Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » More polling to lift the spirits at the Lib Dem conference
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » More polling to lift the spirits at the Lib Dem conference in Glasgow
Invariably, Lembit excepted, the experience is that sitting MPs tend to perform better than the national average. Maybe this chart, based on an article by Prof Phil Cowley, is part of the explanation.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
But yes Lib Dems will do well because of their hardworking MPs.
Can we have more Ed is clap threads please, just for tim.
Keep blundering on??
Dunno about you, but we in Elmbridge get circulars from Estate agents all the time saying they have london people wanting to sell to move out for a bit more room (and a bit of green, while it lasts)!
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100236321/deep-down-vince-cable-knows-that-he-traded-his-principles-for-power/
"Vince Cable is not destined to be one of the great men of British politics. Instead, he’s going to have to settle for being remembered as the Richard Madeley of British politics."
LibDem MPs only stay LibDem MPs by being exceptional. Apart from the South-West, a 'normal' constituency MP would be toast as the Red and/or Blue juggernaut squished them to Yellow paste.
Next question
Same issue in Scotland - you can't say the F word in case you upset a Shettleston Harriers Fan - yet these sell like hot cakes in the East end
http://tinyurl.com/ppx96pu
The Elmbridge massive eh?
We should be loud and proud, paying more tax to the exchequer than any other f8cker.
ww.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2327394/Elmbridge-The-Surrey-borough-pays-1-18BILLION-income-tax.html
Personally I think the signs should say 'welcome to Britain's taxpayer powerhouse....'
I wonder whether there is an effect due to Labour and the Conservatives having more safe seats than the Lib Dems, and so consequently a large proportion of MPs who feel able to take their electorate for granted, and secure for as long as they keep their constituency party happy.
Perhaps if you only polled marginal constituencies the differences would be smaller?
Cameron on the other hand has inherited the worst economic legacy of any PM since at least the thirties, has stabilised the country, skilfully put together a stable coalition against all the odds, has put together probably the best team in the key senior cabinet posts for yonks, has avoided the Blair blunder of changing ministers (other, alas, than Brown) every five minutes, thereby allowing progress to be made on some of the most intractable problems since the war - notably education and welfare. That's why he'll go down in history as the best PM, bar Maggie, of the last 50 years.
I'll listen to OGH's wisdom on who 'the man' is in my neck of the woods!
::Innocent Face::
Mostly beneficial it seems.
Backed up by actual academic analysis, not rabble-rousing in rightwing newspapers.
If he doesn't, then I'm afraid that the epitaph has already been written. And that's before the coming Court cases.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-24093858
County Councillor steps down after drug caution.
Cameron had the easier opposition.
" Nick Clegg was doing. That. Thing. Where. He. Stresses. Every. Word. Because. You're. A. Bit. Slow. This is the trouble with his speeches: he aims for impassioned, but he ends up with irritable. Addressing Lib Dem members during their debate on economic policy, he sounded at times like a weary parent chivvying a daydreaming child. "This motion is about what we can do NOW. Not in 10 or 15 years; what we can do NOW. And for heaven's sake Oliver would you hurry up and find your shoes, you were supposed to be at recorder practice five minutes ago."
Still, it seemed to do the trick, because Mr Clegg won the vote on the motion about What We Can Do NOW Not Later But NOW (namely: continue to do what we've already been doing for some time). According to rumour beforehand, Vince Cable was planning to snub his leader by skipping the vote, but in the event he turned up, three quarters of the way through the debate, wearing the expression of a man who only came in to shelter from the rain and is already wondering whether he wasn't better off outside.
Anyway, he brightened up a little in time for his own speech an hour later. It even had some jokes in it. One of his jokes was about how members of the Tory party are all really, really old. His other jokes featured references to Karl Marx, the armies of Nebuchadnezzar, Tony Benn and the 1867 Reform Act. Unlike those fuddy-duddy oldies in the Tory party, young Vince has his finger on the pulse. The pulse of a speech-writer who died in 1972.
He also made some less jocular attacks on the Tories. The "Nasty Party" had "reverted to type". They were "ugly", "cynical" and "blinkered". This was thanks to their strategist Lynton Crosby, the "Australian rottweiler" controlling their "dog-whistle politics". (So the dog-whistle is being blown by... a dog! Vote Lib Dem for a radical new approach to animal metaphor.)... " http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberaldemocrats/10313574/Sketch-The-dog-whistle-blown-by-a-dog.html
http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionFirstPrefs-17496-160.htm
http://youtu.be/cknGCCG-XKU
The gentrification (caused by a "house price bubble" (c) tim ) is happening slowly inside the city - long term Labour look doomed.
