Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Dear Dr. Fisher. This is what Professor John Curtice descri

2»

Comments

  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    edited October 2013
    malcolmg said:

    Roger said:

    @Carlotta

    "The "pathetic" thing here is some luvvie thinking they can buy a vote for £82,000."

    Bloody expensive isn't it even for a luvvie!

    Expensive? – He is not buying a sports car that depreciates by 30% the moment he drives off the forecourt. It is a property that he can resell after a year for the exact same price so cost would be legal fees and stamp duty, approx £ 4K. That sounds cheap to me.

    Taking in present house price increases, I suspect he’ll have bought a vote for free –or even a small profit.
    he is busy renovating the property and spending a lot of money in the local economy. The unionists do not like such positive affirmation of Scotland.
    Good Morning MrG - No doubt he is benefiting local tadesmen, and the best of luck to him with the renovation - but he is buying a property in Scotland for the sole reason of voting in the upcoming referendum. - So there is now question as to ‘buying a vote ’per se, he has admitted that himself, several times.

    The question is whether he is eligible to vote on the back of it? – And it is the local electoral office that is casting doubt on this, not the ‘unionist awkward squad’ as some would like to think.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    If you have to live somewhere for more than six months of the year to qualify for a vote, how do students who register at home and at their place of study get the choice where to cast their vote? You can't live for more than six months at two places - there are only twelve months in the year. Same applies for people with holiday homes.
    I have never heard of this "six-month" rule before.

    to do that you must be living in the house or own it.
    No. It needs to be your "residence" - Cumming says he is resident in Manhattan.

    The "pathetic" thing here is some luvvie thinking they can buy a vote for £82,000.

    Will Sean Connery be voting?
    No as he does not meet the qualification to be able to vote unlike Cummings. I see you deflect from being wrong by shouting "look over there squirrel"
    I'm not 'wrong' Malcolm - I'm simply quoting Edinburgh Council & Electoral Registration officials - what are your sources?

    "An Edinburgh Council spokeswoman said: “It has to be your permanent residence to vote.”

    And an Electoral Registration Office spokesman said: “It has to be your normal place of residence.”

    Only if someone could prove they had to work continually in two places, such as Edinburgh and New York, could they show that both were permanent residences.


    http://www.express.co.uk/scotland/439004/Flat-refusal-of-star-Alan-Cumming-s-referendum-vote-plan

    Of course if it was a Unionist multi millionaire with properties in Manhattan & the Catskills buying a one bedroom flat in one of Edinburgh's 'ahem' "less expensive" areas you wouldn't mind a bit.....

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,197

    If you have to live somewhere for more than six months of the year to qualify for a vote, how do students who register at home and at their place of study get the choice where to cast their vote? You can't live for more than six months at two places - there are only twelve months in the year. Same applies for people with holiday homes.
    I have never heard of this "six-month" rule before.

    And it would also apply to those in the services. I look forward to the spectacle of a squaddie registered as resident in Scotland being told (s)he can't vote because of a 6 month and 1 day tour in Afghanistan.

    It's very disappointing that SNP groupies are defending Cumming's arrogant and presumptious behaviour. The whole ethos of the Referendum is that those who live in Scotland should decide Scotland's fate. Cumming has chosen to live in the US and pay his taxes there.Squaddies are serving Queen and Country overseas and paying UK taxes. Cumming should butt out .

    Monica , disappointing is the twaddle you try to peddle. He has the money to have more than one property and spend part of the year at the property of his choosing. Unionists like you do not like democracy in action.
  • Tim, here's the link to that article about schools in Wales under 14 years of Labour, makes you proud to be a Socialist eh?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10226304/Conservatives-must-have-the-confidence-to-bring-back-grammar-schools.html
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/education-24679020

    Speaking of the NUT - another union climbdown on strikes - parental feedback got through at last.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,494

    It's a bit rich for UNITE to accuse INEOS of 'sinister victimisation' of Stevie Deans when:

    "Ineos’s disciplinary action against Mr Deans began on July 9, four days after Labour called in the police at the height of the Falkirk row."

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6ed4a1ea-3cb9-11e3-86ef-00144feab7de.html#axzz2ip1rapOG


    The Labour Party call in the Police & his employers are supposed to do nothing?

    Actually, yes. i've not followed the case closely, but there's a general principle here. With all police investigations it's important to stress that anyone can ask the police to look into anything that they're concerned about (the police can do so, or decide not to bother if the concern seems unreasonable). It doesn't mean that a crime has been committed or that anyone in particular is guilty.

    For examplle, if your neighbour calls the police and asks them to look into whether or not you've committed some offence against him, would you expect your employer immediately to take disciplinary action against you?



  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    malcolmg said:

    Roger said:

    @Carlotta

    "The "pathetic" thing here is some luvvie thinking they can buy a vote for £82,000."

    Bloody expensive isn't it even for a luvvie!

    Expensive? – He is not buying a sports car that depreciates by 30% the moment he drives off the forecourt. It is a property that he can resell after a year for the exact same price so cost would be legal fees and stamp duty, approx £ 4K. That sounds cheap to me.

    Taking in present house price increases, I suspect he’ll have bought a vote for free –or even a small profit.
    he is busy renovating the property and spending a lot of money in the local economy.
    On an £82,000 one bedroom tenement flat he knocked £5,000 off the asking price for? In Polwarth? Really? Is that entirely wise?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    o/t

    Just switched my electricity supplier (naturally because of the PM's recommendation...)

    The actual saving isn't that much (about £120 p.a., although British Gas will charge me £60 to switch).

    The main reason for doing it was I had to wait for 45 minutes on the British Gas "customer service" line to speak to an operator. That's a disgraceful attitude to looking after customers.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,197
    TGOHF said:

    I should get my mum to sign her house over to me for a year - I can then vote no from England the sign it back.

    Nats would have no probs with that eh ?

    None whatsoever , if you are registered as an eligible voter in Scotland you have the right to vote. We are for democracy.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    It's a bit rich for UNITE to accuse INEOS of 'sinister victimisation' of Stevie Deans when:

    "Ineos’s disciplinary action against Mr Deans began on July 9, four days after Labour called in the police at the height of the Falkirk row."

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6ed4a1ea-3cb9-11e3-86ef-00144feab7de.html#axzz2ip1rapOG


    The Labour Party call in the Police & his employers are supposed to do nothing?

    Actually, yes. i've not followed the case closely, but there's a general principle here. With all police investigations it's important to stress that anyone can ask the police to look into anything that they're concerned about (the police can do so, or decide not to bother if the concern seems unreasonable). It doesn't mean that a crime has been committed or that anyone in particular is guilty.

    For examplle, if your neighbour calls the police and asks them to look into whether or not you've committed some offence against him, would you expect your employer immediately to take disciplinary action against you?



    The ineos investigation was into whether he had misued company time - not what he was doing on his own time police or not.


    Still Unite have let Ineos fire him now without a whimper - draw your own conclusions. ..
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,197
    Bobajob said:

    AndyJS said:

    The crucial question is whether LD->Lab switchers are disproportionately concentrated in seats Labour already holds and in a very small number of LD/Lab marginals: in other words, not so much in Con/Lab battleground constituencies.

    That's reasonably easy to establish factually. If someone (andrea? AndyJS?) has the time to list Con/Lab marginals (say anything with the gap <5%) in sequence of strength of LibDem vote, we'd have a clearer idea of what we're talking about (just don't have time myself). It seems likely that LD->Lab tactical switching is at least as high (probably much higher) here than in LD-held seats.

    We all know that these LD to Lab switchers are Lab tactical voters who will continue to lend their support to the LDs come the next election. Labour is doing far far worse than you'll admit to yourself.

    Do you have any evidence for this assertion or is it just a hunch?
    Bob, I hope you saw my humble apology to you yesterday, if not I repeat it.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,494
    edited October 2013

    AndyJS said:

    The crucial question is whether LD->Lab switchers are disproportionately concentrated in seats Labour already holds and in a very small number of LD/Lab marginals: in other words, not so much in Con/Lab battleground constituencies.

    We all know that these LD to Lab switchers are Lab tactical voters who will continue to lend their support to the LDs come the next election.

    Eh? Even trolls need to have some sort of internal logic. You say that "LD to Lab switchers" will "continue to vote LibDem" in Con/Lab seats "for tactical reasons"? Er, right.

