Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » CON drops back into the 20s in latest Opinium poll for the

124»

Comments

  • And your evidence that Davis would have lost in 2010 is what exactly ???

    Listening to him.
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693

    Stafford is a changed hospital (it needed to be!) But with real trouble recruiting. The reason that there A and E closes at night is that they cannot get the staff.

    Burton has a good reputation.

    It is not unique to Leicester, or to recent times. In the eighties I would start the day as admitting house officer at a London hospital with a handful of beds for 25-30 emergency admissions. Since then there has been a decline in beds under all govts:

    http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/general-election-2010/faqs#beds

    We have fewer beds per head than almost every OECD country, and often by a factor of two or more (France, Germany) despite having higher rates of heart disease, diabetes and obesity:

    http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.MED.BEDS.ZS

    Sometimes it is as simple as that!






    From your perspective, what would you say has led to this situation in your hospital?

    Thanks. An interesting and worrying answer.

    On a similar note: a member of my family was taken ill early one morning last week. It was a relief that it was at that time, as he had to be taken further to Burton, rather than to Stafford, which is currently closed at night. Given his past experience of Stafford A&E, he is very glad to be elsewhere.

    Apparently their experience of Burton hospital has been first rate so far.
    I had a head tumour removed at Stafford last month and can't praise the staff highly enough. Nurse/patient ratio on the general ward was never above 3/1. I've never been so well cared for in an NHS hospital! I guess one anecdote doesn't mean an awful lot, but still.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,916
    Bobajob Yes, but Blair and co never factored in Cameron losing votes by the bucketload to his right to UKIP, which he has done
  • JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    Abbott was also hardlu the sharpest tool in the box, and was also despised as a Neanderthal by the Sydney and Melbourne liberal elite, but he stuck to his message and watched Labour fall apart. There is no reason Davis would not have done the same

    For pity's sake, mate, if Davis had lost in 2010 - which he would have - he wouldn't have had a second chance. The Tories would have probably elected....ooor...er...hold on....David Cameron!
    He wouldn't have needed a second chance because he would not have lost. Brown was always going to lose. It took a special kind of genius to fail to win under those circumstances. I find it very funny that Cameroons talk about the possibility of Davis failing to win whilst ignoring the fact that Cameron did actually fail to win.

    The most benign conditions for an opposition in a generation and Cameron managed to blow it.

    And of course he will compound that by losing in 2015.

    I wonder who the Cameroons will try and find to blame then because true to form they will never for a minute accept that it is their own fault.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Whether you agree with it or not, Labour are doing a spectacularly good job of selecting women and ethnic minority candidates for the next election.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    So we know the answer to the question "what is worse than surrounding yourself with chinless chumps ?" The answer being the Labour front bench.
    JohnO said:

    tim said:

    tim said:

    they're very aware of his background.

    Of course, since Labour (who have little else to say, and nothing sensible) have gone on about nothing else for several years.

    It's Labour's only card: class prejudice.

    It may be a trump card, of course. Pity Britain if it is.
    As many people have pointed out upthread it wouldn't matter if he hadn't surrounded himself with so many chinless chumps simply because they share his background
    Even as Labour's lead increases slightly, he still beats Ed on Leader's ratings.

    As you know to your cost.
  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 4,291

    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    Abbott was also hardlu the sharpest tool in the box, and was also despised as a Neanderthal by the Sydney and Melbourne liberal elite, but he stuck to his message and watched Labour fall apart. There is no reason Davis would not have done the same

    For pity's sake, mate, if Davis had lost in 2010 - which he would have - he wouldn't have had a second chance. The Tories would have probably elected....ooor...er...hold on....David Cameron!
    And your evidence that Davis would have lost in 2010 is what exactly ???
    Oh, didn't I tell you that you have been banned from voting Conservative until further notice?

    It's in your own interests to prevent undue distress and has been counter-signed by a qualified medical pracitioner and two social workers.

    This proscription does not apply - for the present - to your immediate relatives. You will be informed of any changes
  • And your evidence that Davis would have lost in 2010 is what exactly ???

    Listening to him.
    So nothing except your own personal bias then.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,916
    RN Brown discipline? The man was chaos personified, and as for the Milibands, well they could not even trust their own brother, at least Rudd and Gillard were not related
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 5,006
    Scott_P said:

    OllyT said:

    Things therefore do not look good for Dave however much people like Scott P post random polling figures to try and keep their spirits up.

    Polling versus PB Kinnock anecdote...

    Unspoofable
    Notice you don't exactly debate the issue - do enlighten me on your scenario as to how Dave builds a 6% lead over the next 18 months. I would be truly fascinated.
  • BobajobBobajob Posts: 1,536
    tim said:

    Bobajob said:

    HYUFD said:

    Abbott was also hardlu the sharpest tool in the box, and was also despised as a Neanderthal by the Sydney and Melbourne liberal elite, but he stuck to his message and watched Labour fall apart. There is no reason Davis would not have done the same

    I'm sorry - that is rubbish. Game Theory says you should do what your opponent least wants you to do, and that was choose Cameron. As soon as he was chosen, many Labourites thought the game was up.
    But he kept Osborne and blew it.
    Labour wanted Osborne kept on and dreaded Ken Clarke or Phil Hammond replacing him


    If Dave wanted to win the next election he'd make Theresa May Chancellor next June when he does his "look I promoted lots of women and people who didn't have their houses bought for them" reshuffle
    Agreed. He has made many mistakes of course - Ozzy's retention being chief among them.
  • Pong said:

    Stafford is a changed hospital (it needed to be!) But with real trouble recruiting. The reason that there A and E closes at night is that they cannot get the staff.

