politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Portsmouth South would make an interesting by-election but

In Eastleigh, if the Labour vote had been 5 percentage points higher and the LD vote 5 percentage points lower, UKIP would have won the seat.

Actual result: LD 32.1%, UKIP 27.8%, Con 25.4%, Lab 9.8%.
Modified: UKIP 27.8%, LD 27.1%, Con 25.4%, Lab 14.8%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastleigh_by-election,_2013

RichardNabavi said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

philiph said:

Lifted from Guido, so don't know if it is accurate:

UKIP have found the perfect man to run in the Wythenshawe and Sale East by-election. John Bickley is ex-Labour, grew up in the constituency, is a self-made businessman and the son of a trade unionist

Yep it is accurate.

Do you know anything about him, beyond that brief description?

This is the UKIP website page on him

http://www.ukip.org/newsroom/news/1126-john-bickley-ukip-s-candidate-for-wythenshawe-and-sale-east

Sean_F said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

OblitusSumMe said:

rcs1000 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

OT

This may have already been posted but this is a link to the annual Bill Gates letter where he refutes (very effectively in my view) some of the myths about aid and improving the lives those less fortunate than ourselves. Very well worth reading and certainly inspiring. It would be nice to see some of this used to counter the arguments about overseas aid being 'wasteful'

http://annualletter.gatesfoundation.org/?cid=bg_pt_ll0_012122/#section=home

wow. excellent letter

Agreed. I hope a few backbench Tory MPs will read it.

There are plenty of us in UKIP who are hoping our own leadership will read it as well.

I certainly don't think the government should be increasing the overseas aid budget, at the same time that we're trying to eliminate a very large public sector deficit.

Given that a properly directed aid budget will save thousands of lives whilst making very little difference to the deficit reduction targets here, I have to disagree with you. There are far larger savings to be made by reforming our own very generous welfare systems that will not threaten lives. Certainly there are areas where our overseas aid programme needs overhauling (it should not be so controlled by the EU for example, nor should it be giving money to countries with, for example, their own space programmes).

But the basic principle of targeted health aid as a means of raising the standard of living for the whole world as articulated by Gates is, to my mind, something that all first world countries can afford and should aspire to.

another_richard said:

david_herdson said:

another_richard said:

I see that Avery, having already included the Royal Mail pension fund assets as negative borrowing whilst ignoring Royal Mail pension liabilities, is now treating items from a cash flow statement as balance sheet.

Let us remember the government's borrowing plans:

"As a result of the measures I will announce today, public sector net borrowing will be: £149 billion this year, falling to £116 billion next year, then £89 billion in 2012-13, and then £60 billion in 2013-14. By 2014-15 borrowing reaches £37 billion, exactly half the amount forecast in the March Budget."

I'm offering evens that government borrowing is over £500bn for those five years. That's more than 10% higher than what Osborne promised.

Are the Osborne fans willing to put their money where their keyboards are or are they conceding that their hero has failed on his main target ?

If you want to play that game, go and look at Labour's projections and assumption from 2006-8. Or are you saying the government should have cut more? Perhaps you'd criticise Osborne for under-predicting growth too. Stuff happens and economic prediction isn't an exact science. getting the big policy framework right is the important thing.

It was me who first pointed out the increase in government borrowing of HALF A TRILLION between the budgets of 2008 and 2009.

And Osborne OVER-PREDICTED growth in his 2010 budget.

I think I'm being fair - I'm giving him his full five years as a comparison.

You can only judge someone by what he predicted and the actual outturn, that's what I'm doing.

And do you think the 'big policy framework' is being done right ? How much 'economic rebalancing' has occurred.

Now its work for me.

An excellent post, Richard. Osborne has made a pig's ear of it – why he chose to make himself a hostage to fortune by a) making such forecasts and b) telling the public he was reducing the DEBT is beyond me.

A nasty surprise for the public when the realise that Ozzy has prescided over a massive increase in debt despite telling them he was paying it off.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Sean_F said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

OblitusSumMe said:

rcs1000 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

OT

This may have already been posted but this is a link to the annual Bill Gates letter where he refutes (very effectively in my view) some of the myths about aid and improving the lives those less fortunate than ourselves. Very well worth reading and certainly inspiring. It would be nice to see some of this used to counter the arguments about overseas aid being 'wasteful'

http://annualletter.gatesfoundation.org/?cid=bg_pt_ll0_012122/#section=home

wow. excellent letter

Agreed. I hope a few backbench Tory MPs will read it.

There are plenty of us in UKIP who are hoping our own leadership will read it as well.

I certainly don't think the government should be increasing the overseas aid budget, at the same time that we're trying to eliminate a very large public sector deficit.