  • malcolmg said:

    Roger said:

    @Carlotta

    "The "pathetic" thing here is some luvvie thinking they can buy a vote for £82,000."

    Bloody expensive isn't it even for a luvvie!

    Expensive? – He is not buying a sports car that depreciates by 30% the moment he drives off the forecourt. It is a property that he can resell after a year for the exact same price so cost would be legal fees and stamp duty, approx £ 4K. That sounds cheap to me.

    Taking in present house price increases, I suspect he’ll have bought a vote for free –or even a small profit.
    he is busy renovating the property and spending a lot of money in the local economy.
    On an £82,000 one bedroom tenement flat he knocked £5,000 off the asking price for? In Polwarth? Really? Is that entirely wise?

    malcolmg said:

    Roger said:

    @Carlotta

    "The "pathetic" thing here is some luvvie thinking they can buy a vote for £82,000."

    Bloody expensive isn't it even for a luvvie!

    Expensive? – He is not buying a sports car that depreciates by 30% the moment he drives off the forecourt. It is a property that he can resell after a year for the exact same price so cost would be legal fees and stamp duty, approx £ 4K. That sounds cheap to me.

    Taking in present house price increases, I suspect he’ll have bought a vote for free –or even a small profit.
    he is busy renovating the property and spending a lot of money in the local economy.
    On an £82,000 one bedroom tenement flat he knocked £5,000 off the asking price for? In Polwarth? Really? Is that entirely wise?
    To be fair there are worse places than Polwarth. He can emjoy the delights of the Polwarth Tavern and the Golden Rule, and it's only a short walk to the legendary Athletic Arms (aka Grave-diggers)!
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,197

    malcolmg said:

    Roger said:

    @Carlotta

    "The "pathetic" thing here is some luvvie thinking they can buy a vote for £82,000."

    Bloody expensive isn't it even for a luvvie!

    Expensive? – He is not buying a sports car that depreciates by 30% the moment he drives off the forecourt. It is a property that he can resell after a year for the exact same price so cost would be legal fees and stamp duty, approx £ 4K. That sounds cheap to me.

    Taking in present house price increases, I suspect he’ll have bought a vote for free –or even a small profit.
    he is busy renovating the property and spending a lot of money in the local economy. The unionists do not like such positive affirmation of Scotland.
    Good Morning MrG - No doubt he is benefiting local tadesmen, and the best of luck to him with the renovation - but he is buying a property in Scotland for the sole reason of voting in the upcoming referendum. - So there is now question as to ‘buying a vote ’per se, he has admitted that himself, several times.

    The question is whether he is eligible to vote on the back of it? – And it is the local electoral office that is casting doubt on this, not the ‘unionist awkward squad’ as some would like to think.
    Simon , It is just sour grapes , some petty official overstepping his authority. I have never been asked if I was resident more than 6 months and for many years whilst living in the US and England I continued to vote in Scotland as I still had a house there, sometimes not being back in property for years.
    There is absolutely no such rule.
  • BobajobBobajob Posts: 1,536
    malcolmg said:

    Bobajob said:

    AndyJS said:

    The crucial question is whether LD->Lab switchers are disproportionately concentrated in seats Labour already holds and in a very small number of LD/Lab marginals: in other words, not so much in Con/Lab battleground constituencies.

    That's reasonably easy to establish factually. If someone (andrea? AndyJS?) has the time to list Con/Lab marginals (say anything with the gap <5%) in sequence of strength of LibDem vote, we'd have a clearer idea of what we're talking about (just don't have time myself). It seems likely that LD->Lab tactical switching is at least as high (probably much higher) here than in LD-held seats.

    We all know that these LD to Lab switchers are Lab tactical voters who will continue to lend their support to the LDs come the next election. Labour is doing far far worse than you'll admit to yourself.

    Do you have any evidence for this assertion or is it just a hunch?
    Bob, I hope you saw my humble apology to you yesterday, if not I repeat it.
    I did Malcolm, and thanks. I responded thus: no apology necessary - the post was aimed at Moniker but I could see why it could have been ambiguous! Top of the morning to you sir.

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,197

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    If you have to live somewhere for more than six months of the year to qualify for a vote, how do students who register at home and at their place of study get the choice where to cast their vote? You can't live for more than six months at two places - there are only twelve months in the year. Same applies for people with holiday homes.
    I have never heard of this "six-month" rule before.

    to do that you must be living in the house or own it.
    No. It needs to be your "residence" - Cumming says he is resident in Manhattan.

    The "pathetic" thing here is some luvvie thinking they can buy a vote for £82,000.

    Will Sean Connery be voting?
    No as he does not meet the qualification to be able to vote unlike Cummings. I see you deflect from being wrong by shouting "look over there squirrel"
    I'm not 'wrong' Malcolm - I'm simply quoting Edinburgh Council & Electoral Registration officials - what are your sources?

    "An Edinburgh Council spokeswoman said: “It has to be your permanent residence to vote.”

    And an Electoral Registration Office spokesman said: “It has to be your normal place of residence.”

    Only if someone could prove they had to work continually in two places, such as Edinburgh and New York, could they show that both were permanent residences.


    http://www.express.co.uk/scotland/439004/Flat-refusal-of-star-Alan-Cumming-s-referendum-vote-plan

    Of course if it was a Unionist multi millionaire with properties in Manhattan & the Catskills buying a one bedroom flat in one of Edinburgh's 'ahem' "less expensive" areas you wouldn't mind a bit.....

    Unlike these jobsworths I am speaking from personal experience , having voted whilst living in US or England for years at a time. It is manufactured nonsense that will not stand up to scrutiny.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Roger said:

    @Carlotta

    "The "pathetic" thing here is some luvvie thinking they can buy a vote for £82,000."

    Bloody expensive isn't it even for a luvvie!

    Expensive? – He is not buying a sports car that depreciates by 30% the moment he drives off the forecourt. It is a property that he can resell after a year for the exact same price so cost would be legal fees and stamp duty, approx £ 4K. That sounds cheap to me.

    Taking in present house price increases, I suspect he’ll have bought a vote for free –or even a small profit.
    Don't forget the cost of capital at, say, 12% p.a. if it is equity financed.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,253
    edited October 2013
    tim said:




    That's because you ignore the polling and therefore get every call wrong

    http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/mjl7fdlimv/YG-Archive-Times-results-231013-free-schools.pdf

    For/Against Free Schools.

    Con 38/37
    2010 Lib Dem 20/57

    Messiah Goves flagship is only +1 among Tory voters, which shows you just how out of touch his disciples are.

    Go find some polling data for the views amongst those who actually send their kids to Free Schools. Then go and work out how much the Free School programme is going to expand between now and the next election and how many people will get used to them and want to send their kids to them.

    Funnily enough exactly the same stupid arguments you are making now about Free Schools were made about Blair's Academies when they were launched including allowing reilgious influence and money/fraud concerns.

    http://www.educationengland.org.uk/articles/25academies.html
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    @NickPalmer - how can it be 'sinister victimisation' if the Labour Party are carrying out their own investigation and have called the police - and many of the allegations relate to what he was doing on the Grangemouth site? I think they would have been derelict in their duty as employers not to!
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,197

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    If you have to live somewhere for more than six months of the year to qualify for a vote, how do students who register at home and at their place of study get the choice where to cast their vote? You can't live for more than six months at two places - there are only twelve months in the year. Same applies for people with holiday homes.
    I have never heard of this "six-month" rule before.

    to do that you must be living in the house or own it.
    No. It needs to be your "residence" - Cumming says he is resident in Manhattan.

    The "pathetic" thing here is some luvvie thinking they can buy a vote for £82,000.

    Will Sean Connery be voting?
    No as he does not meet the qualification to be able to vote unlike Cummings. I see you deflect from being wrong by shouting "look over there squirrel"
    I'm not 'wrong' Malcolm - I'm simply quoting Edinburgh Council & Electoral Registration officials - what are your sources?

    "An Edinburgh Council spokeswoman said: “It has to be your permanent residence to vote.”

    And an Electoral Registration Office spokesman said: “It has to be your normal place of residence.”

