Lab 39 last Sunday, 40 this Sunday Tories on 33 in each poll.
The hammer blows of Falkirk and Rev Flowers continue to take a terrible toll
The Tories central problem is that they are seen as the party of the rich. Why aren't they doing anything about this? Labour might be vulnerable over Falkirk but the danger for Dave is that in going OTT, he just reinforces people's impression of him as not a man of the people.
Just to add I always thought Gerrard's elbow on Michael Brown was the one he got away with. However Brown was a horrible little player so I doubt there was much sympathy.
Agreed, didn't he once do fellow scouters Kevin Nolan as well? And a Southport DJ?
Same old religious nuttery defending the indefensible. Your 'Holy Father' is just another politician leading a self interested faction and sticking his nose in where it is not wanted.
Bit like you really.
Nice to see the PB bigots showing themselves this evening. Accusing people who disagree with you of mental illness is pretty much par for the course for anti-religious bigots.
Nice to see someone using 'politician' as an insult on a blog about, er, politics.
As for intervening where it is not wanted (by you, presumably), remind me where in World Britain didn't intervene where it wasn't wanted.
Mr. Pot, let me introduce you to Mr. Kettle.
Haven't you got some homework to be getting on with?
Haven't you got a intelligent response, Mr. Rationalist?
After your class ridden, anti-English rant do I really need one?
Your ridiculous posturing has laid yourself bare, not very tolerant are you"
And where did I mention class?
And how does being anti-imperialist disqualify my being English?
And how does accommodating recent arrivals in this country make me intolerant?
*Sigh* Another illiberal liberal.
Think you'll find you are intolerant of the indigenous people of this country.
What time do you have to be up for your paper round?
And where am I intolerant of the indigenous people of this country? What does indigenous mean in this context, anyway? Remember where the Angles, Saxons and Jutes came from?
You are losing this argument by simply not fighting it.
Memory hole Where the Party disposes of awkward news stories in Nineteen Eighty-Four. Also, the part of George Osborne's brain that should contain his pledge to match Labour spending plans in 2007.
Conspiracy theory History as written by mad people on the internet.
Revisionism Rewriting history with a research grant.
Historiography The study of why history keeps being rewritten.
Social history Rewriting history that was first written by the winners, paying special attention to the losers.
Oral history Harder to rewrite, since it isn't written down in the first place.
Nationalism Rewriting a country's history as if all the bad things that happened were done by foreigners.
Marxism Story of the proletariat, narrated by the guilty bourgeoisie.
Dustbin of history Where guilty bourgeois Marxists end up after the revolution.
Just to add I always thought Gerrard's elbow on Michael Brown was the one he got away with. However Brown was a horrible little player so I doubt there was much sympathy.
Agreed, didn't he once do fellow scouters Kevin Nolan as well? And a Southport DJ?
Same old religious nuttery defending the indefensible. Your 'Holy Father' is just another politician leading a self interested faction and sticking his nose in where it is not wanted.
Bit like you really.
snip
Haven't you got some homework to be getting on with?
Haven't you got a intelligent response, Mr. Rationalist?
After your class ridden, anti-English rant do I really need one?
Your ridiculous posturing has laid yourself bare, not very tolerant are you"
And where did I mention class?
And how does being anti-imperialist disqualify my being English?
And how does accommodating recent arrivals in this country make me intolerant?
*Sigh* Another illiberal liberal.
Think you'll find you are intolerant of the indigenous people of this country.
What time do you have to be up for your paper round?
And where am I intolerant of the indigenous people of this country? What does indigenous mean in this context, anyway? Remember where the Angles, Saxons and Jutes came from?
You are losing this argument by simply not fighting it.
Actually you are lòsing it by continuing it
Yes, the pride of England "Stevie G" gave a southport DJ a good battering. In self-defence. Of course.
Those tweets tonight have been a blast. You have to wonder, how the hell is Ed Miliband going to cope with the GE campaign if he cannot cope with any scrutiny or criticism now from his opponents or the media?