Given that a properly directed aid budget will save thousands of lives whilst making very little difference to the deficit reduction targets here, I have to disagree with you. There are far larger savings to be made by reforming our own very generous welfare systems that will not threaten lives. Certainly there are areas where our overseas aid programme needs overhauling (it should not be so controlled by the EU for example, nor should it be giving money to countries with, for example, their own space programmes).

But the basic principle of targeted health aid as a means of raising the standard of living for the whole world as articulated by Gates is, to my mind, something that all first world countries can afford and should aspire to.

There's certainly a lot fat that can be cut out of government. But, I think there's little doubt that cuts in public spending do cause hardship to some people in this country.

To take one example, my brother-in-law is having to tell members of his regiment, this morning, which of them are being made redundant, in order to meet the cuts in defence expenditure.

I think it is positively wrong to be making people redundant, in this country, while prioritising an increase in overseas aid.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Sean_F said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

OblitusSumMe said:

rcs1000 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

OT

This may have already been posted but this is a link to the annual Bill Gates letter where he refutes (very effectively in my view) some of the myths about aid and improving the lives those less fortunate than ourselves. Very well worth reading and certainly inspiring. It would be nice to see some of this used to counter the arguments about overseas aid being 'wasteful'

http://annualletter.gatesfoundation.org/?cid=bg_pt_ll0_012122/#section=home

wow. excellent letter

Agreed. I hope a few backbench Tory MPs will read it.

There are plenty of us in UKIP who are hoping our own leadership will read it as well.

I certainly don't think the government should be increasing the overseas aid budget, at the same time that we're trying to eliminate a very large public sector deficit.

Given that a properly directed aid budget will save thousands of lives whilst making very little difference to the deficit reduction targets here, I have to disagree with you. There are far larger savings to be made by reforming our own very generous welfare systems that will not threaten lives. Certainly there are areas where our overseas aid programme needs overhauling (it should not be so controlled by the EU for example, nor should it be giving money to countries with, for example, their own space programmes).

The foreign aid budget is £12 bn. That would make a noticeable impact in the budget deficit.

I wouldn't bet on Hancock going quietly in 2015. He's clearly a stubborn campaigner, not having been demoralised by being defeated twice by 200 votes in 1987 and 1992.

MonikerDiCanio said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

RichardNabavi said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

philiph said:

Lifted from Guido, so don't know if it is accurate:

UKIP have found the perfect man to run in the Wythenshawe and Sale East by-election. John Bickley is ex-Labour, grew up in the constituency, is a self-made businessman and the son of a trade unionist

Yep it is accurate.

Do you know anything about him, beyond that brief description?

This is the UKIP website page on him

http://www.ukip.org/newsroom/news/1126-john-bickley-ukip-s-candidate-for-wythenshawe-and-sale-east

Bickley sounds like just the type that Westminster needs but sorely lacks.

Yes, clever selection from UKIP. Definitely maximised their chances from the candidate point of view.

AndyJS said:

anotherDave said:

"My colleague Peter Kellner predicts (at the YouGov/Cebr briefing) that UKIP will win the Euros "possibly comfortably""

twitter.com/StephanShaxper/statuses/426282792897748992

Kellner wrote an article in Standpoint Magazine about a year ago predicting such an outcome.

It looks like a lot of people in Con/Lab/LD have decided the best strategy with regard to the Euros is to give the impression a UKIP win is the most likely result and then hope they just fall short (maybe due to a few more mini-scandals for instance) so that what would still be a pretty remarkable result would seem like a bit of a disappointment for the purples by comparison to expectations. It's an old trick of course but still a popular one.

This week's Speccy has an article on sexual harassment of men in Westminster.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9122631/the-commons-touch/

Westminster sleaze could easily provide four months of mini-scandals that would drown out any off key UKIP councillor quotes.

JosiasJessop said:

Sean_F said:

There's certainly a lot fat that can be cut out of government. But, I think there's little doubt that cuts in public spending do cause hardship to some people in this country.

To take one example, my brother-in-law is having to tell members of his regiment, this morning, which of them are being made redundant, in order to meet the cuts in defence expenditure.

I think it is positively wrong to be making people redundant, in this country, while prioritising an increase in overseas aid.

I quite like living in a country which chooses of its own free will to spend a little of it's treasure on helping others.

Charitable giving already happens. The objection is to taxation revenue, taken on threat of imprisonment, being used for foreign charity.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2011/06/tax-versus-philanthropy/

anotherDave said:

AndyJS said:

anotherDave said:

"My colleague Peter Kellner predicts (at the YouGov/Cebr briefing) that UKIP will win the Euros "possibly comfortably""

twitter.com/StephanShaxper/statuses/426282792897748992

Kellner wrote an article in Standpoint Magazine about a year ago predicting such an outcome.

It looks like a lot of people in Con/Lab/LD have decided the best strategy with regard to the Euros is to give the impression a UKIP win is the most likely result and then hope they just fall short (maybe due to a few more mini-scandals for instance) so that what would still be a pretty remarkable result would seem like a bit of a disappointment for the purples by comparison to expectations. It's an old trick of course but still a popular one.