    Only if someone could prove they had to work continually in two places, such as Edinburgh and New York, could they show that both were permanent residences.


    http://www.express.co.uk/scotland/439004/Flat-refusal-of-star-Alan-Cumming-s-referendum-vote-plan

    Of course if it was a Unionist multi millionaire with properties in Manhattan & the Catskills buying a one bedroom flat in one of Edinburgh's 'ahem' "less expensive" areas you wouldn't mind a bit.....

    Carlotta, I am for democracy and happy for all eligible unionists to have a vote. I would not try and invent imaginary rules to try and prevent any eligible person from voting. I am certain as well that Mr Cummings will have his vote.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,654

    AndyJS said:

    The crucial question is whether LD->Lab switchers are disproportionately concentrated in seats Labour already holds and in a very small number of LD/Lab marginals: in other words, not so much in Con/Lab battleground constituencies.

    We all know that these LD to Lab switchers are Lab tactical voters who will continue to lend their support to the LDs come the next election.

    Eh? Even trolls need to have some sort of internal logic. You say that "LD to Lab switchers" will "continue to vote LibDem" in Con/Lab seats "for tactical reasons"? Er, right.

    That's a little bit less mad than it sounds in that we have anecdotal evidence from a couple of people who have posted here, I think including yourself, and support from the Ashcroft polling, of people voting for the LibDems in Lab/Con marginals for misplaced tactical reasons. (In the Ashcroft polling we see the squeeze question producing a swing from UKIP to LibDem in Lab/Con fights.)

    But I don't think it really gets us where Moniker wants to go, because last time around the much-reported Cleggasm and the general atmosphere of Labour decline made it quite hard to say which seats the LibDems might win. This time around that's not very likely, so you'd expect a significantly better performance for Lab purely on the basis of more effective tactical voting, even if zero voters had changed their mind about which party they preferred.
  • Charles said:

    o/t

    Just switched my electricity supplier (naturally because of the PM's recommendation...)

    The actual saving isn't that much (about £120 p.a., although British Gas will charge me £60 to switch).

    The main reason for doing it was I had to wait for 45 minutes on the British Gas "customer service" line to speak to an operator. That's a disgraceful attitude to looking after customers.

    I also switched a few weeks ago when SSE (I was with their subsidiary Atlantic) became the first to announce the big price hikes. Saved me over £150 a year with the price guaranteed for 18 months.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,197

    malcolmg said:

    Roger said:

    @Carlotta

    "The "pathetic" thing here is some luvvie thinking they can buy a vote for £82,000."

    Bloody expensive isn't it even for a luvvie!

    Expensive? – He is not buying a sports car that depreciates by 30% the moment he drives off the forecourt. It is a property that he can resell after a year for the exact same price so cost would be legal fees and stamp duty, approx £ 4K. That sounds cheap to me.

    Taking in present house price increases, I suspect he’ll have bought a vote for free –or even a small profit.
    he is busy renovating the property and spending a lot of money in the local economy.
    On an £82,000 one bedroom tenement flat he knocked £5,000 off the asking price for? In Polwarth? Really? Is that entirely wise?
    If the vote is YES , any property in Edinburgh will be worth having.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216

    malcolmg said:

    Roger said:

    @Carlotta

    "The "pathetic" thing here is some luvvie thinking they can buy a vote for £82,000."

    Bloody expensive isn't it even for a luvvie!

    Expensive? – He is not buying a sports car that depreciates by 30% the moment he drives off the forecourt. It is a property that he can resell after a year for the exact same price so cost would be legal fees and stamp duty, approx £ 4K. That sounds cheap to me.

    Taking in present house price increases, I suspect he’ll have bought a vote for free –or even a small profit.
    he is busy renovating the property and spending a lot of money in the local economy.
    On an £82,000 one bedroom tenement flat he knocked £5,000 off the asking price for? In Polwarth? Really? Is that entirely wise?

    malcolmg said:

    Roger said:

    @Carlotta

    "The "pathetic" thing here is some luvvie thinking they can buy a vote for £82,000."

    Bloody expensive isn't it even for a luvvie!

    Expensive? – He is not buying a sports car that depreciates by 30% the moment he drives off the forecourt. It is a property that he can resell after a year for the exact same price so cost would be legal fees and stamp duty, approx £ 4K. That sounds cheap to me.

    Taking in present house price increases, I suspect he’ll have bought a vote for free –or even a small profit.
    he is busy renovating the property and spending a lot of money in the local economy.
    On an £82,000 one bedroom tenement flat he knocked £5,000 off the asking price for? In Polwarth? Really? Is that entirely wise?
    To be fair there are worse places than Polwarth. He can emjoy the delights of the Polwarth Tavern and the Golden Rule, and it's only a short walk to the legendary Athletic Arms (aka Grave-diggers)!
    I'm sure! But its not quite the East Village or the Catskills, is it? Nor the £1.6 million Lisle Street Penthouse he sold in London:

    http://www.planetpropertyblog.co.uk/2012/06/15/boris-grishenkos-soho-pad/
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,197
    Charles said:

    Roger said:

    @Carlotta

    "The "pathetic" thing here is some luvvie thinking they can buy a vote for £82,000."

    Bloody expensive isn't it even for a luvvie!

    Expensive? – He is not buying a sports car that depreciates by 30% the moment he drives off the forecourt. It is a property that he can resell after a year for the exact same price so cost would be legal fees and stamp duty, approx £ 4K. That sounds cheap to me.

    Taking in present house price increases, I suspect he’ll have bought a vote for free –or even a small profit.
    Don't forget the cost of capital at, say, 12% p.a. if it is equity financed.
    Charles , Like you I doubt he will need to consider the implications of splashing £82K.
  • AndyJS said:

    The crucial question is whether LD->Lab switchers are disproportionately concentrated in seats Labour already holds and in a very small number of LD/Lab marginals: in other words, not so much in Con/Lab battleground constituencies.

    We all know that these LD to Lab switchers are Lab tactical voters who will continue to lend their support to the LDs come the next election.

    Eh? Even trolls need to have some sort of internal logic. You say that "LD to Lab switchers" will "continue to vote LibDem" in Con/Lab seats "for tactical reasons"? Er, right.

    A typically dishonest precis from your vile pen.

    It'll be a pleasure to see Soubry stamp out the embers of your wretched public life in 2015.

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,197
    Bobajob said:

    malcolmg said:

    Bobajob said:

    AndyJS said:

    The crucial question is whether LD->Lab switchers are disproportionately concentrated in seats Labour already holds and in a very small number of LD/Lab marginals: in other words, not so much in Con/Lab battleground constituencies.

    That's reasonably easy to establish factually. If someone (andrea? AndyJS?) has the time to list Con/Lab marginals (say anything with the gap <5%) in sequence of strength of LibDem vote, we'd have a clearer idea of what we're talking about (just don't have time myself). It seems likely that LD->Lab tactical switching is at least as high (probably much higher) here than in LD-held seats.

    We all know that these LD to Lab switchers are Lab tactical voters who will continue to lend their support to the LDs come the next election. Labour is doing far far worse than you'll admit to yourself.

    Do you have any evidence for this assertion or is it just a hunch?
    Bob, I hope you saw my humble apology to you yesterday, if not I repeat it.
    I did Malcolm, and thanks. I responded thus: no apology necessary - the post was aimed at Moniker but I could see why it could have been ambiguous! Top of the morning to you sir.

    Cheers Bob, still sloppy on my part , I was a bit cranky yesterday, getting to be real grumpy old man type , must do better.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    malcolmg said:

    Charles said:

    Roger said:

    @Carlotta

    "The "pathetic" thing here is some luvvie thinking they can buy a vote for £82,000."

    Bloody expensive isn't it even for a luvvie!

    Expensive? – He is not buying a sports car that depreciates by 30% the moment he drives off the forecourt. It is a property that he can resell after a year for the exact same price so cost would be legal fees and stamp duty, approx £ 4K. That sounds cheap to me.

    Taking in present house price increases, I suspect he’ll have bought a vote for free –or even a small profit.
    Don't forget the cost of capital at, say, 12% p.a. if it is equity financed.
    Charles , Like you I doubt he will need to consider the implications of splashing £82K.
    I think you misunderstand both my means and my approach to life!

    £82K is a f**k of a lot of money.

