital bans facial coverings for staff, and I think that very reasonable.
Because I am noble and nice I firstly offer you the chance to *refine* your attitude.
No. You said that you see no reason why the ACCUSED - not just a witness - should not wear a niqab, if she chose, and if she felt it consonant with her religious beliefs. Even if this makes the jury's job harder.
Ergo, you will happily accommodate sharia law and the worst elements of misogynistic Islam even if it perverts British justice. This is what you believe.
As it happens I probably won't quote you, as your moral cowardice is so craven it might actively distract from my point, and people will think I am joking. You prove my case TOO WELL.
If the niqab perverts British justice when worn by the accused, it's going to do the same when worn by a witness. This is especially true if they're a witness for the prosecution, because if you need to see their face to tell whether somebody's lying then somebody could be jailed because the jury couldn't see that the witness was lying.
Modesty and veiling is a curious thing, In Leicester it is not unusual to see muslim teenage girls wearing skin tight jeans, short skirts or hot-pants with their headscarves, a combination that seems a bit illogical to me!
Headscarves are not an issue, Lancashire lasses of my grandmothers generation would not have considered themselves dressed without, and the Queen frequently wears one. The issue is facial coverings, which have very different cultural significance in Arabia and in Europe. Historically to conceal ones face in Europe is a sign of villany, not modesty. There is also a practical issue of identification, and lipreading (beards are also incidentally a problem for this).
My hospital bans facial coverings for staff, and I think that very reasonable.
I think employers should have a bit of discretion here. If there's some rational basis to their policy and you don't like it, find another employer.
The tougher cases are government things that you don't have the choice whether you opt into. Courts are particularly tricky because they need to be open to everyone, but they also have a strong claim to whatever it takes to get the best possible information.
I don't have a strong opinion on whether you need to see the face of somebody who's testifying to figure out whether their testimony is good or not, but I do think the damage from forcing people to do things that they think will offend their invisible superhero is quite serious. You don't want people to be scared of interacting with the court system. I guess seanT can see that as well, which is why he's trying to make this - IMHO obviously bogus - distinction between the accused and the witnesses.
Do we not find it strange that Lord Ashcroft has wasted another load of dosh in an opinion poll when the one he produced in September 2008 proved to be so totally inaccurate as a forecast ?
Playing along with this a little, although it won't happen.
Say the following conditions occurred: 1) Labour do not get a majority, but get enough votes to form a minority government. 2) Miliband loses his seat (again, unlikely).
Who would be in charge? Could Miliband still go to the Queen even if he has been booted out by his electorate? Or would someone else have the authority to go?
In theory any MP with the ability to form a government could offer to do it - no need to be Leader of the Opposition at the time of the election. (The Queen has to send for them not the other way around, but she'd send for whoever she heard could do it.) IIUC you have to be an MP (or Lord) so it wouldn't be Miliband. I'm not sure exactly what the Labour rules say in that situation, but I'd have thought the shadow cabinet / NEC would pick somebody temporary to negotiate at least a short-term agreement with the LibDems, then the Queen would send for that person.
Either way, Cameron could probably stay on until they'd sorted something out, so they could take a couple of weeks over it if that's what they needed.
Not so. The 1925 Canadian general election, which has "persuasive authority" with respect to the British Constitution, shows that if a leader loses his seat he could still remain either PM or Leader of the Opposition, and be capable of forming a government.
Mackenzie King, outgoing PM, lost both his parliamentary majority (finishing second in seats) and his own seat, yet watched his government win a vote of confidence from the gallery of the Canadian House of Commons, remaining PM outside of parliament until he was returned in a subsequent by-election...
Playing along with this a little, although it won't happen.
Say the following conditions occurred: 1) Labour do not get a majority, but get enough votes to form a minority government. 2) Miliband loses his seat (again, unlikely).
Who would be in charge? Could Miliband still go to the Queen even if he has been booted out by his electorate? Or would someone else have the authority to go?
In theory any MP with the ability to form a government could offer to do it - no need to be Leader of the Opposition at the time of the election. (The Queen has to send for them not the other way around, but she'd send for whoever she heard could do it.) IIUC you have to be an MP (or Lord) so it wouldn't be Miliband. I'm not sure exactly what the Labour rules say in that situation, but I'd have thought the shadow cabinet / NEC would pick somebody temporary to negotiate at least a short-term agreement with the LibDems, then the Queen would send for that person.
Either way, Cameron could probably stay on until they'd sorted something out, so they could take a couple of weeks over it if that's what they needed.
Not so. The 1925 Canadian general election, which has "persuasive authority" with respect to the British Constitution, shows that if a leader loses his seat he could still remain either PM or Leader of the Opposition, and be capable of forming a government.
