Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » UKIP the only gainers in first voting intention poll of 201
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » UKIP the only gainers in first voting intention poll of 2014
Opinium is the only online survey which does not have any political weighting and tends to show UKIP on the high side.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
That would only take 114 years at that rate.
Lab minus 4
Con minus 1
LD plus 1
UKIP plus 5
Pause.
I'll get me coat.
FPT
God I hate Adrian Chiles.
Sorry, what were we talking about? Swings? UKIP?
As ever, depends on Lab=>LD=>Lab=>?-ers (apols missed that thread would have liked to have had time to read it).
UKIP will dissolve to irritation not to say they might not spoil things.
I will add only that I hate Adrian Chiles.
That would only take 114 years at that rate.
Servicing and reducing the debt will be part of balancing the budget. Any revenue above that can be used in a number of ways (reducing taxes, creating a sovereign fund,additional investment in the nation or indeed paying of additional debt if the terms allow)
However just because we have debts still does not exclude setting up contingency funds. After all just because we are carrying debt you are surely not suggesting that we couldn't have any tax cuts for 114 years now are you?
Curious to see if they'll actually have a crime on the bridge this time, or just use it metaphorically.
Sorry I've missed the series.
In the interregnum Cromwell held the power rather than parliament and was king in all but name, and in any case things changed again post-restoration
The army wasn't under command of parliament, certainly not pre-1688,
Looks like Miliband is trying to outkip the Kippers
Nick Sutton @suttonnick 3m
Independent on Sunday front page -
"Miliband: Stop cheap foreign workers"
pic.twitter.com/zdddjD46Yq
Any ideas anyone?
Edward refused to play ball (so to speak) and there was no child. Edgar, the grandson of Edmund Ironside, was the rightful heir but he was too young and had no support in a Witan dominated by the Godwins. William was Edward's cousin but, as I argued before, I suggest his main motive was as much economic as dynastic.
The economic power of England joined with Flanders and Normandy would give William a powerful counterpoint to the rest of France and strengthen his influence on the periphery and against the French king.
The proximity of BJ and Gordon Brown had one needing mind bleach on a constant IV drip.
Boots are one firm quoted as likely to be "interested".
"...Viewcode In real terms it is the PM who sends troops into battle, not the monarch, and has been for centuries. His power comes from Parliament..."
No. Constitutionally, the PM's power is given to him by the Crown. It is given to him *temporarily* in order to form a government,[3] and can be taken back BY THE CROWN at any time for any reason: whim, awkward sneeze, bad hair day, on the blob, whatever. Parliament's involvement is inspecting and approving legislation and passing a Queen's speech and budget, and that's it.
In theory, the government can govern until the money runs out via Orders-in-Council and the Civil Service: providing the PM doesn't try to pass legislation and restricts expenditure to existing supply, he's constitutionally OK. Since that's time-limited (you have to pay the Civil Service and Army with something!) we don't do that often, but it is constitutional. You definitely don't[1] have to get Parliament approval to start a war, for example.
Parliament isn't sovereign, or even Sovereign. The Crown is sovereign. It may sound medieval[2] but this is genuinely the constitutional position in the Westminster System.
[1] Margaret Thatcher in her capacity as PM authorised the Falklands Task Force via Orders-in-Council, and all she needed was the approval of John Nott and Norman Tebbit in their capacities as Ministers of the Crown, not their capacities as MPs
[2] Fraser Nelson thus described the process of setting up the new press council via Royal Charter.
[3] Incidentally, technically the Prime Minister does not give orders to the armed forces. The Defence minister does. In practice the difference is elided, but that is the position. I think this is one of the reasons why PM Churchill invented the post of Defence Minister and appointed himself to the post.
Since the last General Election:
Labour +8%
Tory -6%
Lib Dem -15%
Ukip +14%
Show me the crossover.......Show me the crossover!
It was noted that Alec Douglas-Home did not have military service. This is correct.
He was born in 1903 so was underage for WWI. Shortly after Chamberlain resigned in May 1940, Lord Dunglass MP for Lanark as he was, volunteered for military service. However the army medical found he had a hole in his spine surrounded by TB. He was operated on quickly as a delay would have rendered him unable to walk within a few months. The pioneering operation took bone from his shin and although successful placed him in plaster cast for over 2 years and still unfit for military service through the remainder of the war.