This article is a game changer, the guy isn't fit for Office if he cannot cope with the general rough and tumble of politics after coming up through the Labour party operation via Gordon Brown's Office and the Blair/Brown Governments as a Minister. Poor wee petal, its a wonder he survived to get a safe Labour seat and an almost immediate promotion to the Labour Government with all that spin, smears and bare knuckle rows going on around him in the Labour Government at the time.
I wouldn't go as far as saying Ed Miliband's Sunday Indy interview is a 'game changer' but he sure comes across to me as whiny and hypocritical.
Apparently Cameron has been 'trying to use the gross errors and misconduct of one man, Paul Flowers, to impugn the integrity of the entire Labour movement' and making ' ludicrous claims that Labour’s historic links with the Co-op movement were the invention of Rev Flowers'.
I must have missed both these travesties of sincere political debate, so if anyone can help me out by supplying a link or two, I'll be grateful.
Oh bless, a bit of midterm polling flotsam to hang onto in the current storm. You hang on tight as Ed Miliband is trying to do as he continues to go down the Gordon Brown road. Its a strong Leader that the voters look for in PM, and we now know that Ed Miliband is so weak that he simple moves with the tide like Gordon did before him.
Those tweets tonight have been a blast. You have to wonder, how the hell is Ed Miliband going to cope with the GE campaign if he cannot cope with any scrutiny or criticism now from his opponents or the media? This article is a game changer, the guy isn't fit for Office if he cannot cope with the general rough and tumble of politics after coming up through the Labour party operation via Gordon Brown's Office and the Blair/Brown Governments as a Minister. Poor wee petal, its a wonder he survived to get a safe Labour seat and an almost immediate promotion to the Labour Government with all that spin, smears and bare knuckle rows going on around him in the Labour Government at the time.
Labour press tweets of ed piece in sindy are class. Making him sound enfeebled, whiny, hypocritical, small, weak, defensive, shallow and basically crap.
Now that is a smear.
You wont have to wonder much longer....another poll showing Labour on 40% tonight.
Oh bless, a bit of midterm polling flotsam to hang onto in the current storm. You hang on tight as Ed Miliband is trying to do as he continues to go down the Gordon Brown road. Its a strong Leader that the voters look for in PM, and we now know that Ed Miliband is so weak that he simple moves with the tide like Gordon did before him.
Those tweets tonight have been a blast. You have to wonder, how the hell is Ed Miliband going to cope with the GE campaign if he cannot cope with any scrutiny or criticism now from his opponents or the media? This article is a game changer, the guy isn't fit for Office if he cannot cope with the general rough and tumble of politics after coming up through the Labour party operation via Gordon Brown's Office and the Blair/Brown Governments as a Minister. Poor wee petal, its a wonder he survived to get a safe Labour seat and an almost immediate promotion to the Labour Government with all that spin, smears and bare knuckle rows going on around him in the Labour Government at the time.
Labour press tweets of ed piece in sindy are class. Making him sound enfeebled, whiny, hypocritical, small, weak, defensive, shallow and basically crap.
Now that is a smear.
You wont have to wonder much longer....another poll showing Labour on 40% tonight.
It's OK dear, there's an article that's a "game changer".
Produces a 88 seat majority for Labour on electoralcalculus. Lib Dems down to 16 seats. We can but dream.
As a working class boy from a council flat I got over my socialism long ago, about 1979 in fact when it was plain to anyone with a brain that it doesn't work.
13 years of it have failed to convince me otherwise so maybe you or someone else can. What is it about socialism that enthrals you so much, what do you want from it and what do you hope to achieve?
'Why aren't they doing anything about this? Labour might be vulnerable over Falkirk but the danger for Dave is that in going OTT, he just reinforces people's impression of him as not a man of the people.'
And Ed with his £2 million house & £400k mortgage,is a man of the people.
Produces a 88 seat majority for Labour on electoralcalculus. Lib Dems down to 16 seats. We can but dream.