This week's Speccy has an article on sexual harassment of men in Westminster.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9122631/the-commons-touch/

Westminster sleaze could easily provide four months of mini-scandals that would drown out any off key UKIP councillor quotes.

In the Eighties, a friend of mine was at the bar at the YCs' conference, and felt someone stroking his bottom. He turned round to discover it was a prominent minister who was doing the stroking.

Hugh said:

JosiasJessop said:

Sean_F said:

There's certainly a lot fat that can be cut out of government. But, I think there's little doubt that cuts in public spending do cause hardship to some people in this country.

To take one example, my brother-in-law is having to tell members of his regiment, this morning, which of them are being made redundant, in order to meet the cuts in defence expenditure.

I think it is positively wrong to be making people redundant, in this country, while prioritising an increase in overseas aid.

But you can make that point about any piece of spending, taking from your bête noire and giving to your favourites. "Why do we need so many people in the military, when there's still poverty at home?" or "Why do we need to give to the arts and libraries, when there are redundancies in the military?"

We also have to ask if we have a moral imperative to help, not just our own people, but others from around the world, especially when the bang-for-the-buck may be much higher.

I quite like living in a country which chooses of its own free will to spend a little of it's treasure on helping others.

Well said.

The Government's Overseas Aid policy is the one and only thing I admire them for.

I wonder how much it was due to the Lib Dem influence, mind you...

The Conservative 2010 Manifesto apparently said "increase foreign aid to 0.7% of Gross National Income by 2013". According to the BBC, at least.

So it looks like it's good, old-fashioned Conservative philanthropy. ;-)

Sean_F said:

JosiasJessop said:

Sean_F said:

There's certainly a lot fat that can be cut out of government. But, I think there's little doubt that cuts in public spending do cause hardship to some people in this country.

To take one example, my brother-in-law is having to tell members of his regiment, this morning, which of them are being made redundant, in order to meet the cuts in defence expenditure.

I think it is positively wrong to be making people redundant, in this country, while prioritising an increase in overseas aid.

But you can make that point about any piece of spending, taking from your bête noire and giving to your favourites. "Why do we need so many people in the military, when there's still poverty at home?" or "Why do we need to give to the arts and libraries, when there are redundancies in the military?"

We also have to ask if we have a moral imperative to help, not just our own people, but others from around the world, especially when the bang-for-the-buck may be much higher.

I quite like living in a country which chooses of its own free will to spend a little of it's treasure on helping others.

In general, I view government as a trustee for its own people. I believe it should prioritise the interests of its own people.

There is no moral merit in borrowing to be charitable.

But we are prioritising our own people - 0.7% spent on international aid (some of which comes back to the UK) is hardly a priority.

I do not come at this from a religious viewpoint - in fact, religions cause more trouble than pain IMHO. But saving lives can only be good, even if they are foreigners.

It seems I would not want to live in your vision of the UK.

JosiasJessop said:

Sean_F said:

JosiasJessop said:

Sean_F said:

There's certainly a lot fat that can be cut out of government. But, I think there's little doubt that cuts in public spending do cause hardship to some people in this country.

To take one example, my brother-in-law is having to tell members of his regiment, this morning, which of them are being made redundant, in order to meet the cuts in defence expenditure.

I think it is positively wrong to be making people redundant, in this country, while prioritising an increase in overseas aid.

But you can make that point about any piece of spending, taking from your bête noire and giving to your favourites. "Why do we need so many people in the military, when there's still poverty at home?" or "Why do we need to give to the arts and libraries, when there are redundancies in the military?"

We also have to ask if we have a moral imperative to help, not just our own people, but others from around the world, especially when the bang-for-the-buck may be much higher.

I quite like living in a country which chooses of its own free will to spend a little of it's treasure on helping others.

In general, I view government as a trustee for its own people. I believe it should prioritise the interests of its own people.

There is no moral merit in borrowing to be charitable.

But we are prioritising our own people - 0.7% spent on international aid (some of which comes back to the UK) is hardly a priority.

I do not come at this from a religious viewpoint - in fact, religions cause more trouble than pain IMHO. But saving lives can only be good, even if they are foreigners.

It seems I would not want to live in your vision of the UK.

Nor I yours.

Sean_F said:

anotherDave said:

AndyJS said:

anotherDave said:

"My colleague Peter Kellner predicts (at the YouGov/Cebr briefing) that UKIP will win the Euros "possibly comfortably""

twitter.com/StephanShaxper/statuses/426282792897748992

Kellner wrote an article in Standpoint Magazine about a year ago predicting such an outcome.