A taste of it - interestingly San Toi the author is pretty much on the middle-Left judging by his other posts.
"No - you are squeamishly neglecting the wider picture.
There is right now raging across the international Muslim world a corrupted form of Islam that is nothing short of virulent extreme ruthless and bloody religious totalitarianism. And the veil is its swastika, its hammer and sickle - its goose-step.
And you are asking - in your polite ( cowardly? ) way for these young women nurtured in this movement ( by accident of birth - for the most part ) to be so kind as to, fight the good fight for humankind - for Rifkind - because it's, as you say, downright " rude." But that’s not going to work, is it.
That would have been like asking some young kid compulsorily conscripted into the Hitler Youth, to take off his swastika because it “ upset Jews ” - and “ that's not nice ”. And maybe in doing that take a stand against the Nazi Party and the whole society some nightmare had found him in. “ Be a good boy - go along - sort it out”..." http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/hugorifkind/article3870979.ece
1992:
Con 42.8%
Lab 35.2%
Lead: 7.6%
2010:
Con: 36.9%
Lab: 29.7%
Lead: 7.2%
(Con only reached 37.0% in 2010 if you include Bercow's votes).
Osborne was an idiot to let the Lib Dems into "Prime Ministerial" debates, that is what cost the Tories a slim majority, giving Nick Clegg that level of exposure which allowed him to firm up the LD vote in Con/Lib marginals.
The gain in Con/Lab marginals for the LD's was not as pronounced because lefties know how to vote tactically unlike Tories.
I'd regard Major's achievement in remaining PM for the full 5 years whilst occasionally getting anything at all done, against a strong opposition and a backdrop of continuous scandal as better then Cameron's achievements in alienating a large proportion of his party, going ahead with votes that he can't win because nobody's done the maths properly... and so on. Just my opinion, but some others may agree.
I don't really see how a one-term PM is ever going to go down as a great PM unless he/she does something truly exceptional. As TFS says, in the unlikely event that Cameron wins an outright majority in 2015 then there are ways he could live up to the reputation you have planned for him, but there's a pretty big "if" entailed there.
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/News/UKIP-select-David-Kendrick-as-parliamentary-candidate-for-Cambridge-20130917125911.htm
This time round we may see either a re-run in reverse, or more likely the Hollande approach: Labour buying short-term popularity at the expense of not being able to govern if they do win (especialluy if there's a hung parliament or a very small Labour majority). My advice is to plan your affairs to mitigate the impact.
Max,does it really matter about Chinese tourists if tourism is up and with business visitors up.(how many of these are Chinese ? )
some more facts for vince to think about before he comes out with more tripe.
Migration Watch UK @migrationwatch
.@vincecable Claims that students are going elsewhere - not true. 2012 visa applications for University up by 3% on 2011 and by 9% on 2010
Migration Watch UK @migrationwatch
.@vincecable Britain is open for business - 4 new routes opened for investors, entrepreneurs and exceptionally talented in last two years
In 1992, the Conservatives led by John Major received 54.9% of the two party share of the vote.
These are very similar percentages of a shrinking two-party share, with Cameron just edging it.
Even Lib Dem voters back tighter migration controls, survey suggests
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/9129419/Even-Lib-Dem-voters-back-tighter-migration-controls-survey-suggests.html
Talking of immigration, what's triggered the current round of burqa busting by the libs and the others of the soft left?
Its not as if its a new phenomenon. Why is it being brought up now?
For his help he gains 2 voters at next election.
"A few years ago I read an article on the TV personality Richard Madeley. It was that sort of day. In fact, it was quite a funny piece and carried one stand out line: “Richard Madeley’s biggest problem,” it said, “is that he’s just intelligent enough to realise how unintelligent he is”. That may be a fair assessment, or it may be wholly unjustified. But it made me laugh.
I was reminded of that article yesterday when I saw Vince Cable’s speech. Or more accurately where I saw the whole Vince Cable palaver. He was opposing his party’s stance on the economy. Then he wasn’t. He wasn’t going to attend the economic debate. The he did. He was going to support the critical amendment. Then he was going to vote against it. He was going to stand up and give a stinging speech himself, attacking the Tories. Well, to be fair, at least he delivered on that last bit.
But then, in his defence, he wasn’t actually making his pitch to the country or to the media or the Richard and Judy Book Club. He was speaking to the rather sparse ranks of Lib Dem activists. Though speaking isn’t really the right word. Instead he was launching a thinly veiled attack on the leader of the Liberal Democrats, Tim Farron.