As a working class boy from a council flat I got over my socialism long ago, about 1979 in fact when it was plain to anyone with a brain that it doesn't work.
13 years of it have failed to convince me otherwise so maybe you or someone else can. What is it about socialism that enthrals you so much, what do you want from it and what do you hope to achieve?
I reckon this article is a game changer for the media when it comes to Ed Miliband's suitability as a LotO and future PM. If he cannot take the kind of scrutiny or criticism that his predecessors like Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown or Cameron had to endure from our free press, then he is not a suitable candidate to be even in the ring as a challenger. I really couldn't believe that ill judged article he or others penned in his name tonight in the IoS.
His biggest mistake was drawing his immediate colleagues and internal opponents in close at the expense of the many ordinary folk who have been let down by the last Labour Government, the NHS, the Labour party locally in Falkirk, Unite and the Co-operative movement. I mean, how can you possible compare a polemic article about your own very politically active father in the Daily Mail with criticism about what went on at Mid Staffs under the last Labour Government while Andy Burnham was Health Minister. Yuck.
Those tweets tonight have been a blast. You have to wonder, how the hell is Ed Miliband going to cope with the GE campaign if he cannot cope with any scrutiny or criticism now from his opponents or the media?
This article is a game changer, the guy isn't fit for Office if he cannot cope with the general rough and tumble of politics after coming up through the Labour party operation via Gordon Brown's Office and the Blair/Brown Governments as a Minister. Poor wee petal, its a wonder he survived to get a safe Labour seat and an almost immediate promotion to the Labour Government with all that spin, smears and bare knuckle rows going on around him in the Labour Government at the time.
I wouldn't go as far as saying Ed Miliband's Sunday Indy interview is a 'game changer' but he sure comes across to me as whiny and hypocritical.
Apparently Cameron has been 'trying to use the gross errors and misconduct of one man, Paul Flowers, to impugn the integrity of the entire Labour movement' and making ' ludicrous claims that Labour’s historic links with the Co-op movement were the invention of Rev Flowers'.
I must have missed both these travesties of sincere political debate, so if anyone can help me out by supplying a link or two, I'll be grateful.
I reckon this article is a game changer for the media when it comes to Ed Miliband's suitability as a LotO and future PM. If he cannot take the kind of scrutiny or criticism that his predecessors like Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown or Cameron had to endure from our free press, then he is not a suitable candidate to be even in the ring as a challenger. I really couldn't believe that ill judged article he or others penned in his name tonight in the IoS.
Maybe so - let's see how the media react to what Miliband has said! You might not have long to wait before getting a chance to blow a metaphorical raspberry at your naysayers...
I like Tatchell, the man had an amicable discussion with Welby about a topic they were never going to agree on in a million years and he also stood up to Mugabe's bunch of disgusting thugs when they came to this country. The man raises a good point about creeping islamism into British society. And unlike being gay, it can and does and will affect people adversely if Islamist practices like this creep into British life and culture.
Let's see what creeps. er, activists have signed so far:
A C Grayling, Philosopher Abhishek N. Phadnis, President, London School of Economics Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society Chris Moos, Secretary, London School of Economics Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society Helen Palmer, Chair of London Humanists Polly Toynbee, Journalist Pragna Patel, Director of Southall Black Sisters Richard Dawkins, Scientist Rory Fenton, President of The National Federation of Atheist, Humanist and Secular Student Societies of the UK and ROI Terry Sanderson, President of National Secular Society
So, the usual bunch of anti-religious bigots.
This man you so admire tried to have the Holy Father arrested on his visit to this country and succeeded in having the law changed to prevent this ever happening at all.
As for "Islamist practices" creeping into British life, tough. You should have thought of that before letting so many Muslims into the country. It's too late now.
Also, this sex segregation is a complete joke. We have sex segregated schools, colleges and living quarters.
It's just the same old bigotry in liberal clothing.
