Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » ComRes finds just one in three saying that Maggie was “Brit

SystemSystem Posts: 12,212
edited April 2013 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » ComRes finds just one in three saying that Maggie was “Britiain’s greatest peacetime PM”

Voters disagree with Cameron’s description of Margaret Thatcher as “the greatest British peacetime prime minister” by 41 per cent to 33 per cent, according to a ComRes poll for tomorrow’s Independent on Sunday, shared with the Sunday Mirror. And 60 per cent oppose taxpayer funding for next week’s funeral.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • Nothing but Osborne and Thatcher for the last week and a half and the Tories go up 2%.

    Huzzah
  • Can you see this thread?
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548
    FPT @tim do you have any evidence at all that Margaret Thatcher was in any way involved with "rewarding" her son a hereditary title?

    I think only John Major knows whether she was involved and, judging by this (Q872 on), it doesn't look like he's going to tell anyone http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmpubadm/212/4052005.htm
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548
    edited April 2013

    Nothing but Osborne and Thatcher for the last week and a half and the Tories go up 2%.

    Huzzah

    2% switch back from UKIP to Con after being reminded how brilliant Thatcher and the Tories are; 1% switch back from LibDem to Lab after being reminded how terrible Thatcher and the Tories are?

  • FPT @tim do you have any evidence at all that Margaret Thatcher was in any way involved with "rewarding" her son a hereditary title?

    I think only John Major knows whether she was involved and, judging by this (Q872 on), it doesn't look like he's going to tell anyone http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmpubadm/212/4052005.htm

    Mrs Thatcher awarded the Thatcher Baronetcy to her husband in her own Resignation Honours in December 1990.

    Knowing full the Baronetcy would pass onto her son in the future.

    Who needs Burkes when you have me, ahem.

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    I do hope OGH has seen the full data and won't have to issue an embarrassing "clarification" like last week...
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,560
    Not really a contradiction there. It's possible to think that we need more conviction politicians like MT and also that she was divisive - either the respondents may think that's a necesary price to pay for convictions, or they may think it a snag but not a decisive one. Overall, the poll doesn't give the impression that all the Thatcher coverage is shifting opinions much in any direciton, except that her popularity seems a bit lower than in the first snap polls.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    @SeanT

    "This crap is ridiculous, and is ruining your blog."

    Don't be such a drama queen. You've been saying Mike has been ruining this blog since before it hit the internet !!
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    "We received a better level of service from gas, electricity and telephone companies after privatisation

    Agree 25% Disagree 38% Don’t know 38%

    I look forward to a 3 month wait for a landline...
  • Chris_AChris_A Posts: 1,237
    tim said:

    Dave is struggling with the ceremonial taxpayer funded funeral nonsense.

    The VI poll is just MOE

    But even if there wasn't the ceremonial procession, and only a small funeral followed by a major memorial service there still would have been the same security implications. So who do you think should pay tim?

  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548
    @TheScreamingEagles apologies to tim if you're right, but this doesn't seem to back you up http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/52371/supplements/19581
  • carlcarl Posts: 750
    @seant

    Fully a third of the British electorate

    Tory Core Vote in "Worship Thatcher" Shocker.
  • shipmate1shipmate1 Posts: 37
    Not bad stats considering people born in 1979, like me, would be "don't knows"
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    @TheScreamingEagles

    "Who needs Burkes when you have me, ahem."

    We at PB have always regarded you as very much more than a burk(e)
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited April 2013
    FPT Topping
    TOPPING said:

    @Avery

    first off, please don't disappoint those of us who see you as infallible - "less people"???

    slightly more on-topic:

    I like the story that Churchill was asked, in so many words: "would you like an honour, a dukedom, or anything?" which I think is very sweet.

    He refused, apparently (?) because he believed he couldn't afford to, nor had the land to be a duke. Is that something you heard also?

    There are much better historians on PB than me, Topping. The one with the long neck from West Sussex for example, among many others.

    I have heard various anecdotes about Churchill declining the offer of a Duchy.

    One is that his son Randolph didn't want it (sometimes expressed as Winston believing he didn't deserve it but don't tell this to tim).