It looks like a lot of people in Con/Lab/LD have decided the best strategy with regard to the Euros is to give the impression a UKIP win is the most likely result and then hope they just fall short (maybe due to a few more mini-scandals for instance) so that what would still be a pretty remarkable result would seem like a bit of a disappointment for the purples by comparison to expectations. It's an old trick of course but still a popular one.

This week's Speccy has an article on sexual harassment of men in Westminster.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9122631/the-commons-touch/

Westminster sleaze could easily provide four months of mini-scandals that would drown out any off key UKIP councillor quotes.

In the Eighties, a friend of mine was at the bar at the YCs' conference, and felt someone stroking his bottom. He turned round to discover it was a prominent minister who was doing the stroking.

Was that the "noted pederast" Peter Morrison? (As Edwina Currie wrote in her diaries)

AndyJS said:

Sean_F said:

anotherDave said:

AndyJS said:

anotherDave said:

"My colleague Peter Kellner predicts (at the YouGov/Cebr briefing) that UKIP will win the Euros "possibly comfortably""

twitter.com/StephanShaxper/statuses/426282792897748992

Kellner wrote an article in Standpoint Magazine about a year ago predicting such an outcome.

It looks like a lot of people in Con/Lab/LD have decided the best strategy with regard to the Euros is to give the impression a UKIP win is the most likely result and then hope they just fall short (maybe due to a few more mini-scandals for instance) so that what would still be a pretty remarkable result would seem like a bit of a disappointment for the purples by comparison to expectations. It's an old trick of course but still a popular one.

This week's Speccy has an article on sexual harassment of men in Westminster.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9122631/the-commons-touch/

Westminster sleaze could easily provide four months of mini-scandals that would drown out any off key UKIP councillor quotes.

In the Eighties, a friend of mine was at the bar at the YCs' conference, and felt someone stroking his bottom. He turned round to discover it was a prominent minister who was doing the stroking.

Was that the "noted pederast" Peter Morrison? (As Edwina Currie wrote in her diaries)

No.

Peter Morrison was, however, notorious. Throughout the YCs and FCS he was seen as a pederastic version of Nicholas Fairbairn. One was always warned never to be alone with him.

antifrank said:

Sean_F said:

anotherDave said:

AndyJS said:

anotherDave said:

"My colleague Peter Kellner predicts (at the YouGov/Cebr briefing) that UKIP will win the Euros "possibly comfortably""

twitter.com/StephanShaxper/statuses/426282792897748992

Kellner wrote an article in Standpoint Magazine about a year ago predicting such an outcome.

It looks like a lot of people in Con/Lab/LD have decided the best strategy with regard to the Euros is to give the impression a UKIP win is the most likely result and then hope they just fall short (maybe due to a few more mini-scandals for instance) so that what would still be a pretty remarkable result would seem like a bit of a disappointment for the purples by comparison to expectations. It's an old trick of course but still a popular one.

This week's Speccy has an article on sexual harassment of men in Westminster.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9122631/the-commons-touch/

Westminster sleaze could easily provide four months of mini-scandals that would drown out any off key UKIP councillor quotes.

In the Eighties, a friend of mine was at the bar at the YCs' conference, and felt someone stroking his bottom. He turned round to discover it was a prominent minister who was doing the stroking.

Finally someone gives me a good reason to join a political party.

LOL! I really don't think this minister would have been your type.

MrJones said:

If i was senior plod and had a load of detectives sitting round because most of the actual crime officially isn't allowed to exist and so couldn't be investigated I'd set them to look at how and where that foreign aid money gets spent

cos

the political class liking expenses so much
and
the political class liking lobbyists so much
and
the political class being so comfortable with covering up MP misdeeds

doesn't fit with
the political class being so keen on foreign aid

Surely you should investigate why the BCS also finds falling crime rates.

Sean_F said:

JosiasJessop said:

Sean_F said:

JosiasJessop said:

Sean_F said:

There's certainly a lot fat that can be cut out of government. But, I think there's little doubt that cuts in public spending do cause hardship to some people in this country.

To take one example, my brother-in-law is having to tell members of his regiment, this morning, which of them are being made redundant, in order to meet the cuts in defence expenditure.

I think it is positively wrong to be making people redundant, in this country, while prioritising an increase in overseas aid.

But you can make that point about any piece of spending, taking from your bête noire and giving to your favourites. "Why do we need so many people in the military, when there's still poverty at home?" or "Why do we need to give to the arts and libraries, when there are redundancies in the military?"

We also have to ask if we have a moral imperative to help, not just our own people, but others from around the world, especially when the bang-for-the-buck may be much higher.

I quite like living in a country which chooses of its own free will to spend a little of it's treasure on helping others.

In general, I view government as a trustee for its own people. I believe it should prioritise the interests of its own people.

There is no moral merit in borrowing to be charitable.

But we are prioritising our own people - 0.7% spent on international aid (some of which comes back to the UK) is hardly a priority.