    Burton has a good reputation.

    It is not unique to Leicester, or to recent times. In the eighties I would start the day as admitting house officer at a London hospital with a handful of beds for 25-30 emergency admissions. Since then there has been a decline in beds under all govts:

    http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/general-election-2010/faqs#beds

    We have fewer beds per head than almost every OECD country, and often by a factor of two or more (France, Germany) despite having higher rates of heart disease, diabetes and obesity:

    http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.MED.BEDS.ZS

    Sometimes it is as simple as that!






    From your perspective, what would you say has led to this situation in your hospital?

    Thanks. An interesting and worrying answer.

    On a similar note: a member of my family was taken ill early one morning last week. It was a relief that it was at that time, as he had to be taken further to Burton, rather than to Stafford, which is currently closed at night. Given his past experience of Stafford A&E, he is very glad to be elsewhere.

    Apparently their experience of Burton hospital has been first rate so far.
    I had a head tumour removed at Stafford last month and can't praise the staff highly enough. Nurse/patient ratio on the general ward was never above 3/1. I've never been so well cared for in an NHS hospital! I guess one anecdote doesn't mean an awful lot, but still.
    Considering how Stafford had become synonymous with terrible patient care I actually think that anecdotes like that have a lot of power as they show there has been genuine change.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,916
    Tim That is true
  • HYUFD said:

    RichardN I don't think Davis would have been slaughtered, but I also don't think he would have done as well as Cameron. I would have expected a Davis led Tory party to poll about 33%, roughly the same as Howard got, with maybe Brown still on 29% and Clegg rising to 26%. People said the same of Abbott in Australia and that he was unelectable compared to the more Cameron-like Malcolm Turnbull, but Abbott won at he second time of asking because voters were so fed up with Labor. Davis could eventually have done the same, and stopped leakage to UKIP which is now taking Cameron to a level below that which Davis would have gone

    He would have been absolutely taken apart by the Labour smear and attack operation.

    The guy has many virtues, but he's slow on his feet (not to mention being incredibly flaky, as his bizarre flounce demonstrated). His words would have been twisted and he'd have been painted (unfairly) as some kind of Neanderthal racist.

    It would have been carnage.

    Labour were afraid of Cameron, and rightly so. (If you don't believe me, read for example Chris Mullins' diaries). That's why they've spent the last six years or so stoking up class prejudice against him. It's not pretty, but it's partially successful, now that they've refined their methods compared with the early attempts:

    http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2008/05/crewe-campaign-labour-election


    Labour were never afraid of Cameron, he was their dream Conservative leader.

    A man of privileged background who surrounded himself with men of privileged background.

    A man whose economic policies would shift wealth to the rich and who despised working class concerns.

    Cameron was the embodiment of 'Tory Toxicity'.

    A weak man who wanted to be loved by people who hated Conservatives.

    An arrogant man who thought appealing to the voters he needed was beneath him.

    I warned you years ago and I was proved right.
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 5,006

    OllyT said:

    Some of the comments from the PB Tories are sounding a little desperate tonight. Cameron needs about a 6% lead over Labour to get an overall majority. To do that 2 things need to happen:-

    1. He needs to get UKIP back to below 5% or he will be the first Tory facing a GE with a seriously split right-wing vote..

    2. Labour needs to lose the large chunk of left Lib Dems that moved en masse back to Labour on the day the Coalition was announced and have resolutely stayed there ever since. ,
    Otherwise Milliband will go into the next GE as the first Labour leader in decades not facing a massive split in left of centre votes.

    The Tories probably need both of these things to happen if they are going to win a majority and at the moment neither looks very likely. Things therefore do not look good for Dave however much people like Scott P post random polling figures to try and keep their spirits up.

    Amazing. Thanks for this, none of us had a clue that this is the position.
    Well at least a dozen of you comment as though you don't have a clue that that is the position so what's the cunning plan?
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    The most hilariously out of touch twits and spinners on here have somehow managed to forget the vicious Blair Brown wars in labour that saw minister after minister and labour big beast after big beast taking sides and lashing out while a hapless Brown floundered and tried impotently to pretend nothing was amiss. The only reason Brown even remained PM till the election was that he correctly judged that brother David didn't have the bottle to go for a full on leadership challenge but that certainly didn't stop the infighting and chaos that led up to 2010. That infighting still goes on to this day.

    We don't NEED to imagine what would have happened if labour fell apart because that's precisely what did happen. It also wouldn't have mattered one jot to the Brownites or the Blairites who was in opposition while they tore each other to shreds.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    NE Hampshire open primary tomorrow:

    http://www.gethampshire.co.uk/news/local-news/public-given-chance-choose-north-6268256

    "The open primary, which will be moderated by Mrs Frances Hoare OBE JP, will be held in Sherfield School in Sherfield-on-Loddon near Hook on November 17 at 1.45pm."
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    edited November 2013
    @OllyT

    "He needs to get UKIP back to below 5% or he will be the first Tory facing a GE with a seriously split right-wing vote.."

    The mistake you and many others are making is that the Tories are no longer a right-wing party, and haven't been for decades. They are instead, a pale copy of Labour and are social democrat in all but name. So your talk of a right-wing split is a nonsense.