    Far more likely, in my humble and completely unresearched opinion, is that Churchill realised he had already established a reputation for himself and place in history that didn't need any further enhancement. Also as a scion but not heir of the Dukes of Malborough, he will have both enjoyed and seen the limits of the title. Sometimes an individual can achieve such greatness that even self-deprecation and denial cannot be tainted by the accusation of false modesty.

    On the use of "less" for "fewer", I am not a militant semanticist. Language and meaning changes with usage and "less" will already be defined as a variant of "fewer" in today's dictionaries. Fewer is still preferable but I lose no sleep over the occasional 'misuse'. I worry more about using "that" in place of "which", for example. As Churchill might have said it is a usage "up with which he would not put".
  • carlcarl Posts: 750

    "We received a better level of service from gas, electricity and telephone companies after privatisation

    Agree 25% Disagree 38% Don’t know 38%

    I look forward to a 3 month wait for a landline...

    Perhaps lumping 3 utilities together is the problem with that one.

    Telephone companies have surely got better (though much is down to technological advances of course)

    Gas and electricity, probably worse.

  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,373
    A lot of contradictions within this poll, which is hardly surprising given Mrs Thatcher was very contradictory.

    I'll be glad when we get the old girls funeral over and done and we can all move on, to be honest.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    tim said:

    @SeanT

    The benefits card played and the hysterical Tory Thatcherthon, and no poll movement bar a couple of UKIP supporters moving back to the Tories.
    No wonder you're deflated.

    Er...this was the "uniformly unpopular "bedroom tax" and "benefits cuts" that was going to hit the Tories....and there is no movement in the polls?

    You can't simultaneously trail changes as "disastrous", then say "they failed to boost their polls".
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,109
    tim said:

    Dave is struggling with the ceremonial taxpayer funded funeral nonsense.

    The VI poll is just MOE

    Government 38%
    Labour 38%
  • JackW said:

    @TheScreamingEagles

    "Who needs Burkes when you have me, ahem."

    We at PB have always regarded you as very much more than a burk(e)

    Thank you. I think.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,704
    Without wanting to be a moaning minnie, these questions are a touch leading are they not?
  • Chris_AChris_A Posts: 1,237
    tim said:

    @ChrisA

    Personally I've no objection to the taxpayer funding a memorial service following a private funeral.
    What good the ceremonial nonsense and the nine day delay does escapes me.

    Nine days is not an unusual length of time these days. My brother's sister-in-law was buried yesterday after 8 days.

  • Jonathan said:

    Without wanting to be a moaning minnie, these questions are a touch leading are they not?

    Mike has consistenly said he's not a fan of the comres approach to supplementaries.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    When British Steel was privatised, 94% of workers bought shares, when British Telecom, 99%.

    Clearly a dreadful idea...
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    tim said:

    @Carlotta.
    The Tories are down to their core vote, nothing else really matters.

    Apart from the GE being two years away?

  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,373
    edited April 2013
    @JackW

    Can you divulge with us whether back in the day Mrs Thatcher ever had cause to become familier with your ARSE?
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    tim said:

    @SeanT

    The benefits card played and the hysterical Tory Thatcherthon, and no poll movement bar a couple of UKIP supporters moving back to the Tories.
    No wonder you're deflated.

    Its all about setting the mood music and the agenda. It matters little who the face is, or colour of the rosette, it is the policy that matters. With Ed Milliband having a plain sheet of paper still, we have Labour moving to Conservative positions on immigration, removal of benefits from those who refuse work, even a benefit cap. They have not pledged to reverse any of the significant changes in health or welfare. At present these are poorly defined moves, and they have yet to come to a viable economic policy, but it will become inevitably similar.

    tim, part of the reason that the Conservative vote is dropping, is that much of Labours policy is quite acceptable to centrist tory voters. As Mrs T said, her final triumph was New Labour, and for all his faults Ed Milliband will govern as new Labour. It is why the hard left hate her so much, her victory was total. We have Blue-Labour.
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited April 2013
    tim said:

    Dave is struggling with the ceremonial taxpayer funded funeral nonsense.

    The VI poll is just MOE

    No, no, no. The tea party tories think they are on to a sure fire winner banging on about welfare and Thatcher. Just like they thought they were on to a sure fire winner banging on about the EU and immigration.