I do not come at this from a religious viewpoint - in fact, religions cause more trouble than pain IMHO. But saving lives can only be good, even if they are foreigners.

It seems I would not want to live in your vision of the UK.

Nor I yours.

Assuming annual aid to India is 300 million GBP a year, and assuming an Indian population of 1 billion, that works out at an eye-watering 30p per Indian per year...

Oh Priti Priti, just join UKIP, this bluster isn't becoming, or convincing

TGOHF said:

Anorak said:

OT

Does anyone remember the drink Castaway from the 1990s? Like alcoholic Lilt. I'm being accused of being mad because no-one else in the office remembers it.

A Google search confirms it existed but there appears to be no image of a Castaway bottle (1990s vintage) in existence on the internet!! This can't be, surely. Perhaps my Google-fu is weak, or perhaps I am mad, after all. Nurse!

It was a prototype alky-pop - fruit juice and white wine. Like an entry level taboo and mirage.

Taboo and Mirage. Sheesh. Blast from the past. Not drinks for a gentleman, if I recall.

And the good news just gets better

The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) this time with their full year 2013 report.

The key development is that the UK is now the second largest market for motor vehicles in Europe and is poised to take over this year from France as the second largest manufacturer in the region.

The key statistics:

• 2,264,737 cars registered in 2013, up 10.8% on 2012 and exceeding SMMT’s 2.25 million forecast for the year.

• 2013 hits highest annual registration total since 2007 as December achieves 22nd consecutive monthly rise.

• On average, an additional 600 extra cars registered per day in 2013 than in the previous year.

• UK firmly secured as Europe’s second largest car market and only one to grow consistently throughout 2013.

A cautionary note though on growth expectations in 2014. With most of the boost in sales coming from the private sector in 2013, car traders will be looking for the fleet sector to pick up the slack in 2014. Still forecasts are for a reversion to 'sustainable' steady growth rather than the acceleration from the red-lights we saw last year.

• 2014 market expected to stabilise with sustainable growth of around 1% over the year.

And now for international comparisons:

• The UK has been a key market in an otherwise subdued European economic marketplace. In 2013, the UK consolidated its position as the second largest market in Europe (after Germany).

• Data to November shows the UK market up 9.9%, or over 190,000 units. The EU27 market as whole was down 2.7% or over 300,000 units.

And finally one for rcs1000:

• The Spanish market, supported by its own scrappage scheme, saw volumes rise 2.1% in 2013, while the German market was down almost 5% and France and Italy by over 7%.

Even another richard should be satisfied as the growth in the UK car manufacturing and registration market far exceeded any numbers that George Osborne even dreamt of in 2010.

AveryLP said:

And the good news just gets better

The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) this time with their full year 2013 report.

Fantastically splendid tractor stats, Comrade Chancellor!

AndyJS said:

anotherDave said:

"My colleague Peter Kellner predicts (at the YouGov/Cebr briefing) that UKIP will win the Euros "possibly comfortably""

twitter.com/StephanShaxper/statuses/426282792897748992

Kellner wrote an article in Standpoint Magazine about a year ago predicting such an outcome.

It looks like a lot of people in Con/Lab/LD have decided the best strategy with regard to the Euros is to give the impression a UKIP win is the most likely result and then hope they just fall short (maybe due to a few more mini-scandals for instance) so that what would still be a pretty remarkable result would seem like a bit of a disappointment for the purples by comparison to expectations. It's an old trick of course but still a popular one.

It should be noted just how remarkable a UKIP win would be. To compare and contrast with the Liberals' / Lib Dems' performance post-1945, to put it in context, the Lib Dems have:

- never won any general election, nor finished second.
- never won any European election, nor finished second. They haven't finished third this century.
- never won a May round of local elections on national equivalent vote share. They have finished second, most recently in 2009.
- never won a regional election in Wales or Scotland. In fact, they've never done better than fourth in either.
- never won the London mayorality, nor finished second.
- never won any London Assembly seat.
- as far as I know, never won any regional constituency in the top-up sections in the Welsh or Scottish elections, though they have won the constituencies section of the Highlands and Islands region in the past.
- not won any PCC election, nor finished second in any PCC election.

As far as I can tell, the Lib Dems - comfortably secured for decades in the public and media's minds as the third national 'big' party - haven't won any election bigger than Devon County Council. By contrast, we're talking here about UKIP, a party which barely existed twenty years ago, winning a full national poll. It would be a quite amazing achievement were they to do it (and I think they may well). Even if they don't, just comparing it against the list above shows how strong a performance a near-miss would be.

@GuidoFawkes: BREAKING: Clegg Admits He Was Told About Hancock in February 2013: http://t.co/d8xgrsXWFF

taffys said:

Hugh - I have already ordered three boxes of popcorn for the Tory bloodletting. We coud have a post Euro Tory bingo.