    And I don't spend more than about £100 without thinking about whether it is a sensible thing to do.
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    edited October 2013
    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    Roger said:

    @Carlotta

    "The "pathetic" thing here is some luvvie thinking they can buy a vote for £82,000."

    Bloody expensive isn't it even for a luvvie!

    Expensive? – He is not buying a sports car that depreciates by 30% the moment he drives off the forecourt. It is a property that he can resell after a year for the exact same price so cost would be legal fees and stamp duty, approx £ 4K. That sounds cheap to me.

    Taking in present house price increases, I suspect he’ll have bought a vote for free –or even a small profit.
    he is busy renovating the property and spending a lot of money in the local economy. The unionists do not like such positive affirmation of Scotland.
    Good Morning MrG - No doubt he is benefiting local tadesmen, and the best of luck to him with the renovation - but he is buying a property in Scotland for the sole reason of voting in the upcoming referendum. - So there is now question as to ‘buying a vote ’per se, he has admitted that himself, several times.

    The question is whether he is eligible to vote on the back of it? – And it is the local electoral office that is casting doubt on this, not the ‘unionist awkward squad’ as some would like to think.
    Simon , It is just sour grapes , some petty official overstepping his authority. I have never been asked if I was resident more than 6 months and for many years whilst living in the US and England I continued to vote in Scotland as I still had a house there, sometimes not being back in property for years.
    There is absolutely no such rule.
    Cheers for that MrG - The only interest I have in reading such an article is to ascertain clearly and precisely the quirks of ‘eligibility to vote’ in order to form my own opinion. – Having read the article however, I am no wiser, so the story from my perspective is dross. Others think differently.

    @Charles - "cost of capital at, say, 12% p.a. if it is equity financed."

    Not forgotten Charles, but I was responding to Roger - and as my father always advised ‘One should tailor ones comments to your audience’
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,197

    malcolmg said:

    Roger said:

    @Carlotta

    "The "pathetic" thing here is some luvvie thinking they can buy a vote for £82,000."

    Bloody expensive isn't it even for a luvvie!


    he is busy renovating the property and spending a lot of money in the local economy.
    On an £82,000 one bedroom tenement flat he knocked £5,000 off the asking price for? In Polwarth? Really? Is that entirely wise?

    malcolmg said:

    Roger said:

    @Carlotta

    "The "pathetic" thing here is some luvvie thinking they can buy a vote for £82,000."

    Bloody expensive isn't it even for a luvvie!

    Expensive? – He is not buying a sports car that depreciates by 30% the moment he drives off the forecourt. It is a property that he can resell after a year for the exact same price so cost would be legal fees and stamp duty, approx £ 4K. That sounds cheap to me.

    Taking in present house price increases, I suspect he’ll have bought a vote for free –or even a small profit.
    he is busy renovating the property and spending a lot of money in the local economy.
    On an £82,000 one bedroom tenement flat he knocked £5,000 off the asking price for? In Polwarth? Really? Is that entirely wise?
    To be fair there are worse places than Polwarth. He can emjoy the delights of the Polwarth Tavern and the Golden Rule, and it's only a short walk to the legendary Athletic Arms (aka Grave-diggers)!
    I'm sure! But its not quite the East Village or the Catskills, is it? Nor the £1.6 million Lisle Street Penthouse he sold in London:

    http://www.planetpropertyblog.co.uk/2012/06/15/boris-grishenkos-soho-pad/
    He may wish to rough it whilst in Scotland , eschewing the grander areas of Edinburgh for some anonimity. Few pints and a game of dominos down the Gravediggers sounds quite nice.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    malcolmg said:

    Unlike these jobsworths I am speaking from personal experience , having voted whilst living in US or England for years at a time. It is manufactured nonsense that will not stand up to scrutiny.

    Having been resident in Scotland before......Cumming went to the US in the late 90s and had property in London - where he may well have registered to vote. That registration will be valid for 15 years after he was no longer resident there.....but he has to be resident in Scotland first before he can register to vote there. Flying visits from his home in New York don't count.

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,197
    Charles said:

    malcolmg said:

    Charles said:

    Roger said:

    @Carlotta

    "The "pathetic" thing here is some luvvie thinking they can buy a vote for £82,000."

    Bloody expensive isn't it even for a luvvie!

    Expensive? – He is not buying a sports car that depreciates by 30% the moment he drives off the forecourt. It is a property that he can resell after a year for the exact same price so cost would be legal fees and stamp duty, approx £ 4K. That sounds cheap to me.

    Taking in present house price increases, I suspect he’ll have bought a vote for free –or even a small profit.
    Don't forget the cost of capital at, say, 12% p.a. if it is equity financed.
    Charles , Like you I doubt he will need to consider the implications of splashing £82K.
    I think you misunderstand both my means and my approach to life!

    £82K is a f**k of a lot of money.

    And I don't spend more than about £100 without thinking about whether it is a sensible thing to do.
    LOL, well he at least has plenty Charles
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,197

    malcolmg said:

    Unlike these jobsworths I am speaking from personal experience , having voted whilst living in US or England for years at a time. It is manufactured nonsense that will not stand up to scrutiny.

    Having been resident in Scotland before......Cumming went to the US in the late 90s and had property in London - where he may well have registered to vote. That registration will be valid for 15 years after he was no longer resident there.....but he has to be resident in Scotland first before he can register to vote there. Flying visits from his home in New York don't count.

    We shall see if democracy or jobsworths win
  • TCPoliticalBettingTCPoliticalBetting Posts: 10,819
    edited October 2013
    So the contrary view to Dr Foster is that 1) Labour are more likely to win because Labour will get lots of 2010 LD voters and 2) that also the Lib Dems are more likely to keep most of their 57 seats because they attract back most, aka 90%, of their 2010 LD voters.

    Anyone spot the problem? Do these 2010 LD voters have 2 votes each? PS in more than 35% of the LD seats, Labour or the SNP are now the main challenger
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,197

    malcolmg said:

    Unlike these jobsworths I am speaking from personal experience , having voted whilst living in US or England for years at a time. It is manufactured nonsense that will not stand up to scrutiny.

    Having been resident in Scotland before......Cumming went to the US in the late 90s and had property in London - where he may well have registered to vote. That registration will be valid for 15 years after he was no longer resident there.....but he has to be resident in Scotland first before he can register to vote there. Flying visits from his home in New York don't count.

    I better watch then , they may be after me for voter fraud over the years
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    malcolmg said:

    Unlike these jobsworths I am speaking from personal experience , having voted whilst living in US or England for years at a time. It is manufactured nonsense that will not stand up to scrutiny.

    Were you ever out of Scotland continuously for a period of more than 15 years?

  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 5,006
    @ MonikerdiCanio - "I expect Labour to fall below their 2010 GE vote in 2015".

    Is that wishful thinking or do you have any basis for expecting that to happen?

    The extent to which Lib Dem and UKIP voters are squeezed in Tory/Labour marginals is likely to determine the outcome in 2015. I am expecting a large chunk of the Lib Dem vote to switch to Labour in those marginals whereas more are likely to revert to voting Lib Dem tactically in seats where Labour has little chance.

    I also expect the Tories to do a better job at squeezing the UKIP vote in Tory marginals as opposed to safe seats. At the moment I can't see any scenario that has Labour polling less than 2010.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,197

    malcolmg said:

    Unlike these jobsworths I am speaking from personal experience , having voted whilst living in US or England for years at a time. It is manufactured nonsense that will not stand up to scrutiny.

    Were you ever out of Scotland continuously for a period of more than 15 years?

    You have me there
  • perdixperdix Posts: 1,806
    Completely O/T but worth reading - why Germany's green programme is causing more emissions.
    http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/commentary-why-germany-is-waging-its-green-revolution-wrong-a-929693.html
  • So the contrary view to Dr Foster is that 1) Labour are more likely to win because Labour will get lots of 2010 LD voters and 2) that also the Lib Dems are more likely to keep most of their 57 seats because they attract back most, aka 90%, of their 2010 LD voters.

    Anyone spot the problem? Do these 2010 LD voters have 2 votes each?

    Voters in 57 seats may vote differently to those in the other 500-odd.

  • CarolaCarola Posts: 1,805
    malcolm... 'I was a bit cranky yesterday.' Lol. Crack me up.
  • NinoinozNinoinoz Posts: 1,312

    tim said:




    That's because you ignore the polling and therefore get every call wrong

    http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/mjl7fdlimv/YG-Archive-Times-results-231013-free-schools.pdf

    For/Against Free Schools.