    The May local elections will prove exactly how 'astute' the PB tories always are. ;)
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548
    And, @TheScreamingEagles, did you read Q872 of this? It seems that Mr Gordon Prentice thinks it was down to John Major..
  • woody662woody662 Posts: 255
    Not sure it helps Com Res's reputation to do a poll with such leading questions
  • And, @TheScreamingEagles, did you read Q872 of this? It seems that Mr Gordon Prentice thinks it was down to John Major..

    I went from what I read in the papers this week.

    And the reason why John Major didn't make the Thatcher peerage a hereditary peerage.
  • Chris_AChris_A Posts: 1,237
    And another SNP MP goes down with David Butler (who I'm amazed to see is still alive) predicting no hope in the remaining three. Something to gladden the heart on a miserable Saturday evening.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    @Mick_Pork - like in the Conservative PPB yesterday? Oh...hang on...
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,956
    edited April 2013
    woody662 said:

    Not sure it helps Com Res's reputation to do a poll with such leading questions

    As with all polls, they have to do what the organisation(s) commissioning them asks them to do.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    GIN1138 said:


    @JackW

    Can you divulge with us whether back in the day Mrs Thatcher ever has cause to become familier with your ARSE?

    A quite shocking thought !! .... Margaret had no need of polls and pollsters - vastly overated !! .... but if she had ....



  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548
    edited April 2013

    I went from what I read in the papers this week.

    And the reason why John Major didn't make the Thatcher peerage a hereditary peerage.

    Really, have a look at the link and Q872 on, and see if you think the papers you've read this week are right

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmpubadm/212/4052005.htm
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530

    @Mick_Pork - like in the Conservative PPB yesterday? Oh...hang on...


    Was the PPB written by the PB tories? Oh...hang on...

    LOL
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,373
    JackW said:

    GIN1138 said:


    @JackW

    Can you divulge with us whether back in the day Mrs Thatcher ever has cause to become familier with your ARSE?

    A quite shocking thought !! .... Margaret had no need of polls and pollsters - vastly overated !! .... but if she had ....



    We're into Sunil On Sunday territory here...

  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited April 2013

    tim said:

    @SeanT

    As Mrs T said, her final triumph was New Labour, and for all his faults Ed Milliband will govern as new Labour. It is why the hard left hate her so much, her victory was total. We have Blue-Labour.

    That is all very well, Dr. Sox, but Blue-Labour forgot to check the monthly bank balance.

    Something Maggie would never have forgotten to do.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Mick_Pork said:

    @Mick_Pork - like in the Conservative PPB yesterday? Oh...hang on...


    Was the PPB written by the PB tories? Oh...hang on...

    LOL
    It wasn't written by you - you are the one endlessly spinning "Europe", "Immigration" and "Benefits" - not us nor the party - sorry to disappoint...

  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530

    you are the one endlessly spinning "Europe", "Immigration" and "Benefits" - not us nor the party - sorry to disappoint...


    *tears of laughter etc.*

    Course you aren't dear, course you aren't.
  • I went from what I read in the papers this week.

    And the reason why John Major didn't make the Thatcher peerage a hereditary peerage.

    Really, have a look at the link and Q872 on, and see if you think the papers you've read this week are right

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmpubadm/212/4052005.htm
    It is consistent with what I have read.

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    edited April 2013
    Mick_Pork said:

    you are the one endlessly spinning "Europe", "Immigration" and "Benefits" - not us nor the party - sorry to disappoint...


    *tears of laughter etc.*

    Course you aren't dear, course you aren't.
    Post a quote from me dear...in your own time....
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    @GIN1138

    "We're into Sunil On Sunday territory here..."

    Is that vast organ still publishing ?!? .... I thought it had gone the way of steam ?!?
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530

    Post a quote from me dear...in your own time....

    I'll let the readers of PB decide of you have ever posted on welfare Thatcher immigration or Europe. It certainly sounds implausible doesn't it?

    LOL


    After all, if you can't trust someone who used to work in public relations like yourself, who can you trust? ;^)

  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    AveryLP said:

    tim said:

    @SeanT

    As Mrs T said, her final triumph was New Labour, and for all his faults Ed Milliband will govern as new Labour. It is why the hard left hate her so much, her victory was total. We have Blue-Labour.