Are you an Islamist by any chance?
Read the posting. You'll see the phase 'Holy Father'.
Now, Sunil, you're an intelligent guy, figure it out.
Are you an intelligent guy? You seem to be criticising a petition against this:
"UK universities agree women can be required to sit separately from men to appease #Islamist extremists."
I reckon this article is a game changer for the media when it comes to Ed Miliband's suitability as a LotO and future PM. If he cannot take the kind of scrutiny or criticism that his predecessors like Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown or Cameron had to endure from our free press, then he is not a suitable candidate to be even in the ring as a challenger. I really couldn't believe that ill judged article he or others penned in his name tonight in the IoS.
Maybe so - let's see how the media react to what Miliband has said! You might not have long to wait before getting a chance to blow a metaphorical raspberry at your naysayers...
It'll change the game in the media.
Especially if the Mail or Sun or someone change the game by, astonishingly, attacking Miliband, that would really be a game changer.
All because of this article.
The game has probably changed with this article. It's a game changer.
We hear lots about the flaky Lab leaning voters who voted tactically for the libdems, and who have now switched back to supporting the Labour party now the Libdems have jumped into Government with the Conservatives as they are shouting for the smelling salts. But we hear very little about those Conservative leaning Libdems who might not be so flaky, or indeed that averse to the current Coalition Government or a Conservative Government rather than the alternatives. I was just looking at a Scottish seat that bucked the trend of the last GE in a lot more ways than just the GE result, the Libdem vote dropped, but it didn't go to Labour...
Happy birthday to Richard, hope the claret is going down well.
On topic - doesn't seem sensible to use a straight statistical model to predict electoral outcomes. Need to use political judgement as well. It is well-documented that opinion polls tended to overstate Labour support in the 1980s and 90s but in more recent elections, especially the most recent one, Labour support has been predicted accurately.
The fact that David Laws is in charge of the next [Lib Dem] manifesto would suggest that it will not be a radical leftist agenda.
Sorry to go back to something from much earlier today but this is great news that I'd obviously missed. David Laws talks much sense, IMO, and this news gives me hope that the Lib Dems will fight the next election on a solid footing.
It may give them a solid footing but it will also help Labour.
How so? Do you mean that the Lib Dems will be seen as Tory-lite so people who feel negatively about the government will be more likely to vote Labour? Conversely, might it not be that the Lib Dems are more likely to pick up tactical votes from Conservative-leaning people in Labour-Lib Dem marginals? That's going to be a huge issue in 2015, isn't it - how inclined Conservative voters will be to vote tactically.
We hear lots about the flaky Lab leaning voters who voted tactically for the libdems, and who have now switched back to supporting the Labour party now the Libdems have jumped into Government with the Conservatives as they are shouting for the smelling salts. But we hear very little about those Conservative leaning Libdems who might not be so flaky, or indeed that averse to the current Coalition Government or a Conservative Government rather than the alternatives. I was just looking at a Scottish seat that bucked the trend of the last GE in a lot more ways than just the GE result, the Libdem vote dropped, but it didn't go to Labour...
Happy birthday to Richard, hope the claret is going down well.
On topic - doesn't seem sensible to use a straight statistical model to predict electoral outcomes. Need to use political judgement as well. It is well-documented that opinion polls tended to overstate Labour support in the 1980s and 90s but in more recent elections, especially the most recent one, Labour support has been predicted accurately.
The fact that David Laws is in charge of the next [Lib Dem] manifesto would suggest that it will not be a radical leftist agenda.
Sorry to go back to something from much earlier today but this is great news that I'd obviously missed. David Laws talks much sense, IMO, and this news gives me hope that the Lib Dems will fight the next election on a solid footing.
It may give them a solid footing but it will also help Labour.
How so? Do you mean that the Lib Dems will be seen as Tory-lite so people who feel negatively about the government will be more likely to vote Labour? Conversely, might it not be that the Lib Dems are more likely to pick up tactical votes from Conservative-leaning people in Labour-Lib Dem marginals? That's going to be a huge issue in 2015, isn't it - how inclined Conservative voters will be to vote tactically.
