politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Suggesting that the foxhunting ban could be lifted – TMay’s bi

Roger said:

SquareRoot said:

Roger said:

DavidL said:

AlastairMeeks said:

It makes the Conservatives look backward-looking, cruel and obsessed by trivia. Theresa May should never have gone near the subject.

Completely agree. It is not going to come close to changing my vote but the key to the success of David Cameron and now Theresa May was the detoxification of the Tory image from where the party was in the sad days of that well known rapper, IDS. This is a backward step which, although not decisive, will make many think, do I really have something in common with that party? Do they reflect my values?

Stupid mistake and getting the Countryside Alliance to deliver leaflets for you in ultra safe seats (post the demise of UKIP) is no compensation at all.

Correct. All those thinking she's a different type of Tory will be having a rethink.

All of them? I doubt many even heard it.. People seem to think voters listen to minutiae.. they don't

Storm in a teacup imho.

Steve Bell

http://www.belltoons.co.uk/hotoffpress

As I said noone pays attention.. It is in the Grauniad after all

ydoethur said:

Roger said:

He isn't talking rubbish.

Neither is Thornberry. Brexit taught us that you only need two or three spokespeople so as long as he hides Abbott and McDonnell this could yet be an unexpected election.

And Rayner. And Burgon. And Long-Bailey. And Smith...

Frankly I'm not sure I do agree he isn't talking rubbish either. Although his saying he isn't a pacifist confirms what we all knew, that will not only upset his remaining core vote but opens up a number of potential attack lines given in war or terrorism he has always supported the national enemy, or said he would not stop them in the case of a hypothetical Paris-style attack.

Neither Tory nor Labour has much depth in their top teams, it seems to me. And let's hope we do at last get a few answers from the Tories when they eventually come up with some policies for the next five years. I rather fear they are drafting and redrafting to remove all meaning from whatever they finally publish.

Casino_Royale said:

It's a free vote.

Made by those we elect. Think about that.

Politicians have to be careful when dealing with values. People are not always rational about it. Of course Brexit, management of the economy, defence, security, education, the NHS etc etc are all way more important to 99.9% of the population but people want decisions on these complicated matters being made by people they can trust to reflect the concerns of people like them.

In this election May starts with a huge advantage since the vast majority would not trust Corbyn to run the proverbial whelk stall but it would be a mistake to fritter away that advantage by allowing her to seem out of step with the views of the vast majority. This is not productive territory for the Tories and neither are grammar schools. Arguing the merits of the proposal is really missing the point. She needs to stick to areas where the majority are going to feel comfortable with what she is talking about.

Casino_Royale said:

ThreeQuidder said:

I'm half surprised Labour haven't committed to reversing this change:

https://twitter.com/TheHistoryPress/status/862759742158114816

One of my biggest gripes is that first class is no longer sufficiently swish to justify the price they charge.

You used to get your own cosy compartment on the slam doors with huge cosy armchair seats, and a styled seat head cover protector.

Outside the rush hour you can often get a first class seat for £2 or £3 extra on a two hour journey. That's not such a bad deal for a carriage that is invariably quiet and sometimes almost empty.

SimonStClare said:

Casino_Royale said:

JosiasJessop said:

As an aside, Labour's draft manifesto says it will end driver-only operation on trains. This means that all trains (presumably they mean passenger trains only) will have to have guards. This will put up costs, make strikes much more effective, and do nothing for safety.

They also appear to commit to extending HS2 to Scotland. Chortle.

Oh, and it also fails to mention freight (though to be fair they're not the only party to 'forget' rail freight).

No Crossrail then.

I take it if Corbyn was PM, he would oppose the full automation of the London Underground?

He would allow whatever the Unions wanted. As far as he's concerned, they can do no wrong.

TheScreamingEagles said:

CarlottaVance said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Rookie mistake from Mrs May.

She should have followed Dave's lead on this topic.

Kept it low key and not expressed her own view.

The Conservatives will hold a parliamentary vote on repealing the fox hunting ban if they win the next election, David Cameron has said.

The Prime Minister, who has previously ridden with the Heythrop Hunt in Oxfordshire, said he believed in the “freedom to hunt” and wanted fox hunting legalised.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-says-he-wants-to-repeal-the-fox-hunting-ban-10091571.html

Look at the date.

Two whole months before the election.....