    That is all very well, Dr. Sox, but Blue-Labour forgot to check the monthly bank balance.

    Something Maggie would never have forgotten to do.
    Blue Labour will have to, when the bills come in, either that or the IMF will force them to balance the books.

    It is one reason for the UKIP protest vote, the commonality between all the three parties on policy. At the last election all three were advocating greater use of private clinical services in the NHS; far further than anything Maggie did. It was Alistair Darling who promised us "cuts worse than Thatcher", and who deliberately did not do a comprehensive spending review, so as to keep their planned cuts quiet.

    I agree that a Conservative/Orange Book govt would be far better in its implementation, but the gist of the financial settlement will not be much different.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    edited April 2013
    Mick_Pork said:

    Post a quote from me dear...in your own time....

    I'll let the readers of PB decide of you have ever posted on welfare Thatcher immigration or Europe. It certainly sounds implausible doesn't it?

    LOL


    After all, if you can't trust someone who used to work in public relations like yourself, who can you trust? ;^)

    Fail on two counts.

    No post (a hint - I haven't - I've consistently said "it's the economy") - and I've never worked in PR.

    Your usual standard of accuracy fibbing.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216

    @Carlotta

    that's a bit harsh on Porkie, anyone supoporting a Nato centric, Pounds Sterling, Monarchist party is OK by me ;-).

    Sausages for porkie!

  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,708
    SeanT said:

    INCREDIBLE snobbery from lefty don Mary Warnock.

    "Margaret Thatcher was a woman of low taste".

    Puke.

    Julie Burchill doesn't get much right, but she nailed Warnock and co perfectly a few years back:

    'OK, so I liked quite a lot of things about her. But what I liked more than anything was what she brought out in other people; how she just had to stand there being herself and they’d divest themselves of their civilised veneer, unbidden. A whole host of characters who had previously passed for decent revealed themselves as sneering snobs when they applied themselves to Thatcher. Mary Warnock said it made her feel sick to hear that Mrs T bought her a pussy–bow blouse at Marks & Spencer; Jonathan Miller whipped himself into a self–righteous frenzy over "her odious suburban gentility". A few years later, of course, he would be banging on about the ghastly "feral", ie working–class, children disturbing the peace of his precious N W Twee neighbourhood, as suburban as any retired colonel. And who can forget the caring, anti–sexist Labour Party and its 1983 "Ditch The Bitch" campaign? She got it from her own side, too — the drunken Tory grandee who asked her at a Number 10 luncheon while she was Edward Heath’s Education Minister if there was any truth in the rumour that she was a woman.'

    http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/110576
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited April 2013


    No post (a hint - I haven't - I've consistently said "it's the economy") - and I've never worked in PR.

    Your usual standard of accuracy fibbing.

    No post?? You really are delusional. Here's just one thread since Philpott where you are self evidently banging on about welfare, and it's hardly the only one dear.

    http://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2013/04/07/if-stepping-up-the-rhetoric-on-welfare-was-supposed-to-boost-con-poll-ratings-it-has-yet-to-work/#vanilla-comments

    Nor will it be hard to find any threads with you banging on about Thatcher, usually in faux outrage mode of course.

    You also claimed to have worked with Saatchi & Saatchi for two decades. Were you lying about that or did you not notice they work in public relations at the time?

    Laughable as always.

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Great quote from Thatcher in the C4 doc:

    "To borrow and to borrow and to borrow is not Macbeth with a heavy cold - it's Labour policy"

    True then, true now...

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    @ Carlotta

    sad to say in 30 years Labour havn't come up with a new idea, you sort of know what balnk Ed's manifesto will be.
  • CarolaCarola Posts: 1,805
    I don't see a contradiction between 'divisive' and 'conviction'. Better to know your foe than blunder around in no man's land as we do now.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    @Mick_Pork - fail again, where did I say Benefits would move VI? Labour posters were consistently posting how this was "uniformly unpopular" and "backed by polling evidence" - and since its been neither and has not led to a collapse of Tory support in the polls are now doing a reverse ferret and claiming the Tories have "failed to see a boost".