    There is only one party that can claim to wave the right-wing banner ( and that in a moderated form) and that's UKIP.
  • AndreaParma_82AndreaParma_82 Posts: 4,714
    edited November 2013
    Shortlist:

    Victoria Atkins (Gloucestershire PCC candidate, shortlisted in Tonbridge)
    Ranil Jayawardena (Basingstoke Cllr)
    Spencer Pitfield (from Sheffield)
    http://www.spencerpitfield.com/
    Helen Whateley (Kingston and Surbiton 2010 candidate)
    AndyJS said:

    NE Hampshire open primary tomorrow:

    http://www.gethampshire.co.uk/news/local-news/public-given-chance-choose-north-6268256

    "The open primary, which will be moderated by Mrs Frances Hoare OBE JP, will be held in Sherfield School in Sherfield-on-Loddon near Hook on November 17 at 1.45pm."

  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,712

    HYUFD said:

    Abbott was also hardlu the sharpest tool in the box, and was also despised as a Neanderthal by the Sydney and Melbourne liberal elite, but he stuck to his message and watched Labour fall apart. There is no reason Davis would not have done the same

    Sure, but that assumes the other side fall apart. Why should they? Labour in the UK are very disciplined.
    Labour didn't seem to be either disciplined or organised at the top in 2009-10. However, once Brown was gone things settled remarkably quickly. Which suggests that if Brown hadn't become PM Labour would have much better in the 2010 election.
    However, going back, if Brown had been togher with Blair and it had been Brown who led in 1997, the Tories might either have won in 2005, or, if Blair had taken over just before that election (reverse Granta) the Tories would have lost then and in 2010, and would be likely to do so at the next elections.
  • JohnO said:

    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    Abbott was also hardlu the sharpest tool in the box, and was also despised as a Neanderthal by the Sydney and Melbourne liberal elite, but he stuck to his message and watched Labour fall apart. There is no reason Davis would not have done the same

    For pity's sake, mate, if Davis had lost in 2010 - which he would have - he wouldn't have had a second chance. The Tories would have probably elected....ooor...er...hold on....David Cameron!
    And your evidence that Davis would have lost in 2010 is what exactly ???
    Oh, didn't I tell you that you have been banned from voting Conservative until further notice?

    It's in your own interests to prevent undue distress and has been counter-signed by a qualified medical pracitioner and two social workers.

    This proscription does not apply - for the present - to your immediate relatives. You will be informed of any changes
    You can't actually give a proper answer so instead try and fail at some 'humour'.

    Have you ever managed any political analysis which didn't come directly from a CCHQ handout?
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 5,006
    MikeK said:

    @OllyT

    "He needs to get UKIP back to below 5% or he will be the first Tory facing a GE with a seriously split right-wing vote.."

    The mistake you and many others are making is that the Tories are no longer a right-wing party, and haven't been for decades. They are instead, a pale copy of Labour and are social democrat in all but name. So your talk of a right-wing split is a nonsense.

    There is only one party that can claim to wave the right-wing banner ( and that in a moderated form) and that's UKIP.

    I don't disagree with that at all, what I am saying is that now voters have a viable right wing alternative to the Tories Cameron's chances of getting a majority are slim. The Tories only managed 37% in 2010 when they were shooting at an open goal and UKIP weren't a threat (3%).
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693

    Pong said:

    Stafford is a changed hospital (it needed to be!) But with real trouble recruiting. The reason that there A and E closes at night is that they cannot get the staff.

    Burton has a good reputation.

    It is not unique to Leicester, or to recent times. In the eighties I would start the day as admitting house officer at a London hospital with a handful of beds for 25-30 emergency admissions. Since then there has been a decline in beds under all govts:

    http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/general-election-2010/faqs#beds

    We have fewer beds per head than almost every OECD country, and often by a factor of two or more (France, Germany) despite having higher rates of heart disease, diabetes and obesity:

    http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.MED.BEDS.ZS

    Sometimes it is as simple as that!






    From your perspective, what would you say has led to this situation in your hospital?

    Thanks. An interesting and worrying answer.

    On a similar note: a member of my family was taken ill early one morning last week. It was a relief that it was at that time, as he had to be taken further to Burton, rather than to Stafford, which is currently closed at night. Given his past experience of Stafford A&E, he is very glad to be elsewhere.

    Apparently their experience of Burton hospital has been first rate so far.
    I had a head tumour removed at Stafford last month and can't praise the staff highly enough. Nurse/patient ratio on the general ward was never above 3/1. I've never been so well cared for in an NHS hospital! I guess one anecdote doesn't mean an awful lot, but still.
    Considering how Stafford had become synonymous with terrible patient care I actually think that anecdotes like that have a lot of power as they show there has been genuine change.
    Yeah. Changing things is one thing - changing peoples minds is another. Word from the staff was they were operating at 85-90% capacity. I don't know what that means in financial terms for the trust, but it probably aint good longterm.

    Patient choice is a b*gger, isn't it?
  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 4,291

    JohnO said:

    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    Abbott was also hardlu the sharpest tool in the box, and was also despised as a Neanderthal by the Sydney and Melbourne liberal elite, but he stuck to his message and watched Labour fall apart. There is no reason Davis would not have done the same

    For pity's sake, mate, if Davis had lost in 2010 - which he would have - he wouldn't have had a second chance. The Tories would have probably elected....ooor...er...hold on....David Cameron!
    And your evidence that Davis would have lost in 2010 is what exactly ???
    Oh, didn't I tell you that you have been banned from voting Conservative until further notice?

    It's in your own interests to prevent undue distress and has been counter-signed by a qualified medical pracitioner and two social workers.

    This proscription does not apply - for the present - to your immediate relatives. You will be informed of any changes
    You can't actually give a proper answer so instead try and fail at some 'humour'.