Meanwhile, in the 2015 Conservative manifesto:

A Conservative Government will give Parliament the opportunity to repeal the Hunting Act on a free vote, with a government bill in government time.

DavidL said:

Casino_Royale said:

It's a free vote.

In this election May starts with a huge advantage since the vast majority would not trust Corbyn to run the proverbial whelk stall but it would be a mistake to fritter away that advantage by allowing her to seem out of step with the views of the vast majority. This is not productive territory for the Tories and neither are grammar schools. Arguing the merits of the proposal is really missing the point. She needs to stick to areas where the majority are going to feel comfortable with what she is talking about.

What do you suggest May does?

- Not give direct answers to direct questions?
- Dissemble?
- Lie?

Casino_Royale said:

SimonStClare said:

Casino_Royale said:

JosiasJessop said:

As an aside, Labour's draft manifesto says it will end driver-only operation on trains. This means that all trains (presumably they mean passenger trains only) will have to have guards. This will put up costs, make strikes much more effective, and do nothing for safety.

They also appear to commit to extending HS2 to Scotland. Chortle.

Oh, and it also fails to mention freight (though to be fair they're not the only party to 'forget' rail freight).

No Crossrail then.

I take it if Corbyn was PM, he would oppose the full automation of the London Underground?

He would allow whatever the Unions wanted. As far as he's concerned, they can do no wrong.

This is about as close to commercial reality as Corbyn and Labour gets. Yesterday we had the Unions writing the cheque for what the party had delivered to them. Bought and sold. Whether it proves to be a good buy for the Unions is another matter...

AlsoIndigo said:

AlastairMeeks said:

AlsoIndigo said:

AlsoIndigo said:

I am sure urban LDs hate it, but they were never going to vote Tory anyway.

AlastairMeeks said:

It makes the Conservatives look backward-looking, cruel and obsessed by trivia. Theresa May should never have gone near the subject.

QED.

1) I'm not a Lib Dem.
2) I'm pretty agnostic about the ban on fox hunting.

Otherwise, you're spot on.

Do you always describe things you are agnostic about as "backward-looking, cruel" ?

1) it's the ban I'm agnostic about, not the activity.
2) it's how it makes the Conservatives appear that I'm voicing an opinion on (indirectly supported by the polling), not the activity.

You're not having a very good morning of it so far.

Casino_Royale said:

DavidL said:

Casino_Royale said:

It's a free vote.

Made by those we elect. Think about that.

Politicians have to be careful when dealing with values. People are not always rational about it. Of course Brexit, management of the economy, defence, security, education, the NHS etc etc are all way more important to 99.9% of the population but people want decisions on these complicated matters being made by people they can trust to reflect the concerns of people like them.

In this election May starts with a huge advantage since the vast majority would not trust Corbyn to run the proverbial whelk stall but it would be a mistake to fritter away that advantage by allowing her to seem out of step with the views of the vast majority. This is not productive territory for the Tories and neither are grammar schools. Arguing the merits of the proposal is really missing the point. She needs to stick to areas where the majority are going to feel comfortable with what she is talking about.

Grammar schools certainly have salience.

I think the number of votes that would be influenced by a pledge for a vote on foxhunting is vanishingly small, but boy oh boy will they be noisy about it.

It wasn't a complete disaster when Cameron proposed it, but is now May has suggested it, apparently.....

IanB2 said:

Neither Tory nor Labour has much depth in their top teams, it seems to me. And let's hope we do at last get a few answers from the Tories when they eventually come up with some policies for the next five years. I rather fear they are drafting and redrafting to remove all meaning from whatever they finally publish.

My suspicion is they think Labour's manifesto will do them considerable damage if left to its own devices for 10 days and they don't want to distract attention from it by launching their own.

Tally Ho ....

The PM has certainly shot someones fox ....

Will the Kimblewick MoFH allow her to wear kitten print jodhpur(r)s whilst riding side saddle at Chequers.

There's a Jilly Cooper steamy pot boiler there somewhere ....

eek said:

Can't see a mention anywhere but Hartlepool doesn't have a UKIP candidate...

Phillip Broughton, surely? Or has he messed up his nomination papers?

EDIT He's listed as standing on the council website.

felix said:

DavidL said:

Casino_Royale said:

It's a free vote.

Made by those we elect. Think about that.