Good to see labour haven't adopted a ''all we've got to do is turn up'' mentality.....

No, I have to eat the popcorn as well.

david_herdson said:

AndyJS said:

anotherDave said:

"My colleague Peter Kellner predicts (at the YouGov/Cebr briefing) that UKIP will win the Euros "possibly comfortably""

twitter.com/StephanShaxper/statuses/426282792897748992

Kellner wrote an article in Standpoint Magazine about a year ago predicting such an outcome.

It looks like a lot of people in Con/Lab/LD have decided the best strategy with regard to the Euros is to give the impression a UKIP win is the most likely result and then hope they just fall short (maybe due to a few more mini-scandals for instance) so that what would still be a pretty remarkable result would seem like a bit of a disappointment for the purples by comparison to expectations. It's an old trick of course but still a popular one.

It should be noted just how remarkable a UKIP win would be. To compare and contrast with the Liberals' / Lib Dems' performance post-1945, to put it in context, the Lib Dems have:

- never won any general election, nor finished second.
- never won any European election, nor finished second. They haven't finished third this century.
- never won a May round of local elections on national equivalent vote share. They have finished second, most recently in 2009.
- never won a regional election in Wales or Scotland. In fact, they've never done better than fourth in either.
- never won the London mayorality, nor finished second.
- never won any London Assembly seat.
- as far as I know, never won any regional constituency in the top-up sections in the Welsh or Scottish elections, though they have won the constituencies section of the Highlands and Islands region in the past.
- not won any PCC election, nor finished second in any PCC election.

As far as I can tell, the Lib Dems - comfortably secured for decades in the public and media's minds as the third national 'big' party - haven't won any election bigger than Devon County Council. By contrast, we're talking here about UKIP, a party which barely existed twenty years ago, winning a full national poll. It would be a quite amazing achievement were they to do it (and I think they may well). Even if they don't, just comparing it against the list above shows how strong a performance a near-miss would be.

It's not out of the question (but on balance unlikely) that UKIP could come first in terms of national equivalent vote share for the local elections, on the back of a strong performance in the EU elections.

isam said:

OldKingCole said:

isam said:

Oh Priti Priti, just join UKIP, this bluster isn't becoming, or convincing

If that's Priti Patel what's she done now?

Andrew Neil asked her what the difference between what UKIP want and what she wants was, and she just ran around in circles without being able to say anything... (although she looked good saying it!)

Obviously in the wrong party

Are you a secret lib dem?

Anorak said:

OT

Does anyone remember the drink Castaway from the 1990s? Like alcoholic Lilt. I'm being accused of being mad because no-one else in the office remembers it.

A Google search confirms it existed but there appears to be no image of a Castaway bottle (1990s vintage) in existence on the internet!! This can't be, surely. Perhaps my Google-fu is weak, or perhaps I am mad, after all. Nurse!

Your Google skills are no match for the power of the Dark Side!

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=castaway+drink&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=WBThUrKmHcGphAep24CYAw&sqi=2&ved=0CDQQsAQ&biw=1920&bih=935

Scrapheap_as_was said:

isam said:

OldKingCole said:

isam said:

Oh Priti Priti, just join UKIP, this bluster isn't becoming, or convincing

If that's Priti Patel what's she done now?

Andrew Neil asked her what the difference between what UKIP want and what she wants was, and she just ran around in circles without being able to say anything... (although she looked good saying it!)

Obviously in the wrong party

Are you a secret lib dem?

Oh please! I've just had a shower, now I need another one!

TheLastBoyScout said:

another_richard said:

david_herdson said:

another_richard said:

I see that Avery, having already included the Royal Mail pension fund assets as negative borrowing whilst ignoring Royal Mail pension liabilities, is now treating items from a cash flow statement as balance sheet.

Let us remember the government's borrowing plans:

"As a result of the measures I will announce today, public sector net borrowing will be: £149 billion this year, falling to £116 billion next year, then £89 billion in 2012-13, and then £60 billion in 2013-14. By 2014-15 borrowing reaches £37 billion, exactly half the amount forecast in the March Budget."

I'm offering evens that government borrowing is over £500bn for those five years. That's more than 10% higher than what Osborne promised.

Are the Osborne fans willing to put their money where their keyboards are or are they conceding that their hero has failed on his main target ?

If you want to play that game, go and look at Labour's projections and assumption from 2006-8. Or are you saying the government should have cut more? Perhaps you'd criticise Osborne for under-predicting growth too. Stuff happens and economic prediction isn't an exact science. getting the big policy framework right is the important thing.

It was me who first pointed out the increase in government borrowing of HALF A TRILLION between the budgets of 2008 and 2009.

And Osborne OVER-PREDICTED growth in his 2010 budget.

I think I'm being fair - I'm giving him his full five years as a comparison.