    Have you ever managed any political analysis which didn't come directly from a CCHQ handout?
    Frankly, with the twenty ton boulders on each of your shoulders it is a wonder you are able to type at all.

    Just sod off to UKIP or the BNP. Just don't ever vote Conservative. Don't even consider it. That way both of us will be happy. And our paths will never cross. Thank Goodness.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,928
    What's happening to the Tories? Is it the Major effect?
  • tim said:

    Don't know if anyone takes the ICM wisdom index seriously, but the Telegraph do and they think Cameron has problems with women and in the North.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/10454436/Tories-in-decline-in-northern-England-ICMTelegraph-poll-finds.html

    Which I think we all knew

    Cameron has problems among women and northerners ?

    Surely that's more than countered by middle class blokes in Surrey and Sussex telling us how crap everyone else is compared to the Chosen One.

    Farage - crap, Davis - crap, Miliband - crap etc etc

  • tim said:

    Don't know if anyone takes the ICM wisdom index seriously, but the Telegraph do and they think Cameron has problems with women and in the North.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/10454436/Tories-in-decline-in-northern-England-ICMTelegraph-poll-finds.html

    Which I think we all knew

    Cameron has problems among women and northerners ?

    Surely that's more than countered by middle class blokes in Surrey and Sussex telling us how crap everyone else is compared to the Chosen One.

    Farage - crap, Davis - crap, Miliband - crap etc etc

    Well there is a bloke in Sheffield saying Davis is crap.
  • surbiton said:

    tim said:

    Bobajob said:

    @MikeL @Fitalass

    I'll say that Mike and Fita are right about this - Cameron is by far the strongest figure in the Tory Party. I have said before that I am not as down on him as Tim. He's a decent PM on the world stage.

    The party quite clearly had to move to the left after the shambles of Hague and Howard, and Cameron was the only viable candidate on the modernising wing of the party. While Sean has a point about his poshness, I would challenge him to tell us who would do any better 18 months out?

    The problem there is that for all the modernisation he still went into an election prioritising an Inheritance Tax cut for the wealthiest in the middle of a recession with bloody unbelievable Baronet fronting it.
    And then let the same twit link a cut in the top rate to a pasty tax.

    5% off the polls in each case.

    Daves problem is he alienates three groups

    UKIP leaning men
    Centrist women
    C1's and C2's particularly outside the South East

    Who would do better?
    Theresa May would do better among the first two groups imo.
    The removal of the chinless clique around Cameron which would inevitably follow a change may well help with the third group.

    Actually, Anna Soubry could be an excellent choice but the Tories do not know this. Why she is still contesting Broxtowe I do not know. I still think Broxtowe is an insurance. Clarke will retire just in time for her to inherit Rushcliffe.

    Agreed she would need to be in cabinet first.

    Soubry is a muppet.

    Whether or not she is what is a fact is that Soubry'e electoral record in 2005 and 2010 was deeply mediocre.

    And there's should be no chance of Soubry running to Rushcliffe as such would be an admittance that the the Conservatives were going to lose in 2015.

    As Soubry is already 57 years old that would end her ministerial career.
  • AndyJS said:

    Tories have moved out to 4.2 with Betfair:

    http://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/market?id=1.101416490

    Never any likelihood that the Tories would win an overall majority, was there?

    Most votes however.......

    Miliband is the new single word synonym for dead cat bounce.

    Losing vote share for most of 2013. Already close to dropping below the precious 35% with some.

    Hung parliament is nailed on.

  • JohnO said:

    JohnO said:

    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    Abbott was also hardlu the sharpest tool in the box, and was also despised as a Neanderthal by the Sydney and Melbourne liberal elite, but he stuck to his message and watched Labour fall apart. There is no reason Davis would not have done the same

    For pity's sake, mate, if Davis had lost in 2010 - which he would have - he wouldn't have had a second chance. The Tories would have probably elected....ooor...er...hold on....David Cameron!
    And your evidence that Davis would have lost in 2010 is what exactly ???
    Oh, didn't I tell you that you have been banned from voting Conservative until further notice?

    It's in your own interests to prevent undue distress and has been counter-signed by a qualified medical pracitioner and two social workers.

    This proscription does not apply - for the present - to your immediate relatives. You will be informed of any changes
    You can't actually give a proper answer so instead try and fail at some 'humour'.

    Have you ever managed any political analysis which didn't come directly from a CCHQ handout?
    Frankly, with the twenty ton boulders on each of your shoulders it is a wonder you are able to type at all.

    Just sod off to UKIP or the BNP. Just don't ever vote Conservative. Don't even consider it. That way both of us will be happy. And our paths will never cross. Thank Goodness.
    I think you're about to start crying JohnO.

    Well I did warn you about where the Conservatives were going wrong so, so many times.

    But you wouldn't listen would you, instead it was all cheerleading your Chosen One and lashing out at people who were trying to be helpful.

    And how many other Conservative voters do you want to 'sod off to UKIP' ?

    You're never going to get a Conservative majority on the votes of middle aged, middle class blokes in Surrey alone.

    As I told you and told you and told you and told you and told you and told you ...

    And do you know what JohnO ?

    I'm going to keep on telling you and telling you and telling you and telling you ...

    And you still haven't given any political analysis which didn't come straight off a CCHQ handout.
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    UKIP What is their current policy on gay marriage?

    Specifically, are they proposing that existing gay marriages should be legally annulled?
  • UKIP are a frankly pointless vote unless the right wing, working class Labour faction join them .