I've asked that very question, Kevin. A couple of times. Either no-one cares or no-one seems to know.
I suspect the answer is that Tories in such seats are tribal voters who'll vote Tory or nothing, hopeless though it might be!
The actors who have played The Doctor in "Doctor Who" in an alternative / parallel universe:
1. Wilfred Bramble 1963-66 2. Sid James 1966-69 3. Clive Dunn 1969-74 4. Leonard Rossiter 1974-81 5. Nigel Havers 1981-84 6. John Inman 1984-87 7. Eddie Izzard 1987-1989 8. Denzel Washington 1996 9. Roger Lloyd Pack 2013 10. Nicholas Lyndhurst 2005 11. Alex Pettyfer 2006-09 12. Daniel Radcliffe 2009-2013 13. Jamie Bell 2013-
I really hope that we don't ever again see the depths reached by McBride in those desperate emails, and which even sought to bring in the spouses of Cameron and Osborne into that planned smear campaign. The fact that neither Cameron or Osborne felt the need to immediately pen an article in the newspapers under the guise of a claimed smear campaign that then clearly went onto incorporate any genuine scrutiny and criticism of the Labour party's record in Government or donor links the minute the media gave them some heat speaks for itself!
I really genuinely hope that David Cameron just reads the articles on PB rather than the threads. I suspect that as the father of a severely disabled child who tragically died so young, he would find some of the smears deliberately targeted at him on here in case he is a lurker in a deliberate attempt to troll him pretty hard to accept. One for the Moderators to ponder, I somehow doubt that this would be acceptable if it was anyone else. As for Ed Miliband, nobody here better mention his fathers political leanings, or even the fact he might not have been patriotic enough to cope with the a Britain steeped in democracy as it might be regarded as a smear on his or Ed Miliband's integrity.
I reckon this article is a game changer for the media when it comes to Ed Miliband's suitability as a LotO and future PM. If he cannot take the kind of scrutiny or criticism that his predecessors like Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown or Cameron had to endure from our free press, then he is not a suitable candidate to be even in the ring as a challenger. I really couldn't believe that ill judged article he or others penned in his name tonight in the IoS.
Maybe so - let's see how the media react to what Miliband has said! You might not have long to wait before getting a chance to blow a metaphorical raspberry at your naysayers...
For the avoidance of doubt, I was referring to a currently held Labour seat in Scotland. And the last result showed that those disillusioned Libdem voters were far from averse to switching to voting Tory or SNP instead of going Labour, rather bucking the trend of the overall result up here in Scotland!
We hear lots about the flaky Lab leaning voters who voted tactically for the libdems, and who have now switched back to supporting the Labour party now the Libdems have jumped into Government with the Conservatives as they are shouting for the smelling salts. But we hear very little about those Conservative leaning Libdems who might not be so flaky, or indeed that averse to the current Coalition Government or a Conservative Government rather than the alternatives. I was just looking at a Scottish seat that bucked the trend of the last GE in a lot more ways than just the GE result, the Libdem vote dropped, but it didn't go to Labour...
The fact that David Laws is in charge of the next [Lib Dem] manifesto would suggest that it will not be a radical leftist agenda.
Sorry to go back to something from much earlier today but this is great news that I'd obviously missed. David Laws talks much sense, IMO, and this news gives me hope that the Lib Dems will fight the next election on a solid footing.
It may give them a solid footing but it will also help Labour.
How so? Do you mean that the Lib Dems will be seen as Tory-lite so people who feel negatively about the government will be more likely to vote Labour? Conversely, might it not be that the Lib Dems are more likely to pick up tactical votes from Conservative-leaning people in Labour-Lib Dem marginals? That's going to be a huge issue in 2015, isn't it - how inclined Conservative voters will be to vote tactically.