    I worked "with" Saatchi (who are an advertising, not PR company) - but to find you ignorant in matters business leaves me unsurprised.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    @ carola

    on PB there are no foes just trolls we haven't met yet.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,970
    Regurgitating rubbish from Burchill? Thatcher was the most pretentious politician in my lifetime. Perhaps you can't remember? She thought she was the Queen to which end she had elocution lessons. You don't get more 'woman of the people' than that.
  • GrandioseGrandiose Posts: 2,323
    Personally I wouldn't think of Margaret Thatcher as the best post-War PM save for the fact that if I didn't I'd have to name someone else. Someone has to be the best, so you have to put aside some failings because no Prime Minister is perfect.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,693
    What is rarely posted is that Maggie was lucky! Lucky to arrive when Callaghan's Labour Government was tired. Lucky to have the N Sea Oli Bonanza. Lucky to have a divided Labour opposition. Lucky to have the Falklands War ...... and IIRC there's evidence to suggest that if te Argentines hadn't been quite so difficult over the negotiations there'd have joint sovereignty by the end of '83.
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548
    @TheScreamingEagles if it's consistent with what you have read then I don't see how you could have read that it was part of Margaret Thatcher's resignation honours. I've looked very hard for evidence that it was (and have found guardian and ft obits in the last week that claim that it was) but found nothing of substance to back up your and Tim's claim. I don't believe either of you can back it up.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    Roger said:

    Regurgitating rubbish from Burchill? Thatcher was the most pretentious politician in my lifetime. Perhaps you can't remember? She thought she was the Queen to which end she had elocution lessons. You don't get more 'woman of the people' than that.

    Most pretentious ? Sorry Roger, rolling on the floor at that, I mean did you miss Tony Blair ?
  • carlcarl Posts: 750

    Labour posters were consistently posting how this was "uniformly unpopular"

  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,109
    JackW said:

    @GIN1138

    "We're into Sunil On Sunday territory here..."

    Is that vast organ still publishing ?!? .... I thought it had gone the way of steam ?!?

    Now that 'Likes' are back in PB vogue, Lord Sunil (Headline-finder Pursuivant) plans to publish an edition tomorrow - depending how late he gets back from messing about on the Epping to Ongar line!
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514

    What is rarely posted is that Maggie was lucky! Lucky to arrive when Callaghan's Labour Government was tired. Lucky to have the N Sea Oli Bonanza. Lucky to have a divided Labour opposition. Lucky to have the Falklands War ...... and IIRC there's evidence to suggest that if te Argentines hadn't been quite so difficult over the negotiations there'd have joint sovereignty by the end of '83.

    Of course she was lucky, so was Blair, who did more with their lucky break ?
  • carlcarl Posts: 750

    Labour posters were consistently posting how this was "uniformly unpopular"

    Were they?

  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,109

    @Carlotta

    that's a bit harsh on Porkie, anyone supoporting a Nato centric, Pounds Sterling, Monarchist party is OK by me ;-).

    Don't forget they'll keep the English language too!
  • GrandioseGrandiose Posts: 2,323
    The truth is clear: the death of the most decisive (and I would say most influential) politician of this generation and there has been almost no effect on the poll, probably none at all. Yet more evidence that almost nothing influences British public opinion.
  • @TheScreamingEagles if it's consistent with what you have read then I don't see how you could have read that it was part of Margaret Thatcher's resignation honours. I've looked very hard for evidence that it was (and have found guardian and ft obits in the last week that claim that it was) but found nothing of substance to back up your and Tim's claim. I don't believe either of you can back it up.

    That Mrs Thatcher wanted to announce it in the resignation honours, but Baronetcies had to need approval from the Monarch, so weren't announced on the day of her resignation, with the rest of the honours, but a week later.

    This article confirms that it was announced a week or so after her resignation honours.

    http://www.nytimes.com/1990/12/08/style/chronicle-911390.html
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530

    I worked "with" Saatchi (who are an advertising, not PR company) - but to find you ignorant in matters business leaves me unsurprised.