Politicians have to be careful when dealing with values. People are not always rational about it. Of course Brexit, management of the economy, defence, security, education, the NHS etc etc are all way more important to 99.9% of the population but people want decisions on these complicated matters being made by people they can trust to reflect the concerns of people like them.

In this election May starts with a huge advantage since the vast majority would not trust Corbyn to run the proverbial whelk stall but it would be a mistake to fritter away that advantage by allowing her to seem out of step with the views of the vast majority. This is not productive territory for the Tories and neither are grammar schools. Arguing the merits of the proposal is really missing the point. She needs to stick to areas where the majority are going to feel comfortable with what she is talking about.

I think the Polling on Grammar schools supports May.

The voters are stupid.

Yes the public support more grammar schools but the public also support renationalisation of the railways and we know that's a bad idea.

Ishmael_Z said:

logical_song said:

Ishmael_Z said:

Dura_Ace said:

madasafish said:

I live in the countryside..Foxes in the field behind. I have never hunted - I would fall off the horse.. And don't follow it..

The League Against Cruel Sports say "“Are we really going to turn the clock back to a time when killing animals for fun was legal?"

Which is utter nonsense..considering all the other animals you can legally kill..and in the case of rats you SHOULD kill..

So frankly I - and many others - don't give a damn about the issue.

| Many City dwellers have not got a clue about the countryside..

There is a difference between killing an animal for a perceived necessity like pest control and torturing one to death as part of a pissed up laugh.

Hunted foxes are killed at least as painlessly as those killed in any other way.

It's small-time snobs like you that are the most depressing feature of the UK. The more vociferous Remainers clearly revel in Brexit because whatever its drawbacks, it legitimises their saying out loud what they've always thought, how stupid and horrible the proles are. Now you've found something to hate "toffs" about too (and of the people I hunt with, I would guess only about 20% are higher-rate taxpayers). Well done you.

"...the unspeakable in full pursuit of the uneatable,"

I have always dreamed of seeing a post of yours which did not contain serious errors of fact and logic; I would have thought even you could manage it with a partial quotation lifted off the internet. But no: "the unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable" is what Wilde wrote. Incidentally, he didn't say it directly, he put it in the mouth of a character in a play who turns out to be a twat.

But please, regale us with the views of other convicted paedophiles. What did Jimmy think about it? Gary?

I post facts to the best of my ability, if I have inserted a superfluous 'full' then I apologise (although I never claimed it was a quote).
You seem to specialise in personal abuse.

@JamesTapsfield: Labour has put the shadow international trade minister up on BBC's Today to talk about defence

Did we ever get a definitive answer to how many seats UKIP are standing in?

AlastairMeeks said:

eek said:

Can't see a mention anywhere but Hartlepool doesn't have a UKIP candidate...

Phillip Broughton, surely? Or has he messed up his nomination papers?

He's standing according to the SOPN.

https://www.hartlepool.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/3127/notice_of_poll_statement_of_persons_nominated_and_situation_of_polling_stations.pdf

Barry Gardiner on R4 now. For a Corbynite, I find his pomposity rather strange. His tone reminds me of the Patrician wing of the pre-Cameron Tory party.

TheScreamingEagles said:

felix said:

DavidL said:

Casino_Royale said:

It's a free vote.

Made by those we elect. Think about that.

Politicians have to be careful when dealing with values. People are not always rational about it. Of course Brexit, management of the economy, defence, security, education, the NHS etc etc are all way more important to 99.9% of the population but people want decisions on these complicated matters being made by people they can trust to reflect the concerns of people like them.

In this election May starts with a huge advantage since the vast majority would not trust Corbyn to run the proverbial whelk stall but it would be a mistake to fritter away that advantage by allowing her to seem out of step with the views of the vast majority. This is not productive territory for the Tories and neither are grammar schools. Arguing the merits of the proposal is really missing the point. She needs to stick to areas where the majority are going to feel comfortable with what she is talking about.

I think the Polling on Grammar schools supports May.

The voters are stupid.

Yes the public support more grammar schools but the public also support renationalisation of the railways and we know that's a bad idea.

The polling question should be whether secondary modern schools should be brought back

@iainmartin1: Labour's Barry Gardiner is emerging as one of the most annoying people of this election, from quite a long list. @BBCr4today

IanB2 said:

CarlottaVance said:

DavidL said:

Casino_Royale said:

It's a free vote.