"...The army wasn't under command of parliament, certainly not pre-1688..."
They most certainly aren't now. Their allegiance is to the Crown and their orders are issued by (cross fingers a bit) the Prime Minister. Parliament are not in the loop. In practice the help of Parliament is useful (you may need to change a bit of legislation or raise some more tax to pay for your war) but you can carry on for quite a while without it. From memory, I think Gulf War I was so short that Parliamentary involvement was superfluous.
How is EdM's scapegoating of poverty stricken immigrants sitting with you?
Double digit lead for Labour in key marginals.
Massive shift to Labour by public sector workers.
Miliband overtakes Cameron in leaders ratings.
People believe that there is a cost of living crisis and are not feeling the growth.
Unfortunately, and this isn't often reported, the Godwins didn't go down without a fight after Hastings. From 1067-70 there were numerous revolts led by the surviving Godwins and it was only after these were finally and in the case of the Revolt of the North brutally suppressed that William decided he was better off without the Saxon aristocracy.
Nick Sutton @suttonnick 1m
Observer front page - "Labour tears into Gove for ‘crass, ugly’ claims over first world war" #tomorrowspaperstoday
pic.twitter.com/MDmdKjfm41
Writing in today's Observer, Tristram Hunt, Labour's shadow education spokesman and a historian, accuses Gove of a "shocking" attempt to score political points ahead of the events to mark the war, which began in August 1914 and led to the deaths of 16 million.
Responding to an article in which the education secretary attacked what he sees as an unpatriotic, leftwing version of history that portrays 1914-18 as "a series of catastrophic mistakes perpetrated by an out-of-touch elite", Hunt says such "ugly" and politically motivated interventions diminish what should be a time of national reflection.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jan/04/labour-gove-first-world-war-comments
I'll never break an embargo.
Well apart from the time I prematurely published a ComRes poll, but no one noticed and I pulled it after 10 seconds.
1. Cable Housing Warning
2.Tory Females Snubbed
3.Riot Claims unpaid
4.NHS Overwhelmed
5.Paterson Woodland Axe
Looks like Lynton turned off the Tory Grid for Xmas.
If it is new, when was it conducted? It seems odd to do a large poll over the holiday period.
As was noted yesterday, such critics include those well known lefties such as Alan Clark and Sir Winston Churchill.
That's not even before we get onto Germany's motivations for entering the war.
Check out the PB thread yesterday afternoon when all of this was discussed.
It's not a marginals poll per se, but an analysis of a certain type of voter, broken down into three sub-groups.
There is also the contractual issue - virtually all museum and gallery catering is contracted out those days and the contractors would want much reduced rental payments and/or compensation if the footfall drops thanks to admission charging.
I know a lot of visitors are from overseas but not all - lots are UK and love the ability to dip in as short or as long as they wish, and there is a case (no pun intended) for regarding this as a loss leader for the UK economy as a whole.
Interestingly one of the problems with reintroducing free admish some years ago was that it had the perverse effect of meaning that museums couldn't offset VAT, and so had a marked negative impact on budgets over and above the loss of admish fees. I believe that this had to be sorted out before free admission could work smoothly. Not sure how that worked.
Not exactly an election-switching bloc to strike fear into pollsters.
As for the electoral liability, theme well every party has them Balls and Osborne are both liabilities but short term their bosses won't replace them. Highlighting personalities in politics just once again brings home how short of real policies the parties actually are.
Gove comes across as geeky, super, absolutely non-PM material more's the pity of our telegenic times and absolutely sharp as a pin and bright as a button.
That's why he unnerves people like you and less smart lefters.
He is thoughtful, has the courage of his convictions and doesn't mind you knowing that he is smart in contradistinction to others who pretend they are man of the people fools and are actually bright (but of course not as bright as they like to think they are).
I haven't followed his Great War pronouncements but I think it safe to say that you will find every flavour of populist, academic, left, right, Chlesea, Moltke to Joan Littlewood interpretation of it out there. So why single anyone out for their own view and criticise it beats me.
Well done Gove as giving strength and depth to the Conservative Party.
Gove is a twit. A shallow Blair wannabe clickbait columnist twit. No wonder the public can't stand him and no wonder the public thinks the tories are out of touch with toecurlingly obsequious spinning like that for the chumcracy.