    Priceless though inept spin as we have come to expect. Saatchi do PR dear and we all know it. You even specifically said you worked with Saatchi to try and defend Lord Saatchi after an embarrassing interview where he was laughed at for claiming he didn't do any PR work for Thatcher despite being paid millions by the tory party to do exactly that.

    As for your wriggling over banging on about welfare and Thacher, amusing but again, hardly unexpected. Bit hard to explain why a PB tory like yourself keeps banging on about these things unless you think it's of benefit for your party, isn't it?

    Keep trying. It's not getting any better but you are proving my point about PR conclusively.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Grandiose said:

    The truth is clear: the death of the most decisive (and I would say most influential) politician of this generation and there has been almost no effect on the poll, probably none at all. Yet more evidence that almost nothing influences British public opinion.

    Why would the death of a politician who has been out of office for 23 years have any effect on polling? Unless you believe our current woes are down to her and not the intervening near quarter of a century's politicians?
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Roger said:

    Regurgitating rubbish from Burchill? Thatcher was the most pretentious politician in my lifetime. Perhaps you can't remember? She thought she was the Queen to which end she had elocution lessons. You don't get more 'woman of the people' than that.

    It is quite common for politicians to have elocution lessons and similar restyling, though I agree that Maggie was ahead of the pack on this. Watching the 79 election we see how well spoken people were in those days.

    The restyling now is different, so we have Georges Mockney, Tony Blairs Estuary English and Chukas amusing British Obama restyling. It all reminds me of the eighties Heineken advert:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyAgy2CngfY
  • carlcarl Posts: 750
    Grandiose said:

    Yet more evidence that almost nothing influences British public opinion.

    THAT Tory Budget certainly did! Labour have held a solid 10 point lead ever since, and it shows no sign of going anywhere.
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548
    @TheScreamingEagles The New York Times?!?

    Denis Thatcher was awarded his Baronetcy on the 7th of December, her resignation honours were announced on the 21st. So you've got that wrong for starters.

    Have you got any real evidence?
  • JamesKellyJamesKelly Posts: 1,348
    The findings on privatisation are utterly devastating for PB Tory orthodoxy.
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548
    @tim you did claim that Maggie awarded it to her son. Now you're saying it was Major. So you were trying, just a little more, to defame her and you needed pulling up on it.
  • @TheScreamingEagles The New York Times?!?

    Denis Thatcher was awarded his Baronetcy on the 7th of December, her resignation honours were announced on the 21st. So you've got that wrong for starters.

    Have you got any real evidence?

    So the New York Times isn't acceptable to you.

    Right.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Mick_Pork said:

    I worked "with" Saatchi (who are an advertising, not PR company) - but to find you ignorant in matters business leaves me unsurprised.


    Priceless though inept spin as we have come to expect. Saatchi do PR dear and we all know it. You even specifically said you worked with Saatchi to try and defend Lord Saatchi after an embarrassing interview where he was laughed at for claiming he didn't do any PR work for Thatcher despite being paid millions by the tory party to do exactly that.

    As for your wriggling over banging on about welfare and Thacher, amusing but again, hardly unexpected. Bit hard to explain why a PB tory like yourself keeps banging on about these things unless you think it's of benefit for your party, isn't it?

    Keep trying. It's not getting any better but you are proving my point about PR conclusively.
    Can't post a link can you? Fail. Again. Sausages for Porkie!
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548
    @TheScreamingEagles that NYT was from 2 weeks before her resignation honours list was officially announced so was irrelevant. And the NYT isn't what I'd describe as as a good source on the UK honours system. I'm surprised that it's good enough for you.
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530

    Mick_Pork said:

    I worked "with" Saatchi (who are an advertising, not PR company) - but to find you ignorant in matters business leaves me unsurprised.


    Priceless though inept spin as we have come to expect. Saatchi do PR dear and we all know it. You even specifically said you worked with Saatchi to try and defend Lord Saatchi after an embarrassing interview where he was laughed at for claiming he didn't do any PR work for Thatcher despite being paid millions by the tory party to do exactly that.

    As for your wriggling over banging on about welfare and Thacher, amusing but again, hardly unexpected. Bit hard to explain why a PB tory like yourself keeps banging on about these things unless you think it's of benefit for your party, isn't it?