In this election May starts with a huge advantage since the vast majority would not trust Corbyn to run the proverbial whelk stall but it would be a mistake to fritter away that advantage by allowing her to seem out of step with the views of the vast majority. This is not productive territory for the Tories and neither are grammar schools. Arguing the merits of the proposal is really missing the point. She needs to stick to areas where the majority are going to feel comfortable with what she is talking about.

What do you suggest May does?

- Not give direct answers to direct questions?
- Dissemble?
- Lie?

She should say that - just as is the case with all other olde English sports that involved harming animals for fun - that this is now a settled issue and it would not be appropriate to keep revisiting it.

How to get the Countryside Alliance out knocking on doors for UKIP

going well... a reckoning will be needed

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/862922879083720705

AlsoIndigo said:

IanB2 said:

CarlottaVance said:

DavidL said:

Casino_Royale said:

It's a free vote.

In this election May starts with a huge advantage since the vast majority would not trust Corbyn to run the proverbial whelk stall but it would be a mistake to fritter away that advantage by allowing her to seem out of step with the views of the vast majority. This is not productive territory for the Tories and neither are grammar schools. Arguing the merits of the proposal is really missing the point. She needs to stick to areas where the majority are going to feel comfortable with what she is talking about.

What do you suggest May does?

- Not give direct answers to direct questions?
- Dissemble?
- Lie?

She should say that - just as is the case with all other olde English sports that involved harming animals for fun - that this is now a settled issue and it would not be appropriate to keep revisiting it.

How to get the Countryside Alliance out knocking on doors for UKIP

Who?

felix said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

felix said:

DavidL said:

Casino_Royale said:

It's a free vote.

Made by those we elect. Think about that.

Politicians have to be careful when dealing with values. People are not always rational about it. Of course Brexit, management of the economy, defence, security, education, the NHS etc etc are all way more important to 99.9% of the population but people want decisions on these complicated matters being made by people they can trust to reflect the concerns of people like them.

In this election May starts with a huge advantage since the vast majority would not trust Corbyn to run the proverbial whelk stall but it would be a mistake to fritter away that advantage by allowing her to seem out of step with the views of the vast majority. This is not productive territory for the Tories and neither are grammar schools. Arguing the merits of the proposal is really missing the point. She needs to stick to areas where the majority are going to feel comfortable with what she is talking about.

I think the Polling on Grammar schools supports May.

The voters are stupid.

Yes the public support more grammar schools but the public also support renationalisation of the railways and we know that's a bad idea.

Says the public school posh boy. The voters get to choose and the posh boys must suck it up.

Well, if you attack me personally, it means you have not a single political argument left.

Scrapheap_as_was said:

going well... a reckoning will be needed

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/862922879083720705

"Second Work War"

Titter ....

@DPJHodges: OK, enough. This practice of journalists accurately quoting Jeremy Corbyn's own words has got to stop now. It's time to ban Accurate News.

Scrapheap_as_was said:

going well... a reckoning will be needed

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/862922879083720705

If only Theresa May hadn't decided to take Richard Burgon's seat we would have seen a lot more of him during this campaign I reckon.

A fie on Mrs May for deciding to target the fragrant Mr Burgon.

MikeSmithson said:

Casino_Royale said:

ThreeQuidder said:

I'm half surprised Labour haven't committed to reversing this change:

https://twitter.com/TheHistoryPress/status/862759742158114816

One of my biggest gripes is that first class is no longer sufficiently swish to justify the price they charge.

You used to get your own cosy compartment on the slam doors with huge cosy armchair seats, and a styled seat head cover protector.

What's really needed is a Waitrose class where you don't have to travel with Leave voters

I'll opt for Asprey Class so one doesn't have to rub shoulders with "Waitrose Winning Here" types ....

JackW said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

going well... a reckoning will be needed

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/862922879083720705

"Second Work War"

Titter ....

I'm guessing that would be the miners' strike of '74, following the General Strike of '26?

Then steel in 1980 would be the Third, coal in '85 the fourth, and have we had a fifth yet?

MikeSmithson said:

Casino_Royale said:

ThreeQuidder said:

I'm half surprised Labour haven't committed to reversing this change:

https://twitter.com/TheHistoryPress/status/862759742158114816

One of my biggest gripes is that first class is no longer sufficiently swish to justify the price they charge.

You used to get your own cosy compartment on the slam doors with huge cosy armchair seats, and a styled seat head cover protector.