Mackenzie King, outgoing PM, lost both his parliamentary majority (finishing second in seats) and his own seat, yet watched his government win a vote of confidence from the gallery of the Canadian House of Commons, remaining PM outside of parliament until he was returned in a subsequent by-election...
Odd thing about the marginals poll: When they do a "thinking about your own constituency" question as opposed to the regular voting intention one, the UKIP vote declines, as you'd expect. But instead of helping Con, it helps Lib and Lab. In the Lib targets the Con vote actually drops.
The latest Panelbase survey of 1,002 adults for The Sunday Times and Real Radio Scotland puts support for independence at 37%, unchanged since July, while backing for the union is up one point on 47% and 16% are undecided (-1).
However, when the 16% of Scots still undecided are asked how they would vote if the referendum was today the No lead falls to just four points with the gap narrowing to 52:48.
The latest Panelbase survey of 1,002 adults for The Sunday Times and Real Radio Scotland puts support for independence at 37%, unchanged since July, while backing for the union is up one point on 47% and 16% are undecided (-1).
However, when the 16% of Scots still undecided are asked how they would vote if the referendum was today the No lead falls to just four points with the gap narrowing to 52:48.
Fieldwork 30th Aug - Sep 5.
Is this a proper poll or are they still twatting around with yes-minister-style push questions?
The latest Panelbase survey of 1,002 adults for The Sunday Times and Real Radio Scotland puts support for independence at 37%, unchanged since July, while backing for the union is up one point on 47% and 16% are undecided (-1).
However, when the 16% of Scots still undecided are asked how they would vote if the referendum was today the No lead falls to just four points with the gap narrowing to 52:48.
Fieldwork 30th Aug - Sep 5.
Is this a proper poll or are they still twatting around with yes-minister-style push questions?
Proper poll
Back to their normal methodology.
So Holyrood VI questions first then referendum Question.
Comments
The study by an organisation seen as a touchstone for women’s political views shows Cameron’s five-point lead over Labour among women voters at the last election has turned into a 13-point deficit.
However this did make me chuckle
Focus groups were also asked how they thought party leaders would cope on their household budgets. Many thought Cameron would be appalled at having so little money. One said the prime minister, who recently returned from his fourth break of the year, “might have to give up all his holidays to Ibiza and go on £9.50 trips to Skegness like we’ve had to”.
Miliband was thought by some to be likely to spend all the household budget and then take out a payday loan.
The rise of the UK Independence Party is squeezing Conservative support in key marginal constituencies around Britain and could put Ed Miliband in 10 Downing Street, a new opinion poll shows."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/active/10309810/UKIP-surge-hammers-Tories-in-key-marginals-poll.html
"Lord Ashcroft’s poll covers the 40 Tory seats with the slimmest majorities - and puts UKIP support in them in double figures, more than tripling the average three per cent vote share recorded by Nigel Farage’s party in the 2010 election."
Labour are the only party who could win a majority, but as I said before I think they needed to be a bit further ahead at this point.
Ashcroft's poll of marginals is very interesting but the fact is he's measuring what would happen if the election were held now, not May 2015.
Shame on me
Frustrating.
I did hear about it a few months ago.
Headscarves are not an issue, Lancashire lasses of my grandmothers generation would not have considered themselves dressed without, and the Queen frequently wears one. The issue is facial coverings, which have very different cultural significance in Arabia and in Europe. Historically to conceal ones face in Europe is a sign of villany, not modesty. There is also a practical issue of identification, and lipreading (beards are also incidentally a problem for this).
My hospital bans facial coverings for staff, and I think that very reasonable.
The tougher cases are government things that you don't have the choice whether you opt into. Courts are particularly tricky because they need to be open to everyone, but they also have a strong claim to whatever it takes to get the best possible information.
I don't have a strong opinion on whether you need to see the face of somebody who's testifying to figure out whether their testimony is good or not, but I do think the damage from forcing people to do things that they think will offend their invisible superhero is quite serious. You don't want people to be scared of interacting with the court system. I guess seanT can see that as well, which is why he's trying to make this - IMHO obviously bogus - distinction between the accused and the witnesses.
Mackenzie King, outgoing PM, lost both his parliamentary majority (finishing second in seats) and his own seat, yet watched his government win a vote of confidence from the gallery of the Canadian House of Commons, remaining PM outside of parliament until he was returned in a subsequent by-election...
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/LORD-ASHCROFT-Forty-marginals-poll-summary.pdf
However, when the 16% of Scots still undecided are asked how they would vote if the referendum was today the No lead falls to just four points with the gap narrowing to 52:48.
Fieldwork 30th Aug - Sep 5.
Back to their normal methodology.
So Holyrood VI questions first then referendum Question.
Yes minus 7
No plus 4
DK plus 3