@MikeK - all politicians "add artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative" - I haven't seen evidence that Cameron is noticeably worse (or better) than others.....the debt/deficit one was particularly egregious and he was rightly called out on it.....
Thanks for making my point that Cammo is a liar, on things great and small. However, not all politicians lie for the sake of lying. With Cammo its more than a bad habit; it's the very essence of the man.
@MikeK - all politicians "add artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative" - I haven't seen evidence that Cameron is noticeably worse (or better) than others.....the debt/deficit one was particularly egregious and he was rightly called out on it.....
Thanks for making my point that Cammo is a liar, on things great and small. However, not all politicians lie for the sake of lying. With Cammo its more than a bad habit; it's the very essence of the man.
Though they got one seat in parliament, since then it's been downhill all the way. Epic fail.
That doesnt seem to me to be a particularly downhill trajectory. Just more of the solid progress that has been going on for 15 years and produced a breakthrough in Westminster that UKIP show few signs of being able to replicate.
I'd add two other factors - there is a well established "Green" movement in a Europe, which I presume the UK parties engage with - somethíng Farage will not do (and good for him) with the Le Pens of Europe, and the Green world view also seems a bit more developed than the (effectively) single issue of UKIP - which is really immigration.
Mr Farage went to the Canadian Conservatives do earlier this year. He's compared UKIP with the Canada's Reform Party.
I doubt the 1992 result offers too much comfort, both the 2010 and 2005 BBC exit polls were pretty much spot on. Even in 1992 only NOP had Labour with a clear lead and, as has been pointed out, all the polls have now greatly improved their methodology. The UKIP vote though could still make the election hard to predict
Some of the country's best psephologists predicted UKIP would get 12% in this year's local elections a few days before polling day. Afterwards they calculated the party's projected national share as 22%. That does give some hope to those who would like the exit polls to be wrong in 2015.
I would not be surprised if it happened as it just about sums up the hypocrisy of the three main parties.
They would be doing the right thing even if you suspect it was for the wrong reasons (I doubt it would be as the main parties still pull in far more than UKIP will). The guy has stated he wants to donate whatever it takes to allow UKIP to win next year. What better reason could there be to ban this practice than to point out that it shouldnt be possible to donate enough money to allow a party to win an election like this.
I'm in favour of limits on spending and always have been. But I think there are diminishing returns anyway. Get one well-designed, well-targeted leaflet and you may be impressed, get 10 of them and you won't be 10 times as impressed.
Had a look at the Left Unity thing - it's basically a Ken Loach project, and they've rustled up 10,000 people to express interest, though there is faction fighting already. Anyone curious can get a flavour of the People Front of Judea aspects of the far left if they work through this discussion:
- note the criticism of the Socialist Party (one of the many other left splinters) for supporting that nasty right-winger Len McCluskey.
As for the Greens - they did well to get Caroline's seat (whether she'll keep it is a bit moot, I think) but otherwise it's painfully slow progress from completely marginal to almost completely marginal, mainly due to FPTP. As with UKIP, their big chance should be the Euros, where they usually do well. If they score decently there it should give a basis for doing OK at the GE. If Labour wins then they could build up as a left alternative.
NP The Greens also have MEPs and don't forget Galloway, what he decides to do with Left Unity will be interesting, if anyone should lead it surely he should?
Sykes' involvement looks like it could really liven up the Euros. The Yorkshire Post advert will appeal to Labour votes with its message about "Government cuts" and to Tories too with "strain on our welfare resources." And I don't think there's much chance of their message getting drowned out because the other three are all broke, will have minimal budgets I guess and would rather not talk about Europe anyway. Excellent!
don't forget Galloway, what he decides to do with Left Unity will be interesting, if anyone should lead it surely he should?
Any vehicle led by Galloway would struggle to credibly retain the word "unity" in its title.
ps though obviously any group navigating the shark-infested waters between the SWP, SP and their front organisations will only ever have nominal rather than actual unity anyway
It needs to be remembered that in 1992 the Conservatives still lost 40 seats.
Because of the landslide majorities Thatcher had won they could afford to lose support and still win an election.
They do not have the same safety margin now - to remain in government they are likely to need to increase support.
Which brings us to the cheerleaders dilemma - for the Conservatives to gain increased support in constituency X or among demographic Y they have to conceed that the Conservatives underachieved in these places in 2010. Which goes against their fundamental belief that 2010 was a great electoral triumph for Cameron and Osborne and could not have been bettered by listening to outsiders.
The double think they require to reconcile these beliefs is a source of amusement
Bizzare argument. Putting it on its head while '92 lost 40 seats, 87 lost 21, 83 gained 58 and 79 gained 62 ... 2010 gained 97
So if we're looking at seats gained or lost then 2010 was a success. If we're saying its more complicated then that then fine I'd agree. I think in 2010 Labour were able to scaremonger against the "Tory cuts too far too fast" and so many voters chose to cling on to nurse for fear of worse. That will not be a factor in 2015.
I also suspect that many 2010 LDs currently saying Labour are saying so simply because they're saying the main opposition party same as happened in prior mid-terms but that doesn't mean it'll actually happen. Its very easy to protest in an opinion poll or relatively meaningless local/European election or by-election but the General Election is and always will be different.