You can only judge someone by what he predicted and the actual outturn, that's what I'm doing.

And do you think the 'big policy framework' is being done right ? How much 'economic rebalancing' has occurred.

Now its work for me.

An excellent post, Richard. Osborne has made a pig's ear of it – why he chose to make himself a hostage to fortune by a) making such forecasts and b) telling the public he was reducing the DEBT is beyond me.

A nasty surprise for the public when the realise that Ozzy has prescided over a massive increase in debt despite telling them he was paying it off.

Silly boy, Last Boy Scout.

You are demoted to the Cub Scouts and your woggle has been confiscated.

Here is your yellow box:

======================
ONS: PSF Bulletin     
December 2013         
----------------------
Public Sector Net Debt
as % of GDP           
at year end           
----------------------
             %        
2009/10    151.7      
2010/11    147.2      
2011/12    139.1      
2012/13    136.7      
======================

Osborne is paying down the debt as evidenced by the latest ONS figures from their December Public Sector Finances Bulletin published yesterday.

david_herdson said:

Sean_F said:

david_herdson said:

AndyJS said:

anotherDave said:

"My colleague Peter Kellner predicts (at the YouGov/Cebr briefing) that UKIP will win the Euros "possibly comfortably""

twitter.com/StephanShaxper/statuses/426282792897748992

Kellner wrote an article in Standpoint Magazine about a year ago predicting such an outcome.

It should be noted just how remarkable a UKIP win would be. To compare and contrast with the Liberals' / Lib Dems' performance post-1945, to put it in context, the Lib Dems have:

- never won any general election, nor finished second.
- never won any European election, nor finished second. They haven't finished third this century.
- never won a May round of local elections on national equivalent vote share. They have finished second, most recently in 2009.
- never won a regional election in Wales or Scotland. In fact, they've never done better than fourth in either.
- never won the London mayorality, nor finished second.
- never won any London Assembly seat.
- as far as I know, never won any regional constituency in the top-up sections in the Welsh or Scottish elections, though they have won the constituencies section of the Highlands and Islands region in the past.
- not won any PCC election, nor finished second in any PCC election.

As far as I can tell, the Lib Dems - comfortably secured for decades in the public and media's minds as the third national 'big' party - haven't won any election bigger than Devon County Council. By contrast, we're talking here about UKIP, a party which barely existed twenty years ago, winning a full national poll. It would be a quite amazing achievement were they to do it (and I think they may well). Even if they don't, just comparing it against the list above shows how strong a performance a near-miss would be.

It's not out of the question (but on balance unlikely) that UKIP could come first in terms of national equivalent vote share for the local elections, on the back of a strong performance in the EU elections.

I'd be very surprised if that does happen but if it does, it won't just be the Tories with fingers hovering over the Panic button. Labour has to win the locals comfortably if it has a chance for 2015.

I seem to recall the post-match analysis of the 2013 locals saying that UKIP had done best in Labour areas, and prevented Labour winning seats they expected/needed in the south.

david_herdson said:

Sean_F said:

david_herdson said:

It should be noted just how remarkable a UKIP win would be. To compare and contrast with the Liberals' / Lib Dems' performance post-1945, to put it in context, the Lib Dems have:

- never won any general election, nor finished second.
- never won any European election, nor finished second. They haven't finished third this century.
- never won a May round of local elections on national equivalent vote share. They have finished second, most recently in 2009.
- never won a regional election in Wales or Scotland. In fact, they've never done better than fourth in either.
- never won the London mayorality, nor finished second.
- never won any London Assembly seat.
- as far as I know, never won any regional constituency in the top-up sections in the Welsh or Scottish elections, though they have won the constituencies section of the Highlands and Islands region in the past.
- not won any PCC election, nor finished second in any PCC election.

As far as I can tell, the Lib Dems - comfortably secured for decades in the public and media's minds as the third national 'big' party - haven't won any election bigger than Devon County Council. By contrast, we're talking here about UKIP, a party which barely existed twenty years ago, winning a full national poll. It would be a quite amazing achievement were they to do it (and I think they may well). Even if they don't, just comparing it against the list above shows how strong a performance a near-miss would be.

It's not out of the question (but on balance unlikely) that UKIP could come first in terms of national equivalent vote share for the local elections, on the back of a strong performance in the EU elections.

I'd be very surprised if that does happen but if it does, it won't just be the Tories with fingers hovering over the Panic button. Labour has to win the locals comfortably if it has a chance for 2015.

Would be very surprised given UKIP have not done historically well in London which is all-out in all Boroughs for the Locals. (and clearly would be a significant weight). UKIP winning the Locals (ex London) would be a possibility, but I don't foresee anyone bothering to do that calculation.

Pulpstar said:

The Lib Dems situation really got alot more dire. I think the chances of Clegg going have become an actual possibility now.