What's really needed is a Waitrose class where you don't have to travel with Leave voters

I think it's called SNCF....

Can someone explain how proxy voting occurs? Does the person I nominate have to go to my local polling station to cast my vote (I don't have a postal vote)?

TheScreamingEagles said:

felix said:

DavidL said:

Casino_Royale said:

It's a free vote.

Made by those we elect. Think about that.

Politicians have to be careful when dealing with values. People are not always rational about it. Of course Brexit, management of the economy, defence, security, education, the NHS etc etc are all way more important to 99.9% of the population but people want decisions on these complicated matters being made by people they can trust to reflect the concerns of people like them.

In this election May starts with a huge advantage since the vast majority would not trust Corbyn to run the proverbial whelk stall but it would be a mistake to fritter away that advantage by allowing her to seem out of step with the views of the vast majority. This is not productive territory for the Tories and neither are grammar schools. Arguing the merits of the proposal is really missing the point. She needs to stick to areas where the majority are going to feel comfortable with what she is talking about.

I think the Polling on Grammar schools supports May.

The voters are stupid.

Yes the public support more grammar schools but the public also support renationalisation of the railways and we know that's a bad idea.

Why? This gets quoted as a truism, but the private sector has has no magic means of running things better. The argument for privatisation is partly investment, though that runs a bit thin given the DfT role in tracks and rail, and partly risk management. Mostly the latter. We've concluded we'd rather that a company and its shareholders take the risk, and be rewarded for doing so.

But there's a legitimate political argument for seeing it the other way. In practice the Gvt bails out that risk and so the balance of risk and reward is all wrong.

murali_s said:

Can someone explain how proxy voting occurs? Does the person I nominate have to go to my local polling station to cast my vote (I don't have a postal vote)?

I believe that is the case, although there is still time to apply for a postal ballot.

Good morning, everyone.

Didn't she reply to a question, rather than raise it herself?

TheScreamingEagles said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

going well... a reckoning will be needed

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/862922879083720705

If only Theresa May hadn't decided to take Richard Burgon's seat we would have seen a lot more of him during this campaign I reckon.

A fie on Mrs May for deciding to target the fragrant Mr Burgon.

fragrant as in flatulent?

ydoethur said:

JackW said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

going well... a reckoning will be needed

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/862922879083720705

"Second Work War"

Titter ....

I'm guessing that would be the miners' strike of '74, following the General Strike of '26?

Then steel in 1980 would be the Third, coal in '85 the fourth, and have we had a fifth yet?

The fifth would have been News International I guess.

DavidL said:

SimonStClare said:

DavidL said:

Did we ever get a definitive answer to how many seats UKIP are standing in?

Not seen a comprehensive list so far, just the odd regional report from the local rag. @isam mentioned yesterday there may be as many as 400 UKiP candidates standing, although there has been no confirmation afaik.

Once we have a figure (and I suspect that it will turn out to be less than that, the figure I saw yesterday was 11 out of 59 in Scotland, for example) the pollsters will have to try to work out what to do about it. Reporting 10% for UKIP doesn't make much sense if only half the country has the option.

This applies to the Greens somewhat too:

Sum through the votes in all the consituencies UKIP is standing in and divide through by the 2015 baseline.

That'll give a multiplication factor which can be applied to the calculated score - the rest of the UKIP votes can then be redistributed as the original UKIP movement has in the poll.

That should be a reasonably quick method.

Mind you we have pollsters like ORB still pumping out fake news regarding Labour and the Tories getting 6 to 8% in Northern Ireland...

which football team to equate this team to? Hmm.. tricky...

https://twitter.com/ProfTimBale/status/862926883754782720

Pulpstar said:

DavidL said:

SimonStClare said:

DavidL said:

Did we ever get a definitive answer to how many seats UKIP are standing in?

Not seen a comprehensive list so far, just the odd regional report from the local rag. @isam mentioned yesterday there may be as many as 400 UKiP candidates standing, although there has been no confirmation afaik.

Once we have a figure (and I suspect that it will turn out to be less than that, the figure I saw yesterday was 11 out of 59 in Scotland, for example) the pollsters will have to try to work out what to do about it. Reporting 10% for UKIP doesn't make much sense if only half the country has the option.

This applies to the Greens somewhat too:

Sum through the votes in all the consituencies UKIP is standing in and divide through by the 2015 baseline.