    If enough Romanians turn up in the North of England to stymie Labour, they might have a chance.
  • tim said:

    Don't know if anyone takes the ICM wisdom index seriously, but the Telegraph do and they think Cameron has problems with women and in the North.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/10454436/Tories-in-decline-in-northern-England-ICMTelegraph-poll-finds.html

    Which I think we all knew

    Cameron has problems among women and northerners ?

    Surely that's more than countered by middle class blokes in Surrey and Sussex telling us how crap everyone else is compared to the Chosen One.

    Farage - crap, Davis - crap, Miliband - crap etc etc

    Well there is a bloke in Sheffield saying Davis is crap.
    Middle class blokes in Sheffield Hallam are as electorally important as middle class blokes in Surrey and Sussex.

    A 'problem' the PB community has is that it tends to be much more affluent and educated compared to the average swing voter.

    And unless it makes an effort otherwise it looks at politics too much through its own experience and views.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,723
    SUNDAY TIMES:

    Top 1% of taxpayers pay 30% of all Income Tax (paid 21% of all IT in 2003)
    Top 10% of taxpayers pay 55% of all income tax (paid 35% of all IT in 1979)
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,928
    Perhaps John Major has destroyed David Cameron's premiership. Fair play to Major, waiting for exactly the right moment to make his intervention, just as the economy was recovering. Hope Miliband is grateful.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,568



    Whether or not she is what is a fact is that Soubry'e electoral record in 2005 and 2010 was deeply mediocre.

    And there's should be no chance of Soubry running to Rushcliffe as such would be an admittance that the the Conservatives were going to lose in 2015.

    As Soubry is already 57 years old that would end her ministerial career.

    I'm sure she'll fight Broxtowe. I gather UKIP are picking someone they see as a strong candidate too. It'll be a source of fireworks and entertainment all round.

  • Perhaps John Major has destroyed David Cameron's premiership. Fair play to Major, waiting for exactly the right moment to make his intervention, just as the economy was recovering. Hope Miliband is grateful.

    Why would Miliband be grateful?

    His party are supposed to be the party of social progression yet the front bench includes Hilary, Hattie and Tristam.

    It's the world's biggest open goal. A working class party with a TRISTRAM.......
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,928



    Whether or not she is what is a fact is that Soubry'e electoral record in 2005 and 2010 was deeply mediocre.

    And there's should be no chance of Soubry running to Rushcliffe as such would be an admittance that the the Conservatives were going to lose in 2015.

    As Soubry is already 57 years old that would end her ministerial career.

    I'm sure she'll fight Broxtowe. I gather UKIP are picking someone they see as a strong candidate too. It'll be a source of fireworks and entertainment all round.

    Given the size of the Lib Dem vote to squeeze, you really ought to win.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395

    Shortlist:

    Victoria Atkins (Gloucestershire PCC candidate, shortlisted in Tonbridge)
    Ranil Jayawardena (Basingstoke Cllr)
    Spencer Pitfield (from Sheffield)
    http://www.spencerpitfield.com/
    Helen Whateley (Kingston and Surbiton 2010 candidate)

    AndyJS said:

    NE Hampshire open primary tomorrow:

    http://www.gethampshire.co.uk/news/local-news/public-given-chance-choose-north-6268256

    "The open primary, which will be moderated by Mrs Frances Hoare OBE JP, will be held in Sherfield School in Sherfield-on-Loddon near Hook on November 17 at 1.45pm."

    Spencer Pitfield deserves praise for being able to speak a bit of Finnish:

    http://www.spencerpitfield.com/about-me/

    "As a result of my time living in Europe I can speak fluent Dutch, passable French and Spanish, and Finnish for beginners!"
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,320
    Cameron and Osborne quite rightly recognised that their opponent at the next GE was going to be Brown rather than Blair, so they focussed all their efforts on Brown rather than Blair from the minute Cameron became Conservative Leader. Osborne's sterling work in going on the offensive to undermine and totally rattle Brown (and therefore Balls), while Brown was still Chancellor remains one of the least reported or appreciated aspects of the run up to Brown becoming Labour Leader and PM. Anyone from the Labour party who watched these Treasury question jousts has to ask themselves why on earth their party thought that Brown was a suitable successor to Blair, it was obvious that he was totally unsuited to the role and would struggle badly at PMQ's.

    Brown wasn't scared of Davis, he was a known and therefore 'safe' opponent who Brown felt far more comfortable facing.
    HYUFD said:

    Abbott was also hardlu the sharpest tool in the box, and was also despised as a Neanderthal by the Sydney and Melbourne liberal elite, but he stuck to his message and watched Labour fall apart. There is no reason Davis would not have done the same. NewLabour was scared of Cameron, Brown actually thought Davis could be a more dangerous opponent

  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,568
    Pong said:



    Yeah. Changing things is one thing - changing peoples minds is another. Word from the staff was they were operating at 85-90% capacity. I don't know what that means in financial terms for the trust, but it probably aint good longterm.

    Patient choice is a b*gger, isn't it?

    85% capacity is (so I always understood) generally regarded as the rate to aim for. If you go much above that, routine fluctation in admissions leads to strings of cancelled operations. Obviously this means there is usually some unused capacity, but that's good - you don't really want a hospital working flat out with no room for one more patient.

  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    Has anybody noticed how aged Cammo's countenance has become? His head now looks like a red cabbage about to burst, then rot slowly. Sad really, but thats what happens when he keeps telling porkies to all and sundry.
  • Now where did Conservative strategy go wrong ?

    By failing to understand the impact of globalisation.

    For perhaps 90% of the population we face a world where incomes are going to stagnate or fall and where socioeconomic mobility is also falling.