    Con 38/37
    2010 Lib Dem 20/57

    Messiah Goves flagship is only +1 among Tory voters, which shows you just how out of touch his disciples are.

    Go find some polling data for the views amongst those who actually send their kids to Free Schools. Then go and work out how much the Free School programme is going to expand between now and the next election and how many people will get used to them and want to send their kids to them.

    Funnily enough exactly the same stupid arguments you are making now about Free Schools were made about Blair's Academies when they were launched including allowing religious influence and money/fraud concerns.

    http://www.educationengland.org.uk/articles/25academies.html
    Very true.

    I've seen polls saying how people were against the Papal Visit and Faith Schools, but when it came to it those in favour would turn up or fight for those schools, those "against" would do ....nothing, leaving a rump of disaffected people for everybody to laugh at.

    Really, I regard it as an abuse of polling.
  • So the contrary view to Dr Foster is that 1) Labour are more likely to win because Labour will get lots of 2010 LD voters and 2) that also the Lib Dems are more likely to keep most of their 57 seats because they attract back most, aka 90%, of their 2010 LD voters.
    Anyone spot the problem? Do these 2010 LD voters have 2 votes each?

    Voters in 57 seats may vote differently to those in the other 500-odd.
    At least 1/3 have Lab or SNP as the main challenger - may even now be 40%.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    Unlike these jobsworths I am speaking from personal experience , having voted whilst living in US or England for years at a time. It is manufactured nonsense that will not stand up to scrutiny.

    Were you ever out of Scotland continuously for a period of more than 15 years?

    You have me there
    If that's a 'no' - you're fine. If its a 'yes', you've been a very naughty boy! But your registration is unlikely to get in the newspapers like Alan Cummings.....Anyway, you're back there now.....

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,197

    malcolmg said:

    Unlike these jobsworths I am speaking from personal experience , having voted whilst living in US or England for years at a time. It is manufactured nonsense that will not stand up to scrutiny.

    Were you ever out of Scotland continuously for a period of more than 15 years?

    However , given the rules are
    Under the terms of the 2010 Draft Bill, the following people would be entitled to vote in the referendum:[15]

    British citizens who are resident in Scotland;
    citizens of the 53 other Commonwealth countries who are resident in Scotland;
    citizens of the 27 other European Union countries who are resident in Scotland;
    members of the House of Lords who are resident in Scotland;
    Service/Crown personnel serving in the UK or overseas in the armed forces or with Her Majesty's Government who are registered to vote in Scotland.

    Nowhere does it say you have to be resident for 6 months etc, so I return to my position that it is a silly unionist jobsworth overstepping the mark. He will vote mark my words.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    So the contrary view to Dr Foster is that 1) Labour are more likely to win because Labour will get lots of 2010 LD voters and 2) that also the Lib Dems are more likely to keep most of their 57 seats because they attract back most, aka 90%, of their 2010 LD voters.

    Anyone spot the problem? Do these 2010 LD voters have 2 votes each?

    Nah.

    The argument is that all of these 2010 LD voters will sit down and figure out exactly how they should vote in order to hit to Tories where it hurts.

    You need to remember that none of these individuals have a positive vision of where they want to take the country. They just really hate Thatcher and all the evil baby-eating Tories.

    Or something.
  • AndyJS said:

    The crucial question is whether LD->Lab switchers are disproportionately concentrated in seats Labour already holds and in a very small number of LD/Lab marginals: in other words, not so much in Con/Lab battleground constituencies.

    We all know that these LD to Lab switchers are Lab tactical voters who will continue to lend their support to the LDs come the next election.
    Eh? Even trolls need to have some sort of internal logic. You say that "LD to Lab switchers" will "continue to vote LibDem" in Con/Lab seats "for tactical reasons"? Er, right.
    It'll be a pleasure to see Soubry stamp out the embers of your wretched public life in 2015.
    Soubry has not invested well in her ground campaign. Nick knows that, which is why he is standing again.
  • NinoinozNinoinoz Posts: 1,312

    It's a bit rich for UNITE to accuse INEOS of 'sinister victimisation' of Stevie Deans when:

    "Ineos’s disciplinary action against Mr Deans began on July 9, four days after Labour called in the police at the height of the Falkirk row."

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6ed4a1ea-3cb9-11e3-86ef-00144feab7de.html#axzz2ip1rapOG


    The Labour Party call in the Police & his employers are supposed to do nothing?

    Actually, yes. i've not followed the case closely, but there's a general principle here. With all police investigations it's important to stress that anyone can ask the police to look into anything that they're concerned about (the police can do so, or decide not to bother if the concern seems unreasonable). It doesn't mean that a crime has been committed or that anyone in particular is guilty.

    For examplle, if your neighbour calls the police and asks them to look into whether or not you've committed some offence against him, would you expect your employer immediately to take disciplinary action against you?
    So, my neighbour accuses me of child molestation and my employer is supposed to do nothing.

    Of course my employer is going to start an investigation, at least.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,654

    So the contrary view to Dr Foster is that 1) Labour are more likely to win because Labour will get lots of 2010 LD voters and 2) that also the Lib Dems are more likely to keep most of their 57 seats because they attract back most, aka 90%, of their 2010 LD voters.

    Anyone spot the problem? Do these 2010 LD voters have 2 votes each?

    If someone had suggested this in 2010 it would have sounded too good to be true, but the way the evidence is stacking up it really does look like it's going to work like that.

    In the small number of seats that the LibDems need to hold against the Tories they're doing pretty well in council elections, and they did respectably in Eastleigh (admittedly with UKIP helping keep the Tory vote down) while Labour went nowhere.

    Everywhere else, including in the national polling (which mostly covers non-LibDem seats, since they don't have many) the LibDems are getting killed.
  • OllyT said:

    @ MonikerdiCanio - "I expect Labour to fall below their 2010 GE vote in 2015".
    Is that wishful thinking or do you have any basis for expecting that to happen?
    The extent to which Lib Dem and UKIP voters are squeezed in Tory/Labour marginals is likely to determine the outcome in 2015. I am expecting a large chunk of the Lib Dem vote to switch to Labour in those marginals whereas more are likely to revert to voting Lib Dem tactically in seats where Labour has little chance.
    I also expect the Tories to do a better job at squeezing the UKIP vote in Tory marginals as opposed to safe seats. At the moment I can't see any scenario that has Labour polling less than 2010.

    Squeezing in a targeted way needs bodies on the ground. The Conservatives will go into 2015 with only 40% of their 2010 activists. UKIP will have doubled compared to 2015.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    OllyT said:

    @ MonikerdiCanio - "I expect Labour to fall below their 2010 GE vote in 2015".

    Is that wishful thinking or do you have any basis for expecting that to happen?

    The extent to which Lib Dem and UKIP voters are squeezed in Tory/Labour marginals is likely to determine the outcome in 2015. I am expecting a large chunk of the Lib Dem vote to switch to Labour in those marginals whereas more are likely to revert to voting Lib Dem tactically in seats where Labour has little chance.

    I also expect the Tories to do a better job at squeezing the UKIP vote in Tory marginals as opposed to safe seats. At the moment I can't see any scenario that has Labour polling less than 2010.

    That's quite possible.

    The biggest unknown for me is Scotland (where I will admit I don't know much about the local specifics).

    I was surprised by just how well Labour did in 2010 - IIRC they didn't lose a seat vs a huge swing in England. How much of that was down to Brown being a Scot? Possibly nothing, but possibly something. Additionally, what will the impact of the 2014 vote be (regardless of the outcome). How well will the LDs do, and who will benefit?

    Either of those factors could have a major impact - and they mainly downside risk for Labour as the dominant holder of Westminster seats.
  • tim said:

    @RichardTyndall

    Such tiny numbers I doubt there will be polling before the election.
    The inordinate amount of time and secrecy devoted to this fringe group by the ideologically crazed Gove is part of the problem, and today we see the headlines

    Educating Yorkshire vs Defrauding Yorkshire

    I see you ignore utterly the comparison with Blair and the Academies. And yet the opposition to them has largely evaporated since people actually gained experience of them.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    Unlike these jobsworths I am speaking from personal experience , having voted whilst living in US or England for years at a time. It is manufactured nonsense that will not stand up to scrutiny.