That'll give a multiplication factor which can be applied to the calculated score - the rest of the UKIP votes can then be redistributed as the original UKIP movement has in the poll.

That should be a reasonably quick method.

Mind you we have pollsters like ORB still pumping out fake news regarding Labour and the Tories getting 6 to 8% in Northern Ireland...

I am not so convinced that kipper voters can simply be reassigned to the Tories in all areas. It probably is accurate across the shires, as we saw last week. Will the same happen in urban areas in the North and Midlands? probably true for many, but I expect many more to go to DNV or to other parties including Labour.

foxinsoxuk said:

Pulpstar said:

DavidL said:

SimonStClare said:

DavidL said:

Did we ever get a definitive answer to how many seats UKIP are standing in?

Not seen a comprehensive list so far, just the odd regional report from the local rag. @isam mentioned yesterday there may be as many as 400 UKiP candidates standing, although there has been no confirmation afaik.

Once we have a figure (and I suspect that it will turn out to be less than that, the figure I saw yesterday was 11 out of 59 in Scotland, for example) the pollsters will have to try to work out what to do about it. Reporting 10% for UKIP doesn't make much sense if only half the country has the option.

This applies to the Greens somewhat too:

Sum through the votes in all the consituencies UKIP is standing in and divide through by the 2015 baseline.

That'll give a multiplication factor which can be applied to the calculated score - the rest of the UKIP votes can then be redistributed as the original UKIP movement has in the poll.

That should be a reasonably quick method.

Mind you we have pollsters like ORB still pumping out fake news regarding Labour and the Tories getting 6 to 8% in Northern Ireland...

I am not so convinced that kipper voters can simply be reassigned to the Tories in all areas. It probably is accurate across the shires, as we saw last week. Will the same happen in urban areas in the North and Midlands? probably true for many, but I expect many more to go to DNV or to other parties including Labour.

Did I say they should all be reassigned to the Tories ?

the rest of the UKIP votes can then be redistributed as the original UKIP movement has in the poll

Your method proposes guessing "Oh that UKIP voter phoned from Manchester so they'll probably head back to Labour"

Sorry but that is completely arbitrary.

Pulpstar said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Pulpstar said:

DavidL said:

SimonStClare said:

DavidL said:

Did we ever get a definitive answer to how many seats UKIP are standing in?

Not seen a comprehensive list so far, just the odd regional report from the local rag. @isam mentioned yesterday there may be as many as 400 UKiP candidates standing, although there has been no confirmation afaik.

Once we have a figure (and I suspect that it will turn out to be less than that, the figure I saw yesterday was 11 out of 59 in Scotland, for example) the pollsters will have to try to work out what to do about it. Reporting 10% for UKIP doesn't make much sense if only half the country has the option.

This applies to the Greens somewhat too:

Sum through the votes in all the consituencies UKIP is standing in and divide through by the 2015 baseline.

That'll give a multiplication factor which can be applied to the calculated score - the rest of the UKIP votes can then be redistributed as the original UKIP movement has in the poll.

That should be a reasonably quick method.

Mind you we have pollsters like ORB still pumping out fake news regarding Labour and the Tories getting 6 to 8% in Northern Ireland...

I am not so convinced that kipper voters can simply be reassigned to the Tories in all areas. It probably is accurate across the shires, as we saw last week. Will the same happen in urban areas in the North and Midlands? probably true for many, but I expect many more to go to DNV or to other parties including Labour.

Did I say they should all be reassigned to the Tories ?

the rest of the UKIP votes can then be redistributed as the original UKIP movement has in the poll

Your method proposes guessing "Oh that UKIP voter phoned from Manchester so they'll probably head back to Labour"

Sorry but that is completely arbitrary.

It also has the effect of being a comfort blanket for people hoping against all hope that there won't be a Tory landslide.

ab195 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

felix said:

DavidL said:

Casino_Royale said:

It's a free vote.

Made by those we elect. Think about that.

Politicians have to be careful when dealing with values. People are not always rational about it. Of course Brexit, management of the economy, defence, security, education, the NHS etc etc are all way more important to 99.9% of the population but people want decisions on these complicated matters being made by people they can trust to reflect the concerns of people like them.

In this election May starts with a huge advantage since the vast majority would not trust Corbyn to run the proverbial whelk stall but it would be a mistake to fritter away that advantage by allowing her to seem out of step with the views of the vast majority. This is not productive territory for the Tories and neither are grammar schools. Arguing the merits of the proposal is really missing the point. She needs to stick to areas where the majority are going to feel comfortable with what she is talking about.