I've asked that very question, Kevin. A couple of times. Either no-one cares or no-one seems to know.
I suspect the answer is that Tories in such seats are tribal voters who'll vote Tory or nothing, hopeless though it might be!
I'd be in bed if I could sleep after that robbery earlier. Froch really embarrassed himself with the post fight interview. Has come across as cocky and unpleasant in the entire process - good to see Groves show him up as a static slugger.
We hear lots about the flaky Lab leaning voters who voted tactically for the libdems, and who have now switched back to supporting the Labour party now the Libdems have jumped into Government with the Conservatives as they are shouting for the smelling salts.
Careful, the 2010 LibDems Mike is always talking about didn't necessarily vote _tactically_ for the Libdems. They mostly weren't very good tactics if they did, because not many voters are in LibDem-winnable seats. We're talking more about liberal-left voters who got narked off with Labour for whatever reason, particularly over Iraq.
But we hear very little about those Conservative leaning Libdems who might not be so flaky, or indeed that averse to the current Coalition Government or a Conservative Government rather than the alternatives. I was just looking at a Scottish seat that bucked the trend of the last GE in a lot more ways than just the GE result, the Libdem vote dropped, but it didn't go to Labour...
I guess the reason we don't hear much about them is that there doesn't seem to be any evidence of their existence. If there were a bunch of voters in Lab/Con marginals who backed the LibDems last time but were going to make a tactical switch to Con next time, you'd think they would have shown up in Ashcroft's marginal polling, for example.
That said one point Hopi Sen has been making recently is that in addition to the 2010 LibDems who are now identifying firmly with Labour, there are a lot who are now saying "Don't know" or "Won't vote". It's plausible that a fair few of soft-right voters who got caught up in the Cleggasm are now Con-curious, and will start showing up in the Con column as the election gets closer. Cameron's initial strategy - heavy on the liberal conservatism - seemed to be designed to appeal to these people, but he's since had to back off for fear of losing the right.
I spotted this problem in a Lab held seat that was not a natural Lab/Con marginal, you have just assumed that was the case. That is what makes it more interesting if you factor in the polling collapse of the Libdems in Scotland. But votes on the ground will show a better picture come 2015.
We hear lots about the flaky Lab leaning voters who voted tactically for the libdems, and who have now switched back to supporting the Labour party now the Libdems have jumped into Government with the Conservatives as they are shouting for the smelling salts.
Careful, the 2010 LibDems Mike is always talking about didn't necessarily vote _tactically_ for the Libdems. They mostly weren't very good tactics if they did, because not many voters are in LibDem-winnable seats. We're talking more about liberal-left voters who got narked off with Labour for whatever reason, particularly over Iraq.
But we hear very little about those Conservative leaning Libdems who might not be so flaky, or indeed that averse to the current Coalition Government or a Conservative Government rather than the alternatives. I was just looking at a Scottish seat that bucked the trend of the last GE in a lot more ways than just the GE result, the Libdem vote dropped, but it didn't go to Labour...
I guess the reason we don't hear much about them is that there doesn't seem to be any evidence of their existence. If there were a bunch of voters in Lab/Con marginals who backed the LibDems last time but were going to make a tactical switch to Con next time, you'd think they would have shown up in Ashcroft's marginal polling, for example.
That said one point Hopi Sen has been making recently is that in addition to the 2010 LibDems who are now identifying firmly with Labour, there are a lot who are now saying "Don't know" or "Won't vote". It's plausible that a fair few of soft-right voters who got caught up in the Cleggasm are now Con-curious, and will start showing up in the Con column as the election gets closer. Cameron's initial strategy - heavy on the liberal conservatism - seemed to be designed to appeal to these people, but he's since had to back off for fear of losing the right.
Comments
Memory hole Where the Party disposes of awkward news stories in Nineteen Eighty-Four. Also, the part of George Osborne's brain that should contain his pledge to match Labour spending plans in 2007.
Conspiracy theory History as written by mad people on the internet.