    Were you ever out of Scotland continuously for a period of more than 15 years?

    However , given the rules are
    Under the terms of the 2010 Draft Bill, the following people would be entitled to vote in the referendum:[15]

    British citizens who are resident in Scotland;
    citizens of the 53 other Commonwealth countries who are resident in Scotland;
    citizens of the 27 other European Union countries who are resident in Scotland;
    members of the House of Lords who are resident in Scotland;
    Service/Crown personnel serving in the UK or overseas in the armed forces or with Her Majesty's Government who are registered to vote in Scotland.

    Nowhere does it say you have to be resident for 6 months etc, so I return to my position that it is a silly unionist jobsworth overstepping the mark. He will vote mark my words.
    Presumably, though, if he is ordinarily resident in the UK (I've added the word "ordinarily" but it's usual in these circumstances) he'll either be paying the non-dom fee or UK taxes?
  • So the contrary view to Dr Foster is that 1) Labour are more likely to win because Labour will get lots of 2010 LD voters and 2) that also the Lib Dems are more likely to keep most of their 57 seats because they attract back most, aka 90%, of their 2010 LD voters.

    Anyone spot the problem? Do these 2010 LD voters have 2 votes each?

    If someone had suggested this in 2010 it would have sounded too good to be true, but the way the evidence is stacking up it really does look like it's going to work like that.

    In the small number of seats that the LibDems need to hold against the Tories they're doing pretty well in council elections, and they did respectably in Eastleigh (admittedly with UKIP helping keep the Tory vote down) while Labour went nowhere.

    Everywhere else, including in the national polling (which mostly covers non-LibDem seats, since they don't have many) the LibDems are getting killed.
    But 35% to 40% of the LD seats do not have Conservatives as their main opponent. Add in the growing retirement list and the unique melt down in Scotland....
  • Charles said:

    So the contrary view to Dr Foster is that 1) Labour are more likely to win because Labour will get lots of 2010 LD voters and 2) that also the Lib Dems are more likely to keep most of their 57 seats because they attract back most, aka 90%, of their 2010 LD voters.
    Anyone spot the problem? Do these 2010 LD voters have 2 votes each?

    Nah.
    The argument is that all of these 2010 LD voters will sit down and figure out exactly how they should vote in order to hit to Tories where it hurts.
    You need to remember that none of these individuals have a positive vision of where they want to take the country. They just really hate Thatcher and all the evil baby-eating Tories.
    Or something.
    Sounds a better theory Charles. The 2010 LD voter theory based on irrational hatred by a few applied to the forecast actions of the many.
  • I think the biggest falls in the LD vote in 2015 will be in the seats where they were second to Labour in 2010 - which won't win Labour any seats.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,654

    So the contrary view to Dr Foster is that 1) Labour are more likely to win because Labour will get lots of 2010 LD voters and 2) that also the Lib Dems are more likely to keep most of their 57 seats because they attract back most, aka 90%, of their 2010 LD voters.

    Anyone spot the problem? Do these 2010 LD voters have 2 votes each?

    If someone had suggested this in 2010 it would have sounded too good to be true, but the way the evidence is stacking up it really does look like it's going to work like that.

    In the small number of seats that the LibDems need to hold against the Tories they're doing pretty well in council elections, and they did respectably in Eastleigh (admittedly with UKIP helping keep the Tory vote down) while Labour went nowhere.

    Everywhere else, including in the national polling (which mostly covers non-LibDem seats, since they don't have many) the LibDems are getting killed.
    But 35% to 40% of the LD seats do not have Conservatives as their main opponent. Add in the growing retirement list and the unique melt down in Scotland....
    I agree, it'll be grim. But I still reckon they'll keep most of their seats. (That's "most" as in "more than half" rather than "most" as in "nearly all"...)
  • Charles said:



    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/25/gordon-brown-last-gift-to-labour-party-he-loves?commentpage=1

    "He could start the work, long overdue, of dismantling the myth... To repeat the under-used Labour line of the time, the recession was made on Wall Street, not Downing Street."

    And just in two paragraphs the author repeats two false accounts of the past. They are not entirely wrong, but they are utterly misleading and lead him to the wrong conclusions.

    1. Recovery: there was a short term boost timed to hit the election. This was achieved by a spending splurge and by bringing forward capex. Temporary, and utterly unsustainable...

    2. The deficit mushroomed because tax revenues fell. However, with hindsight it was clear that these revenues were never sustainable...
    Charles, thanks for such a succinct debunking of the 'Wall Street, not Downing Street' line. I get into discussions quite often with left-leaning friends who say that Labour left the economy in an improving condition and that the current government has destroyed that positive legacy (while also waging war against people who are poor, disabled, long-term ill etc. etc.). I'll have to see what they say in response to these points...

    (Quotes shortened for ease of reading, hope that's okay gents.)
  • Ninoinoz said:



    So, my neighbour accuses me of child molestation and my employer is supposed to do nothing.

    Of course my employer is going to start an investigation, at least.

    Good example, because if in this case you were dealing with children (e.g. a schoolteacher) you would be expected to be suspended on full pay, at least until the investigation is over?

    Or at least that's what I suspect would happen.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,197
    Charles said:

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    Unlike these jobsworths I am speaking from personal experience , having voted whilst living in US or England for years at a time. It is manufactured nonsense that will not stand up to scrutiny.

    Were you ever out of Scotland continuously for a period of more than 15 years?

    However , given the rules are
    Under the terms of the 2010 Draft Bill, the following people would be entitled to vote in the referendum:[15]

    British citizens who are resident in Scotland;
    citizens of the 53 other Commonwealth countries who are resident in Scotland;
    citizens of the 27 other European Union countries who are resident in Scotland;
    members of the House of Lords who are resident in Scotland;
    Service/Crown personnel serving in the UK or overseas in the armed forces or with Her Majesty's Government who are registered to vote in Scotland.

    Nowhere does it say you have to be resident for 6 months etc, so I return to my position that it is a silly unionist jobsworth overstepping the mark. He will vote mark my words.
    Presumably, though, if he is ordinarily resident in the UK (I've added the word "ordinarily" but it's usual in these circumstances) he'll either be paying the non-dom fee or UK taxes?
    I would hope he would meet any obligations required, plenty that live here all the time dodge paying tax so he would be in good company if he did not and a bit unusual if he stumped up, but my preference would be that he paid his dues.
    If only more unionists would take a similar position we would perhaps have a modicum less poverty in the country.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 41,751
    edited October 2013
    Charles said:


    The biggest unknown for me is Scotland (where I will admit I don't know much about the local specifics).
    I was surprised by just how well Labour did in 2010 - IIRC they didn't lose a seat vs a huge swing in England. How much of that was down to Brown being a Scot? Possibly nothing, but possibly something.

    Brown had positive ratings in Scotland all the way to the 2010 GE - Ed, not to put too fine a point on it, doesn't (and I suspect won't).
  • NinoinozNinoinoz Posts: 1,312

    Another interesting Fisher quote (and we should welcome his willinginess to do a model and discuss it lucidly): "For want of a better reason to do differently I have effectively produced the forecast in the same way as if the Conservatives were in a single party government." He argues that people see the Government primarily as a Tory one so the dynamics should work similarly. I'm not sure that's true. The general impression is IMO of a somewhat chaotic coalition muddling along in admittedly difficult circumstances. It's one reason they don't get credit for successess, which are seen as happening despite them rather than because of any clear sense of common direction.

    "I agree with Nick."

    It is amazing the number of people who forget, or wilfully ignore, the fact we're under a coalition government. It's almost as if they can't be bothered to change their assumptions even if they are palpably wrong.

    My favourite is "It's a straight choice between a Labour or Conservative government at the next election" when we'll have lived 5 years under a coalition government.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    malcolmg said:

    Charles said:

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    Unlike these jobsworths I am speaking from personal experience , having voted whilst living in US or England for years at a time. It is manufactured nonsense that will not stand up to scrutiny.

    Were you ever out of Scotland continuously for a period of more than 15 years?