Interesting point IMO: one of the amateur psephologists on another forum has calculated that John Major would have won a majority of about 70 seats if the 1992 election had been fought on the present constituency boundaries.
Gaining 97 seats in an election is a pretty rare event. It does point up the real lack of progress of the previous 3 leaders over a decade before Cameron took over. So dump the leader that did this and go back to ideological purity and 200 seats in opposition?
It needs to be remembered that in 1992 the Conservatives still lost 40 seats.
Because of the landslide majorities Thatcher had won they could afford to lose support and still win an election.
They do not have the same safety margin now - to remain in government they are likely to need to increase support.
Which brings us to the cheerleaders dilemma - for the Conservatives to gain increased support in constituency X or among demographic Y they have to conceed that the Conservatives underachieved in these places in 2010. Which goes against their fundamental belief that 2010 was a great electoral triumph for Cameron and Osborne and could not have been bettered by listening to outsiders.
The double think they require to reconcile these beliefs is a source of amusement
Bizzare argument. Putting it on its head while '92 lost 40 seats, 87 lost 21, 83 gained 58 and 79 gained 62 ... 2010 gained 97
So if we're looking at seats gained or lost then 2010 was a success. If we're saying its more complicated then that then fine I'd agree. I think in 2010 Labour were able to scaremonger against the "Tory cuts too far too fast" and so many voters chose to cling on to nurse for fear of worse. That will not be a factor in 2015.
I also suspect that many 2010 LDs currently saying Labour are saying so simply because they're saying the main opposition party same as happened in prior mid-terms but that doesn't mean it'll actually happen. Its very easy to protest in an opinion poll or relatively meaningless local/European election or by-election but the General Election is and always will be different.
If any party would be daft enough to do that it would be the Tories.......Mind you, with the "non-personing" of Tòny Błair, Labour may not be far behind.....
Gaining 97 seats in an election is a pretty rare event. It does point up the real lack of progress of the previous 3 leaders over a decade before Cameron took over. So dump the leader that did this and go back to ideological purity and 200 seats in opposition?
It needs to be remembered that in 1992 the Conservatives still lost 40 seats.
Because of the landslide majorities Thatcher had won they could afford to lose support and still win an election.
They do not have the same safety margin now - to remain in government they are likely to need to increase support.
Which brings us to the cheerleaders dilemma - for the Conservatives to gain increased support in constituency X or among demographic Y they have to conceed that the Conservatives underachieved in these places in 2010. Which goes against their fundamental belief that 2010 was a great electoral triumph for Cameron and Osborne and could not have been bettered by listening to outsiders.
The double think they require to reconcile these beliefs is a source of amusement
Bizzare argument. Putting it on its head while '92 lost 40 seats, 87 lost 21, 83 gained 58 and 79 gained 62 ... 2010 gained 97
So if we're looking at seats gained or lost then 2010 was a success. If we're saying its more complicated then that then fine I'd agree. I think in 2010 Labour were able to scaremonger against the "Tory cuts too far too fast" and so many voters chose to cling on to nurse for fear of worse. That will not be a factor in 2015.
I also suspect that many 2010 LDs currently saying Labour are saying so simply because they're saying the main opposition party same as happened in prior mid-terms but that doesn't mean it'll actually happen. Its very easy to protest in an opinion poll or relatively meaningless local/European election or by-election but the General Election is and always will be different.
Comments
And now I'm away to bed.
I think being at the top suits him!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21894316
Con maj: 4.3
Lab maj: 2.68
No maj: 2.5
http://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/market?id=1.101416490
If the Tories go to 5 it may represent value as far as in-play/cash-out is concerned.
Had a look at the Left Unity thing - it's basically a Ken Loach project, and they've rustled up 10,000 people to express interest, though there is faction fighting already. Anyone curious can get a flavour of the People Front of Judea aspects of the far left if they work through this discussion:
http://leftunity.org/what-some-of-the-left-groups-are-saying-about-left-unity/
- note the criticism of the Socialist Party (one of the many other left splinters) for supporting that nasty right-winger Len McCluskey.
As for the Greens - they did well to get Caroline's seat (whether she'll keep it is a bit moot, I think) but otherwise it's painfully slow progress from completely marginal to almost completely marginal, mainly due to FPTP. As with UKIP, their big chance should be the Euros, where they usually do well. If they score decently there it should give a basis for doing OK at the GE. If Labour wins then they could build up as a left alternative.
ps though obviously any group navigating the shark-infested waters between the SWP, SP and their front organisations will only ever have nominal rather than actual unity anyway
So if we're looking at seats gained or lost then 2010 was a success. If we're saying its more complicated then that then fine I'd agree. I think in 2010 Labour were able to scaremonger against the "Tory cuts too far too fast" and so many voters chose to cling on to nurse for fear of worse. That will not be a factor in 2015.
I also suspect that many 2010 LDs currently saying Labour are saying so simply because they're saying the main opposition party same as happened in prior mid-terms but that doesn't mean it'll actually happen. Its very easy to protest in an opinion poll or relatively meaningless local/European election or by-election but the General Election is and always will be different.
The crystal methodist
Days after he is grilled by MPs, chief of Co-op Bank buys £300 Clas A drugs
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/5269021/Ex-Co-op-Bank-chief-Paul-Flowers-buys-Class-A-drugs.html