I think the Polling on Grammar schools supports May.

The voters are stupid.

Yes the public support more grammar schools but the public also support renationalisation of the railways and we know that's a bad idea.

Why? This gets quoted as a truism, but the private sector has has no magic means of running things better. The argument for privatisation is partly investment, though that runs a bit thin given the DfT role in tracks and rail, and partly risk management. Mostly the latter. We've concluded we'd rather that a company and its shareholders take the risk, and be rewarded for doing so.

But there's a legitimate political argument for seeing it the other way. In practice the Gvt bails out that risk and so the balance of risk and reward is all wrong.

Other problems associated with being in the public sector include to fold to unreasonable demands from trade unions to save bad press, the unability to pay attractive salaries to exceptional people because of civil service paygrades and maintaining differentials, and the inbuilt incentive to bureacratise and empire build because of the inbuilt implication that cash will be found, rather than the threat of going out of business if you piss money against the wall. None of this is unsurmountable, but the track record is not good.

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Bad news for Priti Patel backers

Priti Patel, the international development secretary, paid her husband tens of thousands of pounds to run her office while he had two other jobs, including a previously undisclosed role in the City. - The Times

Sorry not sure I understand here -
I could pay my other half £5,000 a year. It wouldn't change anything as the money is ours anyway.
Whats the problem with her paying her husband money ?

Is it a tax dodge?

TheScreamingEagles said:

Bad news for Priti Patel backers

Priti Patel, the international development secretary, paid her husband tens of thousands of pounds to run her office while he had two other jobs, including a previously undisclosed role in the City. - The Times

Priti is married to George Osborne? When did this happen?

ThreeQuidder said:

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

AlastairMeeks said:

It makes the Conservatives look backward-looking, cruel and obsessed by trivia. Theresa May should never have gone near the subject.

I agree with Mr Meeks!

You also think she should have dodged a direct question?

TM should have just said that it's a pretty trivial issue and the Govt have more important things to be worrying about.

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Bad news for Priti Patel backers

Priti Patel, the international development secretary, paid her husband tens of thousands of pounds to run her office while he had two other jobs, including a previously undisclosed role in the City. - The Times

Sorry not sure I understand here -
I could pay my other half £5,000 a year. It wouldn't change anything as the money is ours anyway.
Whats the problem with her paying her husband money ?

Using the staff allowance I guess, the money wouldn't be spent without it. Similar to Fillon's scandal just on a lesser scale.

Pulpstar said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Pulpstar said:

DavidL said:

SimonStClare said:

DavidL said:

Did we ever get a definitive answer to how many seats UKIP are standing in?

Not seen a comprehensive list so far, just the odd regional report from the local rag. @isam mentioned yesterday there may be as many as 400 UKiP candidates standing, although there has been no confirmation afaik.

Once we have a figure (and I suspect that it will turn out to be less than that, the figure I saw yesterday was 11 out of 59 in Scotland, for example) the pollsters will have to try to work out what to do about it. Reporting 10% for UKIP doesn't make much sense if only half the country has the option.

This applies to the Greens somewhat too:

Sum through the votes in all the consituencies UKIP is standing in and divide through by the 2015 baseline.

That'll give a multiplication factor which can be applied to the calculated score - the rest of the UKIP votes can then be redistributed as the original UKIP movement has in the poll.

That should be a reasonably quick method.

Mind you we have pollsters like ORB still pumping out fake news regarding Labour and the Tories getting 6 to 8% in Northern Ireland...

I am not so convinced that kipper voters can simply be reassigned to the Tories in all areas. It probably is accurate across the shires, as we saw last week. Will the same happen in urban areas in the North and Midlands? probably true for many, but I expect many more to go to DNV or to other parties including Labour.

Did I say they should all be reassigned to the Tories ?

the rest of the UKIP votes can then be redistributed as the original UKIP movement has in the poll

Your method proposes guessing "Oh that UKIP voter phoned from Manchester so they'll probably head back to Labour"

Sorry but that is completely arbitrary.

No, but I think that UKIP voters in Rutland are rather different to those in Leicester West. The same is true for all parties to a degree, but with the disintegration of UKIP more significant.

I am now thinking that Lab will be getting about 175 seats,

Here's hoping for a PB Nojam.