    A world where the gains of an improving economy will benefit only the 'rich'.

    And what did Cameron and Osborne do ? They gave a tax cut to the 'rich'.

    Compare with EdM's idea of an energy price freeze.

    Economic illiterate and it wont work but it makes it look like EdM understand the problems of the ordinary person and is looking to help them whereas Cameron and Osborne care about the 'rich'.

    Now what should the government have done ? Target public sector fatcats by introducing maximum public sector earnings level. It would have forced EdM into either defending the 'rich' or losing support among a key Labour interest group.

    ** Note there are generalisations in this analysis but its the public perception which counts and the public perception which so damages the Conservatives is that of defending privilege. They need to appear as the party of aspiration, as they did under Thatcher and Major, instead they appeear as the party of privilege.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited November 2013
    UKIP polled about 17% in Broxtowe in the local elections this year, slightly below the Notts average.

    Their best performance was 20% in Chilwell & Toton.

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dGxoSGFQaWg1V2tyYklHcXFkTm9LTXc&usp=drive_web#gid=0

    I thought Eastwood (which is in the Ashfield constituency) might have been better for UKIP than the rest of the borough, but in fact they only took 13% there.
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,320
    Thanks to Ed Miliband's lurch to the left to shore up his core vote and left leaning Libdem/Lab switchers, Cameron now doesn't need to move to the right to win back wavering Conservatives or UKIP voters.
    HYUFD said:

    Bobajob Yes, but Blair and co never factored in Cameron losing votes by the bucketload to his right to UKIP, which he has done

  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,723
    PER SUNDAY TIMES:

    (LOL - this doesn't make good reading!)

    "DAVID CAMERON’S new-homes policy, designed to “get Britain building”, has cost the taxpayer almost £1m for each home built"
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,723
    edited November 2013
    PER SUNDAY TIMES:

    "TONY BLAIR’S £8m-a-year deal advising the autocratic regime of Kazakhstan has ended amid accusations that human rights and political freedom have deteriorated"

    Yes - that's right - £8m PER YEAR!!!
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,320
    edited November 2013
    The myth got up about Soubry jumping ship to contest Ken Clarke's seat in the event he was going to retire was a local Labour one being peddled for a while. But it is a myth which crashed and burned when Soubry was re-selected as the Conservative candidate for Broxtowe BEFORE Ken Clarke announced his intention to stand again in Rushcliffe. There is no doubt that Anna Soubry is going to fight the Broxtowe seat, and not quite sure how any UKIP candidate is going to fare up against the newly anointed Iron Lady of the Conservative party.



    Whether or not she is what is a fact is that Soubry'e electoral record in 2005 and 2010 was deeply mediocre.

    And there's should be no chance of Soubry running to Rushcliffe as such would be an admittance that the the Conservatives were going to lose in 2015.

    As Soubry is already 57 years old that would end her ministerial career.

    I'm sure she'll fight Broxtowe. I gather UKIP are picking someone they see as a strong candidate too. It'll be a source of fireworks and entertainment all round.

  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,723
    PER SUNDAY TIMES:

    Previous borrowing forecast 2013/14 = £120bn

    OBR will reduce this to between £100bn and £110bn

    RBS say £105bn

    Investec say £100bn

    Per ST: "This could give the chancellor room for pre-election giveaways such as action on energy bills and a further freeze in fuel duty"
  • tim said:

    MikeL said:

    PER SUNDAY TIMES:

    (LOL - this doesn't make good reading!)

    "DAVID CAMERON’S new-homes policy, designed to “get Britain building”, has cost the taxpayer almost £1m for each home built"

    What were they built with, marble?

    I can't see the paywalled story but journalists' calculations in stories like these are pretty much 100% bullshit. They'll be dividing the amount of money spent on the program so far by the number of houses completed and ignoring houses still under construction, or something like that.
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    Sensitive subject alert...

    "Call to consider lowering age of consent for sex to 15"

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-24976929

    Silly idea, which will be rejected when the media will play the paedo card.

    Which is a shame - IMO bringing the law into normal teenage sexual encounters with an arbitary consent cut off is dumb, ineffective, makes a mockery of the law & (as the good professor points out) risks kids not getting advice when they need it.

    I'd be in favour of a 2 year consent 'band' between 14-18. That provides protection against abuse by adults, but also gives health workers/teachers the appropriate flexibility.
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,320
    edited November 2013
    Now that is what I call partisan denial, and from a member of a party who despite being aware of Nigel Farage's appalling short comings, still insists on voting for them. As of this moment, Nigel Farage has spectacularly failed to get himself elected as an MP anywhere in the UK, and he still hasn't decided on which 'low hanging and easy' seat he is going to stand in at the next GE.

    I mean, lets not even consider him actually picking one seat near to home, then putting in the hard graft necessary over a long period pounding the streets to secure his election. Why do any hard work when your supporters will love you anyway, especially if you just pop up in the election campaign on TV and in the pub as the cheeky chappie with a pint and fag in your hand. Farage going for Bercow's seat last time just proved to me what a lazy and effectual politician he really is, Westminster is all the richer for his absence on the Opposition benches. Cameron on the other hand has proved to be an able PM, and therefore a net asset to his party and the country.

    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    Abbott was also hardlu the sharpest tool in the box, and was also despised as a Neanderthal by the Sydney and Melbourne liberal elite, but he stuck to his message and watched Labour fall apart. There is no reason Davis would not have done the same

    For pity's sake, mate, if Davis had lost in 2010 - which he would have - he wouldn't have had a second chance. The Tories would have probably elected....ooor...er...hold on....David Cameron!
    He wouldn't have needed a second chance because he would not have lost. Brown was always going to lose. It took a special kind of genius to fail to win under those circumstances. I find it very funny that Cameroons talk about the possibility of Davis failing to win whilst ignoring the fact that Cameron did actually fail to win.