    However , given the rules are
    Under the terms of the 2010 Draft Bill, the following people would be entitled to vote in the referendum:[15]

    British citizens who are resident in Scotland;
    citizens of the 53 other Commonwealth countries who are resident in Scotland;
    citizens of the 27 other European Union countries who are resident in Scotland;
    members of the House of Lords who are resident in Scotland;
    Service/Crown personnel serving in the UK or overseas in the armed forces or with Her Majesty's Government who are registered to vote in Scotland.

    Nowhere does it say you have to be resident for 6 months etc, so I return to my position that it is a silly unionist jobsworth overstepping the mark. He will vote mark my words.
    Presumably, though, if he is ordinarily resident in the UK (I've added the word "ordinarily" but it's usual in these circumstances) he'll either be paying the non-dom fee or UK taxes?
    I would hope he would meet any obligations required, plenty that live here all the time dodge paying tax so he would be in good company if he did not and a bit unusual if he stumped up, but my preference would be that he paid his dues.
    If only more unionists would take a similar position we would perhaps have a modicum less poverty in the country.
    I'm not sure that good company is the phrase I would use for tax dodgers!
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:


    The biggest unknown for me is Scotland (where I will admit I don't know much about the local specifics).
    I was surprised by just how well Labour did in 2010 - IIRC they didn't lose a seat vs a huge swing in England. How much of that was down to Brown being a Scot? Possibly nothing, but possibly something.

    Brown had positive ratings in Scotland all the way to the 2010 GE - Ed, not to put too fine a point on it, doesn't (and I suspect won't).
    That's what I thought. What I don't know is what impact it will have on votes & seats, but it does seem the biggest area of risk for Labour.
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    Charles said:

    malcolmg said:

    Charles said:

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    Unlike these jobsworths I am speaking from personal experience , having voted whilst living in US or England for years at a time. It is manufactured nonsense that will not stand up to scrutiny.

    Were you ever out of Scotland continuously for a period of more than 15 years?

    However , given the rules are
    Under the terms of the 2010 Draft Bill, the following people would be entitled to vote in the referendum:[15]

    British citizens who are resident in Scotland;
    citizens of the 53 other Commonwealth countries who are resident in Scotland;
    citizens of the 27 other European Union countries who are resident in Scotland;
    members of the House of Lords who are resident in Scotland;
    Service/Crown personnel serving in the UK or overseas in the armed forces or with Her Majesty's Government who are registered to vote in Scotland.

    Nowhere does it say you have to be resident for 6 months etc, so I return to my position that it is a silly unionist jobsworth overstepping the mark. He will vote mark my words.
    Presumably, though, if he is ordinarily resident in the UK (I've added the word "ordinarily" but it's usual in these circumstances) he'll either be paying the non-dom fee or UK taxes?
    I would hope he would meet any obligations required, plenty that live here all the time dodge paying tax so he would be in good company if he did not and a bit unusual if he stumped up, but my preference would be that he paid his dues.
    If only more unionists would take a similar position we would perhaps have a modicum less poverty in the country.
    I'm not sure that good company is the phrase I would use for tax dodgers!

    fussy bugger : )
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 5,006
    Charles said:

    OllyT said:

    @ MonikerdiCanio - "I expect Labour to fall below their 2010 GE vote in 2015".

    Is that wishful thinking or do you have any basis for expecting that to happen?

    The extent to which Lib Dem and UKIP voters are squeezed in Tory/Labour marginals is likely to determine the outcome in 2015. I am expecting a large chunk of the Lib Dem vote to switch to Labour in those marginals whereas more are likely to revert to voting Lib Dem tactically in seats where Labour has little chance.

    I also expect the Tories to do a better job at squeezing the UKIP vote in Tory marginals as opposed to safe seats. At the moment I can't see any scenario that has Labour polling less than 2010.

    That's quite possible.

    The biggest unknown for me is Scotland (where I will admit I don't know much about the local specifics).

    I was surprised by just how well Labour did in 2010 - IIRC they didn't lose a seat vs a huge swing in England. How much of that was down to Brown being a Scot? Possibly nothing, but possibly something. Additionally, what will the impact of the 2014 vote be (regardless of the outcome). How well will the LDs do, and who will benefit?

    Either of those factors could have a major impact - and they mainly downside risk for Labour as the dominant holder of Westminster seats.
    You could be right but at the moment I would expect the Referendum to be defeated in 2014 and the Scots to get solidly behind Labour again in 2015 as the most likely way to put the Tories out. The Lib Dems have collapsed in industrial Scotland and Labour won a Scottish by-election and council by election from the SNP yesterday. Straws in the wind possibly but I expect the Scots to give Labour as big a Westminster seat majority in 2015 - the Scottish Parliament is another thing entirely!
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,197
    Charles said:

    Charles said:


    The biggest unknown for me is Scotland (where I will admit I don't know much about the local specifics).
    I was surprised by just how well Labour did in 2010 - IIRC they didn't lose a seat vs a huge swing in England. How much of that was down to Brown being a Scot? Possibly nothing, but possibly something.

    Brown had positive ratings in Scotland all the way to the 2010 GE - Ed, not to put too fine a point on it, doesn't (and I suspect won't).
    That's what I thought. What I don't know is what impact it will have on votes & seats, but it does seem the biggest area of risk for Labour.
    I think the paucity of talent in Scottish labour and fact that London MP's are almost invisible will make a much bigger difference the next time. However as we will have voted YES by then it will be irrelevant.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,197
    OllyT said:

    Charles said:

    OllyT said:

    @ MonikerdiCanio - "I expect Labour to fall below their 2010 GE vote in 2015".

    Is that wishful thinking or do you have any basis for expecting that to happen?

    The extent to which Lib Dem and UKIP voters are squeezed in Tory/Labour marginals is likely to determine the outcome in 2015. I am expecting a large chunk of the Lib Dem vote to switch to Labour in those marginals whereas more are likely to revert to voting Lib Dem tactically in seats where Labour has little chance.

    I also expect the Tories to do a better job at squeezing the UKIP vote in Tory marginals as opposed to safe seats. At the moment I can't see any scenario that has Labour polling less than 2010.

    That's quite possible.

    The biggest unknown for me is Scotland (where I will admit I don't know much about the local specifics).

    I was surprised by just how well Labour did in 2010 - IIRC they didn't lose a seat vs a huge swing in England. How much of that was down to Brown being a Scot? Possibly nothing, but possibly something. Additionally, what will the impact of the 2014 vote be (regardless of the outcome). How well will the LDs do, and who will benefit?

    Either of those factors could have a major impact - and they mainly downside risk for Labour as the dominant holder of Westminster seats.
    You could be right but at the moment I would expect the Referendum to be defeated in 2014 and the Scots to get solidly behind Labour again in 2015 as the most likely way to put the Tories out. The Lib Dems have collapsed in industrial Scotland and Labour won a Scottish by-election and council by election from the SNP yesterday. Straws in the wind possibly but I expect the Scots to give Labour as big a Westminster seat majority in 2015 - the Scottish Parliament is another thing entirely!
    Hmmmmm, lots of dreaming in there.
  • Ninoinoz said:



    So, my neighbour accuses me of child molestation and my employer is supposed to do nothing.

    Of course my employer is going to start an investigation, at least.

    Good example, because if in this case you were dealing with children (e.g. a schoolteacher) you would be expected to be suspended on full pay, at least until the investigation is over?

    Or at least that's what I suspect would happen.

    Why would your employer know that you've been accused? Surely you'd have to be charged first. Wouldn't that be the general principle (though it may be different for those who work with kids)?

  • Ninoinoz said:


    My favourite [palpably wrong assumption] is "It's a straight choice between a Labour or Conservative government at the next election" when we'll have lived 5 years under a coalition government.

    But doesn't this count against Labour, rather than in their favour as I think you're suggesting? If the government is indeed seen as both a Tory and a Lib Dem one, then surely it's worrying for Labour and their supporters that their poll lead is only 3-8% recently? Shouldn't they be way ahead, with the Lib Dems now being tainted by their role in government?
  • TCPoliticalBettingTCPoliticalBetting Posts: 10,819
    edited October 2013
    tim said:

    So the contrary view to Dr Foster is that 1) Labour are more likely to win because Labour will get lots of 2010 LD voters and 2) that also the Lib Dems are more likely to keep most of their 57 seats because they attract back most, aka 90%, of their 2010 LD voters.