    Keep trying. It's not getting any better but you are proving my point about PR conclusively.
    Can't post a link can you? Fail. Again. Sausages for Porkie!
    Mick_Pork said:

    Superb comedy from Lord Saatchi as he displays precisely why nobody should ever believe public relations wonks.

    No, he was actually arguing that the best advertising in the world cannot save a poor product - something Saatchi (which I worked with for two decades) fervently believed in.....
    http://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2013/04/09/ukip-are-fielding-candidates-in-three-quarters-of-the-local-seats-up-on-may-2nd/


    You amusing PR drones really are full of it, aren't you? :)
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    carl said:

    Grandiose said:

    Yet more evidence that almost nothing influences British public opinion.

    THAT Tory Budget certainly did! Labour have held a solid 10 point lead ever since, and it shows no sign of going anywhere.
    Yep. "It's the economy stupid" - or in the absence of change, perceptions of competence - and last year's budget still clearly looms over all.

    Mercifully, this year's has sunk without trace, no doubt to the regret of some on this site...

  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548
    This is starting to feel like a 386... ;)

    http://xkcd.com/386/
  • @TheScreamingEagles that NYT was from 2 weeks before her resignation honours list was officially announced so was irrelevant. And the NYT isn't what I'd describe as as a good source on the UK honours system. I'm surprised that it's good enough for you.

    Well I originally read my piece from the Times of London earlier on this week talking Lady Thatcher's relationship with her children.

    I know, because I was reading the piece at the same time as Roger asked what Sir Mark had done to deserve a knighthood.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,421

    The findings on privatisation are utterly devastating for PB Tory orthodoxy.

    Are you sure? For one thing, it lumps together several different utilities. Secondly, what do they mean by 'better level of service'? Many people would answer assuming cost, and cost, especially for gas and electric, have increased massively. It is often hard to see a more expensive service as a better service.

    I would guess that legislation accounts for much more of that price rise than privatisation.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Mick_Pork said:

    Mick_Pork said:

    I worked "with" Saatchi (who are an advertising, not PR company) - but to find you ignorant in matters business leaves me unsurprised.


    Priceless though inept spin as we have come to expect. Saatchi do PR dear and we all know it. You even specifically said you worked with Saatchi to try and defend Lord Saatchi after an embarrassing interview where he was laughed at for claiming he didn't do any PR work for Thatcher despite being paid millions by the tory party to do exactly that.

    As for your wriggling over banging on about welfare and Thacher, amusing but again, hardly unexpected. Bit hard to explain why a PB tory like yourself keeps banging on about these things unless you think it's of benefit for your party, isn't it?

    Keep trying. It's not getting any better but you are proving my point about PR conclusively.
    Can't post a link can you? Fail. Again. Sausages for Porkie!
    Mick_Pork said:

    Superb comedy from Lord Saatchi as he displays precisely why nobody should ever believe public relations wonks.

    No, he was actually arguing that the best advertising in the world cannot save a poor product - something Saatchi (which I worked with for two decades) fervently believed in.....
    http://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2013/04/09/ukip-are-fielding-candidates-in-three-quarters-of-the-local-seats-up-on-may-2nd/


    You amusing PR drones really are full of it, aren't you? :)

    And you still clearly don't understand the difference between PR and marketing.

    And why am I not surprised?

    Would you care to share your area of expertise?
  • Interesting

    Andrew Hawkins ‏@Andrew_ComRes

    RT @roadto326 #Labour lead by age group in #comres poll - 18-24 (+32) 25-34 (+19) 35-44 (+19) 45-54 (+16) 55-64 (+0) 65+ (-18)

    and

    Andrew_ComRes notes, UKIP doing very well in 65+ age group. Tories in trouble if this stays same up until 2015, these voters will turn out
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216

    The findings on privatisation are utterly devastating for PB Tory orthodoxy.

    Will undoing privatisation form part of the SNP's manifesto for an independent Scotland?

  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited April 2013
    tim said:

    @JJ

    I never claimed it was resignation honours, Major made it hereditary and refuses to say why, Avery reckons all PMs are offered the same, which I doubt.
    Whatever happened I'm surprised that anyone wanted a title that could be passed to Mark Thatcher given everyone knew what he was and is

    tim, I am claiming that all Prime Ministers, by custom and tradition, had been offered an Earldom. That does not necessarily mean that this practice didn't fall out of favour certainly from the 1960s onwards, probably starting from the passing of the 1958 Life Peerages Act.