    The most benign conditions for an opposition in a generation and Cameron managed to blow it.

    And of course he will compound that by losing in 2015.

    I wonder who the Cameroons will try and find to blame then because true to form they will never for a minute accept that it is their own fault.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,723
    Big story is borrowing coming in £10bn to £20bn under forecast.

    OK, most of it will have to be banked but surely room for a £3bn or £4bn giveaway.
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693

    Pong said:



    Yeah. Changing things is one thing - changing peoples minds is another. Word from the staff was they were operating at 85-90% capacity. I don't know what that means in financial terms for the trust, but it probably aint good longterm.

    Patient choice is a b*gger, isn't it?

    85% capacity is (so I always understood) generally regarded as the rate to aim for. If you go much above that, routine fluctation in admissions leads to strings of cancelled operations. Obviously this means there is usually some unused capacity, but that's good - you don't really want a hospital working flat out with no room for one more patient.

    Interesting, thanks Nick.

    I readily admit my ignorance in such matters, but that sounds like they may be doing a reasonable job attracting patients. For the sake of the (unfortunate) people of Stafford, I do hope so.
  • Pong said:

    Sensitive subject alert...

    "Call to consider lowering age of consent for sex to 15"

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-24976929

    Silly idea, which will be rejected when the media will play the paedo card.

    Which is a shame - IMO bringing the law into normal teenage sexual encounters with an arbitary consent cut off is dumb, ineffective, makes a mockery of the law & (as the good professor points out) risks kids not getting advice when they need it.

    I'd be in favour of a 2 year consent 'band' between 14-18. That provides protection against abuse by adults, but also gives health workers/teachers the appropriate flexibility.

    Right, the way to approach this without getting demagogued would be to say you were coming up with a new offence of sex between underage people. The papers would respond positively to that, because they like new laws, and they'd get to print pictures of sexy 17-year-olds. Then have it replace the existing law for underage sex-havers, and make the penalty if you get caught be that you have to watch a video about birth control or something.
  • fitalass said:

    Cameron and Osborne quite rightly recognised that their opponent at the next GE was going to be Brown rather than Blair, so they focussed all their efforts on Brown rather than Blair from the minute Cameron became Conservative Leader. Osborne's sterling work in going on the offensive to undermine and totally rattle Brown (and therefore Balls), while Brown was still Chancellor remains one of the least reported or appreciated aspects of the run up to Brown becoming Labour Leader and PM. Anyone from the Labour party who watched these Treasury question jousts has to ask themselves why on earth their party thought that Brown was a suitable successor to Blair, it was obvious that he was totally unsuited to the role and would struggle badly at PMQ's.

    Brown wasn't scared of Davis, he was a known and therefore 'safe' opponent who Brown felt far more comfortable facing.

    HYUFD said:

    Abbott was also hardlu the sharpest tool in the box, and was also despised as a Neanderthal by the Sydney and Melbourne liberal elite, but he stuck to his message and watched Labour fall apart. There is no reason Davis would not have done the same. NewLabour was scared of Cameron, Brown actually thought Davis could be a more dangerous opponent

    Now I can understand JohnO's complacency and loyalty - he's in Surrey after all.

    But you're in Scotland where the Conservatives have performed disasterously under Cameron's leadership.

    Yet you still eulogise Osborne's 'sterling work in going on the offensive to undermine and totally rattle Brown'.

    This is Comical Ali stuff.

    Osborne didn't notice a recession until the banks crashed. When food and fuel prices were increasing at 8-10% and Labour was increasing taxes on the low paid Osborne was yachting with Russian oligarchs and Peter Mandelson.
  • tim said:

    Pong said:

    Sensitive subject alert...

    "Call to consider lowering age of consent for sex to 15"

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-24976929

    Silly idea, which will be rejected when the media will play the paedo card.

    Which is a shame - IMO bringing the law into normal teenage sexual encounters with an arbitary consent cut off is dumb, ineffective, makes a mockery of the law & (as the good professor points out) risks kids not getting advice when they need it.

    I'd be in favour of a 2 year consent 'band' between 14-18. That provides protection against abuse by adults, but also gives health workers/teachers the appropriate flexibility.

    Right, the way to approach this without getting demagogued would be to say you were coming up with a new offence of sex between underage people. The papers would respond positively to that, because they like new laws, and they'd get to print pictures of sexy 17-year-olds. Then have it replace the existing law for underage sex-havers, and make the penalty if you get caught be that you have to watch a video about birth control or something.
    Get Claire Perry to talk about motherhood a lot then declare sex between two 15 year olds to be a porn reduction measure
    There you go, the whole thing sorted just between you, me and Pong. Why can't successive governments get this done?
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,723
    'NIGHTMARE!': Bombshell for Labour as leaked emails reveal what Ed Miliband really thinks of Balls

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2508542/NIGHTMARE--Leaked-emails-reveal-Ed-Miliband-really-thinks-Balls.html#ixzz2krcXgkWU
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693

    tim said:

    Pong said:

    Sensitive subject alert...

    "Call to consider lowering age of consent for sex to 15"

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-24976929

    Silly idea, which will be rejected when the media will play the paedo card.

    Which is a shame - IMO bringing the law into normal teenage sexual encounters with an arbitary consent cut off is dumb, ineffective, makes a mockery of the law & (as the good professor points out) risks kids not getting advice when they need it.