All of the Hancock stuff has been out there for ages, just take a look at Guido. The lib dems should have been on top of this.

Slackbladder said:

Pulpstar said:

The Lib Dems situation really got alot more dire. I think the chances of Clegg going have become an actual possibility now.

All of the Hancock stuff has been out there for ages, just take a look at Guido. The lib dems should have been on top of this.

But for CLegg to have known about it since February. I mean he might have known about it, but he wouldn't want anyone else to know he knew about it.

Jesus, the woman defending womens pay in the city came across well on Daily Politics..


hahahahahahaha

Lennon said:

david_herdson said:

Sean_F said:

david_herdson said:

It should be noted just how remarkable a UKIP win would be. To compare and contrast with the Liberals' / Lib Dems' performance post-1945, to put it in context, the Lib Dems have:

- never won any general election, nor finished second.
- never won any European election, nor finished second. They haven't finished third this century.
- never won a May round of local elections on national equivalent vote share. They have finished second, most recently in 2009.
- never won a regional election in Wales or Scotland. In fact, they've never done better than fourth in either.
- never won the London mayorality, nor finished second.
- never won any London Assembly seat.
- as far as I know, never won any regional constituency in the top-up sections in the Welsh or Scottish elections, though they have won the constituencies section of the Highlands and Islands region in the past.
- not won any PCC election, nor finished second in any PCC election.

As far as I can tell, the Lib Dems - comfortably secured for decades in the public and media's minds as the third national 'big' party - haven't won any election bigger than Devon County Council. By contrast, we're talking here about UKIP, a party which barely existed twenty years ago, winning a full national poll. It would be a quite amazing achievement were they to do it (and I think they may well). Even if they don't, just comparing it against the list above shows how strong a performance a near-miss would be.

It's not out of the question (but on balance unlikely) that UKIP could come first in terms of national equivalent vote share for the local elections, on the back of a strong performance in the EU elections.

I'd be very surprised if that does happen but if it does, it won't just be the Tories with fingers hovering over the Panic button. Labour has to win the locals comfortably if it has a chance for 2015.

Would be very surprised given UKIP have not done historically well in London which is all-out in all Boroughs for the Locals. (and clearly would be a significant weight). UKIP winning the Locals (ex London) would be a possibility, but I don't foresee anyone bothering to do that calculation.

I was going to write something similar but it will depend on how the national equivalent shares are calculated. It may be that if UKIP do extremely well in the more rural constituencies where there are only a few elections, bulking up those results for the equivalent places not having elections will give them enough. That said, I still don't think there'll be enough Lab-UKIP switchings in the locals, either in London or the metropolitan councils, to place them first, or even second. There may well be quite a bit of Lab-local/UKIP-Euro split voting though.

MrJones said:

Was looking on the front page of Channel 4 new's website for anything on Hancock and see this tweet from Hague

"Concerned by latest reports from Bor of #SexualViolence in #SouthSudan crisis. Civilians should be protected"

points Government Minister Hague at the children's commissioner's report on what's happening in the gang-ruled areas of Britain.

"Sexual violence in gang neighbourhoods is 'like that in war zones' with girls as young as 11 being groomed and raped...Warning came following shocking Children's Commissioner report"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2513653/Sexual-violence-gang-neighbourhoods-like-war-zones-girls-young-11-groomed-raped.html

So this is the same Mr Hague that told the Scots in Glasgow a few days ago that they had to stay in the union as the full clout and strength of the union was the only way to stop women and children being attacked in war zones this way?? "But we could only do so because we had the full weight of the United Kingdom, its alliances and its first-class diplomatic network behind us".

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/united-kingdom-stronger-and-safer-together?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=speech-united-kingdom-stronger-and-safer-together

Edit 1: But we keep being told that the UK will remain the same old UK with all its international rights and treaties even if the Scots leave (all 9%-odd of the population)

Edit 2: we'd really, really like Mr Cameron to discuss this assertion n public with the First Minister (well, the first elected politician below HM the Queen level): not least the fact Mr Hague came here when he doesn't have a vote and should stay out of the debate according to Mr C. Or was Mr H on an unofficial visit?

isam said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

isam said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

isam said:

OldKingCole said:

isam said:

Oh Priti Priti, just join UKIP, this bluster isn't becoming, or convincing

If that's Priti Patel what's she done now?

Andrew Neil asked her what the difference between what UKIP want and what she wants was, and she just ran around in circles without being able to say anything... (although she looked good saying it!)

Obviously in the wrong party

Are you a secret lib dem?

Oh please! I've just had a shower, now I need another one!

So you had the first shower after watching Priti?

Haha , no I'd been for a run that I thought I had done in a good time, but was actually my second worst of the year

Hmm I should go for a run at some point, rather fallen off that wagon. Doubt I could do a 5k in sub 23 minutes that I managed a coupl of years back !