Obviously Farron isn’t technically leader yet. But when Nick Clegg finally decides he’s had quite enough of being burnt in effigy, Farron will replace him. At least, that’s what Vince Cable thinks, hence his pre-emptive strike yesterday. Vince Cable believes the next leader of the Lib Dems should be Vince Cable..." http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100236321/deep-down-vince-cable-knows-that-he-traded-his-principles-for-power/
The problem that the Home Office has is that they think anyone who comes here as a tourist is a potential illegal immigrant, and while I agree that sentiment is true for certain nations, China is not one of them, Chinese people are fiercely nationalistic and the ones China lets out of the country are guaranteed to return to China. The visa process for China should reflect this and it should be made very, very easy to obtain an overseas visitor visa for Chinese citizens with a single online application and a small processing fee.
http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-party-crashes-spy-drone-in-front-of-german-chancellor-angela-merkel-130917/?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed
Firefighters in eng and Wales will strike next week on 25th sept
Do we still have the Green Goddesses ;-)
A much better article than yesterday's, IMHO
"...The only reason we're having this discussion is that, a generation ago, chunks of the public sector became obsessed – I don't use that word lightly – with ethnicity. Virtually every issue was reinterpreted as a struggle against racism. Because the most visible symbols of religious devotion (hijabs and Sikhs' turbans) tended to be worn by people who were not white, chunks of the Left forgot what ought to have been their guiding principle: equality before the law. Instead – like, paradoxically, the apartheid authorities in South Africa – they started categorising people. Some large corporations followed suit.
British Airways, keen to allow hijabs but not bulky crucifixes, got itself into the ludicrous position of decreeing that religious items might be worn by employees if there was a "mandatory scriptural requirement". What constitutes a mandatory scriptural requirement? The question has divided theologians for centuries. It has led to schisms, even wars. But don’t worry, we now have an ultimate arbiter: British Airways..." http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100236246/so-would-nuns-be-allowed-to-wear-hijabs/
Posties' union CWU to ask Lab conf to commit party to renationalise Royal Mail. @ChukaUmunna against. Big battle ahead
http://order-order.com/2013/09/17/hancock-breached-code-of-conduct/
“Myself and two other councillors have concluded that the report was comprehensive enough and a hearing will take place in the next few weeks.
“Cllr Hancock and/or his legal advisers will have the opportunity to respond to the report, and question witnesses and the report’s author.
“The hearings sub-committee will then make a final decision. It would not be appropriate to make a decision on publication of the report until the process is concluded.”
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/immigration-statistics-april-to-june-2013/immigration-statistics-april-to-june-2013#study-1
which is the most recent data on visas appears to suggest that for the year to 30 June 2013, the number of visas issued for long-term study fell by 5% and the number of arrivals fell by over 20%. This excludes short-term student visas (<6months for English language courses etc) and as such probably is a good measure of the number of "proper" university students doing full courses or a year in the UK. The trend for both visas and admissions has been sharply downwards since about June 2010.
Sounds like Vince might be onto something (whether by accident or design)
You make a vow to yourself, not to write any more of them, and then wham, you get presented with new overwhelming evidence on the topic, and you can't help yourself.
We live in a country where thousands of young girls have been gang-raped within a few miles of whoreminster by a gang-culture that not a single member of the political class will admit even exists and the ability of that gang-culture to rape with almost complete impunity from the law is precisely because not a single member of the political class will admit the problem exists.
Same with the grooming gangs where thousands of young girls were raped, tortured and forced into prostitution whil ethe political class covered it up and won't hold an inquiry into the biggest child abuse scandal since Victorian times because they don't want the public to understand the scale of what they covered up - a scale, like the gang problem in London, that was the direct result of them covering it up when it started.
So if the political class are prepared to lie and cover up thousands of children being gang-raped i think it's quite reasonable to not trust their word on lesser issues.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/24121653
Matthew Hoggard called Tony Blair a knob to his face when he visited Downing Street, whilst Andrew Flintoff had a piss in the Rose Garden.
One of the points made on the Guardian site is that this garment is being worn not for religious purposes, but to challenge the cultural norms of a free democracy. Its a political garment, not a religious one.
It's hard not to agree with that.
The only problem for me is enforcement. Imagine being a copper having to nick muslim women for wearing burqas. The lawyers will have a field day.
Much more sensible to impose restrictions in certain areas and establishments, subject to the proper checks and balances.