    I'd be in favour of a 2 year consent 'band' between 14-18. That provides protection against abuse by adults, but also gives health workers/teachers the appropriate flexibility.

    Right, the way to approach this without getting demagogued would be to say you were coming up with a new offence of sex between underage people. The papers would respond positively to that, because they like new laws, and they'd get to print pictures of sexy 17-year-olds. Then have it replace the existing law for underage sex-havers, and make the penalty if you get caught be that you have to watch a video about birth control or something.
    Get Claire Perry to talk about motherhood a lot then declare sex between two 15 year olds to be a porn reduction measure
    There you go, the whole thing sorted just between you, me and Pong. Why can't successive governments get this done?
    Well, you're up against the "as a father" tripe. I'd hoped it was just a Dave thing, but it seems to have entered Ed's lexicon, too. Must go down well with the focus groups or something.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,568
    AndyJS said:

    UKIP polled about 17% in Broxtowe in the local elections this year, slightly below the Notts average.

    Their best performance was 20% in Chilwell & Toton.

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dGxoSGFQaWg1V2tyYklHcXFkTm9LTXc&usp=drive_web#gid=0

    I thought Eastwood (which is in the Ashfield constituency) might have been better for UKIP than the rest of the borough, but in fact they only took 13% there.

    Toton is the strongest Tory ward in the constituency, and incidentally where the HS2 hub will be built, which UKIP strongly oppose. Chilwell is quite marginal, but it's where the best-known local UKIP guy comes from. Like much of Broxtowe generally, UKIP locally is quite middle-class and haven't made much impact on the former near-coalfield areas like Eastwood.

    fitalass, I was told the Rushcliffe/Soubry report directly by a senior Rushcliffe Tory who I was doing a radio show with (he said non-commitally that it had been under consideration). I'd always thought it unlikely (surely the Tories have a no-switching rule, as Labour does?), and from our viewpoint undesirable. There is a lot to be said for having a high-profile Tory opponent who denounces both Labour and LibDems on a regular basis.

  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,320
    edited November 2013
    And the Falkirk non story rumbles on.... Here is the Mirror's hilarious spin on the news of a far more open and public Inquiry after Ed Miliband has refused to publish his previous Labour inquiry, and has now also refused to open a new one despite the avalanche of new evidence which suggests there was something dodgy going on in which he might be implicated. The Falkirk scandal must be getting more serious, and therefore more of a risk for the Labour party if the Mirror feels the need to peddle this rewriting of the facts as a comedy spoiler.
    Daily Mirror - David Cameron declares war on workers with new inquiry into trade union strike tactics

    MikeL said:

    'NIGHTMARE!': Bombshell for Labour as leaked emails reveal what Ed Miliband really thinks of Balls

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2508542/NIGHTMARE--Leaked-emails-reveal-Ed-Miliband-really-thinks-Balls.html#ixzz2krcXgkWU
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,320
    edited November 2013
    As I pointed out down thread, this was only ever a local Labour myth being peddled to the faithful in an attempt to discredit Anna Soubry as a local constituency MP who cared about Broxtowe. I have been following your posts on here with regard your opponent Anna Soubry for years, first when she was the then Conservative PPC, and now as the elected local Broxtowe MP. Indeed, I remember another anonymous Conservative PPC defending her here on PB against your previous political attacks.

    AndyJS said:

    UKIP polled about 17% in Broxtowe in the local elections this year, slightly below the Notts average.

    Their best performance was 20% in Chilwell & Toton.

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dGxoSGFQaWg1V2tyYklHcXFkTm9LTXc&usp=drive_web#gid=0

    I thought Eastwood (which is in the Ashfield constituency) might have been better for UKIP than the rest of the borough, but in fact they only took 13% there.

    Toton is the strongest Tory ward in the constituency, and incidentally where the HS2 hub will be built, which UKIP strongly oppose. Chilwell is quite marginal, but it's where the best-known local UKIP guy comes from. Like much of Broxtowe generally, UKIP locally is quite middle-class and haven't made much impact on the former near-coalfield areas like Eastwood.

    fitalass, I was told the Rushcliffe/Soubry report directly by a senior Rushcliffe Tory who I was doing a radio show with (he said non-commitally that it had been under consideration). I'd always thought it unlikely (surely the Tories have a no-switching rule, as Labour does?), and from our viewpoint undesirable. There is a lot to be said for having a high-profile Tory opponent who denounces both Labour and LibDems on a regular basis.

  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523
    MikeL said:

    SUNDAY TIMES:

    Top 1% of taxpayers pay 30% of all Income Tax (paid 21% of all IT in 2003)
    Top 10% of taxpayers pay 55% of all income tax (paid 35% of all IT in 1979)

    Which proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that banksta economics only benefits the rich.
  • MrJones said:

    MikeL said:

    SUNDAY TIMES:

    Top 1% of taxpayers pay 30% of all Income Tax (paid 21% of all IT in 2003)
    Top 10% of taxpayers pay 55% of all income tax (paid 35% of all IT in 1979)

    Which proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that banksta economics only benefits the rich.
    Wrong:

    http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/10/22/the-rich-dont-get-richer/

    http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2013/10/21/wealth-more-equal-in-uk-than-in-france-or-germany/

    The urls are broadly accurate summaries of the contents.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,916
    Fitalass Evidence? UKIP voters seem pretty set in their ways at the moment, they despise Cameron as much as Miliband, they will not fall into Cameron's lap, he will have to work for them
This discussion has been closed.