Revisionism Rewriting history with a research grant.
Historiography The study of why history keeps being rewritten.
Social history Rewriting history that was first written by the winners, paying special attention to the losers.
Oral history Harder to rewrite, since it isn't written down in the first place.
Nationalism Rewriting a country's history as if all the bad things that happened were done by foreigners.
Marxism Story of the proletariat, narrated by the guilty bourgeoisie.
Dustbin of history Where guilty bourgeois Marxists end up after the revolution.
Apparently Cameron has been 'trying to use the gross errors and misconduct of one man, Paul Flowers, to impugn the integrity of the entire Labour movement' and making ' ludicrous claims that Labour’s historic links with the Co-op movement were the invention of Rev Flowers'.
I must have missed both these travesties of sincere political debate, so if anyone can help me out by supplying a link or two, I'll be grateful.
Con 33
LD 9
Produces a 88 seat majority for Labour on electoralcalculus. Lib Dems down to 16 seats. We can but dream.
That's right. A "game changer".
One more time, a "game changer".
Lol.
13 years of it have failed to convince me otherwise so maybe you or someone else can. What is it about socialism that enthrals you so much, what do you want from it and what do you hope to achieve?
'Why aren't they doing anything about this? Labour might be vulnerable over Falkirk but the danger for Dave is that in going OTT, he just reinforces people's impression of him as not a man of the people.'
And Ed with his £2 million house & £400k mortgage,is a man of the people.
His biggest mistake was drawing his immediate colleagues and internal opponents in close at the expense of the many ordinary folk who have been let down by the last Labour Government, the NHS, the Labour party locally in Falkirk, Unite and the Co-operative movement. I mean, how can you possible compare a polemic article about your own very politically active father in the Daily Mail with criticism about what went on at Mid Staffs under the last Labour Government while Andy Burnham was Health Minister. Yuck.
Lol!
"UK universities agree women can be required to sit separately from men to appease #Islamist extremists."
Especially if the Mail or Sun or someone change the game by, astonishingly, attacking Miliband, that would really be a game changer.
All because of this article.
The game has probably changed with this article. It's a game changer.
I suspect the answer is that Tories in such seats are tribal voters who'll vote Tory or nothing, hopeless though it might be!
1. Wilfred Bramble 1963-66
2. Sid James 1966-69
3. Clive Dunn 1969-74
4. Leonard Rossiter 1974-81
5. Nigel Havers 1981-84
6. John Inman 1984-87
7. Eddie Izzard 1987-1989
8. Denzel Washington 1996
9. Roger Lloyd Pack 2013
10. Nicholas Lyndhurst 2005
11. Alex Pettyfer 2006-09
12. Daniel Radcliffe 2009-2013
13. Jamie Bell 2013-
I really genuinely hope that David Cameron just reads the articles on PB rather than the threads. I suspect that as the father of a severely disabled child who tragically died so young, he would find some of the smears deliberately targeted at him on here in case he is a lurker in a deliberate attempt to troll him pretty hard to accept. One for the Moderators to ponder, I somehow doubt that this would be acceptable if it was anyone else. As for Ed Miliband, nobody here better mention his fathers political leanings, or even the fact he might not have been patriotic enough to cope with the a Britain steeped in democracy as it might be regarded as a smear on his or Ed Miliband's integrity.
I'd be in bed if I could sleep after that robbery earlier. Froch really embarrassed himself with the post fight interview. Has come across as cocky and unpleasant in the entire process - good to see Groves show him up as a static slugger.
That said one point Hopi Sen has been making recently is that in addition to the 2010 LibDems who are now identifying firmly with Labour, there are a lot who are now saying "Don't know" or "Won't vote". It's plausible that a fair few of soft-right voters who got caught up in the Cleggasm are now Con-curious, and will start showing up in the Con column as the election gets closer. Cameron's initial strategy - heavy on the liberal conservatism - seemed to be designed to appeal to these people, but he's since had to back off for fear of losing the right.