    Margaret Thatcher definitely resurrected the practice with the offers of hereditary peerages to Whitelaw (who had no heir) and Macmillan (who did). The offer is always within the discretion of the current Prime Minister and Monarch, following due scrutiny and process within the civil service.

    Even so, any incoming PM is likely to take into account and give great weight to the wishes of their predecessor, with Conservative PMs more likely to entertain a request for an hereditary title than a Labour PM for reasons of political policy and values.

    I would be surprised if more hereditary titles were to be created in the current political environment. But we never know what might happen in the future.

    For example, I would never have guessed that the Tory-Labour gap in the polls would narrow so quickly following the death of the Blessed Margaret. Its running at about 1% swing per day. Who would have thought that might happen?
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited April 2013

    And you still clearly don't understand the difference between PR and marketing.

    And why am I not surprised?

    The context of the quote is crystal clear and no amount of inept PR can possibly deflect away from that fact. Why am I not surprised you are still flailing away amusingly and obliviously trying?



  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514

    Interesting

    Andrew Hawkins ‏@Andrew_ComRes

    RT @roadto326 #Labour lead by age group in #comres poll - 18-24 (+32) 25-34 (+19) 35-44 (+19) 45-54 (+16) 55-64 (+0) 65+ (-18)

    and

    Andrew_ComRes notes, UKIP doing very well in 65+ age group. Tories in trouble if this stays same up until 2015, these voters will turn out

    Interesting

    Andrew Hawkins ‏@Andrew_ComRes

    RT @roadto326 #Labour lead by age group in #comres poll - 18-24 (+32) 25-34 (+19) 35-44 (+19) 45-54 (+16) 55-64 (+0) 65+ (-18)

    and

    Andrew_ComRes notes, UKIP doing very well in 65+ age group. Tories in trouble if this stays same up until 2015, these voters will turn out

    Simply says the blues aren't doing enough for people with families. And they aren't.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815

    Interesting

    Andrew Hawkins ‏@Andrew_ComRes

    RT @roadto326 #Labour lead by age group in #comres poll - 18-24 (+32) 25-34 (+19) 35-44 (+19) 45-54 (+16) 55-64 (+0) 65+ (-18)

    and

    Andrew_ComRes notes, UKIP doing very well in 65+ age group. Tories in trouble if this stays same up until 2015, these voters will turn out

    TSE

    The press will allow UKIP to grow unmolested until the Euros, then they will kill them.

    That won't require much effort as almost all the ammunition will be provided from within UKIP itself.

  • carlcarl Posts: 750

    Interesting

    Andrew Hawkins ‏@Andrew_ComRes

    Andrew_ComRes notes, UKIP doing very well in 65+ age group. Tories in trouble if this stays same up until 2015, these voters will turn out

    I have to admit, I was expecting quite a few musty old Rightwing duffers to get a bit misty eyed over Thatcher and return to the Tories from UKIP.

    Seems it hasn't happened though.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Mick_Pork said:

    And you still clearly don't understand the difference between PR and marketing.

    And why am I not surprised?

    The context of the quote is crystal clear and no amount of inept PR can possibly deflect away from that fact. Why am I not surprised you are still flailing away and amusingly trying?
    Bit rich coming from someone who can't tell the difference between "with" and "for"!

    I'm sure Roger will be happy to explain how advertising agencies work if you ask him nicely.

    And your area if expertise is?
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,704
    edited April 2013



    Simply says the blues aren't doing enough for people with families. And they aren't.

    I think the Tories have targeted families quite enough.

  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    I do like the additional options on PB - a veritable cornucopia of data.

    And I see once again that @Roger is obsessing about me in my absence and about Likes. A most peculiar idea fixe. Still, whatever makes him happy :^ )
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548
    @TheScreamingEagles so the Times told you the false info about Denis's award being given two weeks after the resignation honours were announced because of the delay due to the Queens necessary involvement? Sounds like a very poorly researched article to me.
This discussion has been closed.