    Anyone spot the problem? Do these 2010 LD voters have 2 votes each?

    They live in different places, you illustrate why the Tories don't understand FPTP.
    The LDs will not be campaigning in Con/Lab marginals
    Tim, for this ONE occasion I will respond to your insult to the intelligence of Tories assuming the Moderator does nothing.

    The Tories have won more elections under FPTP than any other UK party, so please stop this tribal slandering which harms debate on this site.

    Local activists do what they want to do, not what they are told by the Centre. In large areas of the country there is no next door LD MP needing help. Those LD activists will therefore still campaign, some for local council reasons and Clegg will be pushing a national message which these days matters a bit more (just a bit) than local. Yes it needs foot soldiers to squeeze but national campaigns play a key role in GOTV.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    tim said:

    @Charles

    "Recovery: there was a short term boost timed to hit the election. This was achieved by a spending splurge and by inflating a housing bubble. Temporary, and utterly unsustainable... "

    Is that your review of 2015?

    That is a false quote.

    Please retract and apologise.
  • Charles said:

    Charles said:


    The biggest unknown for me is Scotland (where I will admit I don't know much about the local specifics).
    I was surprised by just how well Labour did in 2010 - IIRC they didn't lose a seat vs a huge swing in England. How much of that was down to Brown being a Scot? Possibly nothing, but possibly something.

    Brown had positive ratings in Scotland all the way to the 2010 GE - Ed, not to put too fine a point on it, doesn't (and I suspect won't).
    That's what I thought. What I don't know is what impact it will have on votes & seats, but it does seem the biggest area of risk for Labour.
    Given that Brown was using the term 'bigot' to describe some Labour supporters, and they still voted Labour, does it really matter who is in charge?

    Surely, the better solution would be to assume those votes are in the bag and go for other potential supporters?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    Charles said:


    The biggest unknown for me is Scotland (where I will admit I don't know much about the local specifics).
    I was surprised by just how well Labour did in 2010 - IIRC they didn't lose a seat vs a huge swing in England. How much of that was down to Brown being a Scot? Possibly nothing, but possibly something.

    Brown had positive ratings in Scotland all the way to the 2010 GE - Ed, not to put too fine a point on it, doesn't (and I suspect won't).
    That's what I thought. What I don't know is what impact it will have on votes & seats, but it does seem the biggest area of risk for Labour.
    Given that Brown was using the term 'bigot' to describe some Labour supporters, and they still voted Labour, does it really matter who is in charge?

    Surely, the better solution would be to assume those votes are in the bag and go for other potential supporters?
    In England, yes, but in Scotland I suspect the local factor is stronger. Additionally, although complacency by Labour in England seems to lead to DNV, in Scotland the SNP is a meaningful competitor.


  • Why would your employer know that you've been accused? Surely you'd have to be charged first. Wouldn't that be the general principle (though it may be different for those who work with kids)?

    If a neighbour accused a teacher of kiddie fiddling, the would be all over town within about a day.
    If I were the accused, and a teacher, I would report it immediately, just to be on the safe side.

    Having said that, thankfully (for precisely this reason) I didn't go into teaching.
  • Of the 57 LD MPs, 7 are retiring and only 5 others have been reselected.

    Also very few selected in their targets 18 months from a GE.

    (FYI This list omits Malcolm Bruce in the version at 12.48 today and the comments list other omisions).

    http://www.libdemvoice.org/full-list-of-lib-dems-standing-in-our-held-seats-and-top-50-targets-36690.html
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053

    What was he doing, that small cur Cam,
    Down in the reeds by the river?
    Spreading ruin and scattering ban,
    Splashing and paddling with hoofs of a goat,
    And doing U-turns on promises afloat
    By the parliament on the river.

    With apologies to Elizabeth Barrett Browning
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382

    So the contrary view to Dr Foster is that 1) Labour are more likely to win because Labour will get lots of 2010 LD voters and 2) that also the Lib Dems are more likely to keep most of their 57 seats because they attract back most, aka 90%, of their 2010 LD voters.

    Anyone spot the problem? Do these 2010 LD voters have 2 votes each?

    If someone had suggested this in 2010 it would have sounded too good to be true, but the way the evidence is stacking up it really does look like it's going to work like that.

    In the small number of seats that the LibDems need to hold against the Tories they're doing pretty well in council elections, and they did respectably in Eastleigh (admittedly with UKIP helping keep the Tory vote down) while Labour went nowhere.

    Everywhere else, including in the national polling (which mostly covers non-LibDem seats, since they don't have many) the LibDems are getting killed.
    But 35% to 40% of the LD seats do not have Conservatives as their main opponent. Add in the growing retirement list and the unique melt down in Scotland....
    I agree, it'll be grim. But I still reckon they'll keep most of their seats. (That's "most" as in "more than half" rather than "most" as in "nearly all"...)
    The LDs will be making one or two gains off the Tories. I've got 6/1 on them doing that in Watford. Latest price 2/1. St Albans next door also looks possible. The Ashcroft polling included Oxford W & Abingdon which will be a tight fight that could result in a victory.

  • NinoinozNinoinoz Posts: 1,312

    Ninoinoz said:


    My favourite [palpably wrong assumption] is "It's a straight choice between a Labour or Conservative government at the next election" when we'll have lived 5 years under a coalition government.

    But doesn't this count against Labour, rather than in their favour as I think you're suggesting? If the government is indeed seen as both a Tory and a Lib Dem one, then surely it's worrying for Labour and their supporters that their poll lead is only 3-8% recently? Shouldn't they be way ahead, with the Lib Dems now being tainted by their role in government?
    The fact that Labour are ahead and will win the next election is a minor miracle. They got less than 30% in 2010. What is even more remarkable is they have done this with the same motley crew and more-or-less the same policies.

    Their increase has been from LibDems switching to Labour precisely because of the coalition. The fall in Tory support has been because of that buffoon Cameron going out of his way to upset his socially conservative supporters.

    And, no, I don't think they will meekly return to voting Tory at the next election as some "experts" seem to think. The offence goes too deep for that.
  • volcanopetevolcanopete Posts: 2,078
    Steve Fisher is clearly someone whose record demands respect.All the points questioning his analysis have already been made but the one group who have not responded,the bookies,still fail to agree-the Tories are still 3-1 outsiders(like betting against your own football team but the ridiculous 9-2 was too tempting).Now,I assume the odds compilers do not just take the figures out of thin air so it would be useful for them to share their analysis which confronts his.
    A comparison with trends analyses in horse racing could apply.They are a useful guide,particularly at Cheltenham,but that is all.
  • IOSIOS Posts: 1,450
    Edmund

    The fact the Lib Dems are getting killed in places like Broxtowe but not in places like Eastleigh is not by chance but rather than the design. The Lib Dems simply do not - nor should they - care about how they do in places like Broxtowe. Losing all their votes will only cost them a deposit.

    They should and are throwing all their resources at retaining the seats they have. Which is exactly what they are doing. They will still lose some seats, to Labour and the SNP but should be able to hold off against the Tories in a lot of places.

    In fact because of UKIP they could still make a cheeky few gains.
  • IOSIOS Posts: 1,450
    Mike

    If the Tories manage to simultaneously lose votes to UKIP and piss off enough Labour tactical voters to vote Lib Dem they could make a dozen or so gains.
  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699
    IOS said:

    Edmund

    The fact the Lib Dems are getting killed in places like Broxtowe but not in places like Eastleigh is not by chance but rather than the design. The Lib Dems simply do not - nor should they - care about how they do in places like Broxtowe. Losing all their votes will only cost them a deposit.

    They should and are throwing all their resources at retaining the seats they have. Which is exactly what they are doing. They will still lose some seats, to Labour and the SNP but should be able to hold off against the Tories in a lot of places.

    In fact because of UKIP they could still make a cheeky few gains.

    The Lib Dems are not getting killed in Broxtowe , they held all their CC seats there in May much to NickexMP's chagrin .
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    IOS said:

    Mike

    If the Tories manage to simultaneously lose votes to UKIP and piss off enough Labour tactical voters to vote Lib Dem they could make a dozen or so gains.

    The Ashcroft CON-LD battleground polling was remarkable given that all the seats were CON-held. Only 3% adrift across 8 seats polled.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    New thread - David Herdson
This discussion has been closed.