politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why even this 4 percent lead on votes projection might not

For the purpose of assessing orbits, the appropriate measure is mass, not diameter. The moon's mass is 1/81th that of the earth's.

Pulpstar said:

BenM said:

Hurrah!

The referendum bill breathes its last.

Let the Tory infighting begin.

Did it get milibustered ?

Well Ed is pretty much de facto running the government right now.

Telegraph Sport ‏@TelegraphSport 10s

More from @NHoultCricket - Pietersen could be next to go after Flower, with ECB also concerned by Cook's captaincy http://fw.to/0CGTkgc

antifrank said:

On the question of the pound, is there any particular reason why rUK could not let the Scots have the "asset" that is the pound and instead set up its own currency?

Bring back the groat!

rcs1000 said:

AveryLP said:

I noted and edited the coincidence between your three and my six.

Interesting article in the Economist of the threat of deflation in the EU:

http://econ.st/1fqQj4V

[A bit dry - avoid if you don't like use of words such as 'exogenous']

Here is the key paragraph:

An adjustment strategy based on the expectation that already over-indebted countries will pay back what they owe in an environment of falling prices seems doomed to failure; all the more so if “internal devaluation” at the level of individual member-states is replaced by euro-zone-wide deflation. But outright deflation would be much more costly than that. If economic historians have learned anything from the Great Depression, it is that deflation is dangerous. First, nominal wages are sticky downward: as Ben Bernanke and Kevin Carey showed for the interwar period, this implies that price deflation, if achieved at all, leads to higher real wages and unemployment. Second, deflation is harmful in other ways, increasing the real value of private as well as public debt, raising real interest rates, and leading agents to postpone expensive purchases. And interwar deflation ultimately had terrible political consequences, as well as economic ones.

I agree with you that deflation is probably the greatest risk for the whole Eurozone right now. Inflation is limping along, and adjustments in the periphery are (much) easier in a 3% inflation (-> 5% nominal growth) world.

However, the question was "why are stock markets weak?"

And given that pretty much the only markets in the world that are up right now are Portugal, Italy, Ireland and Greece (and Spain is only marginally down), it seems hard to make the case that Eurozone deflationary fears are at the heart of the falls seen in the UK, the US and the Asian markets.

By the way, Abenomics has got inflation moving in Japan - we're now at 1.5%.

OK. I concede on the original question and current index trends, but deflation is a growing and persisting threat which will influence markets over the medium term.

HurstLlama said:

have your own currency make your own decisions or what is the point?

Having your own currency doesnt mean you get to make your own decisions. You can sign up to a currency union that requires fiscal discipline or you can have fiscal discipline imposed on you by the markets, there's not much difference when it comes to sovereignty so you might as well go with whatever works best.

Theuniondivvie said:

The No campaign is teetering on the edge of ridiculousness, this just adds to the ridicule.

Ridiculous or not the 'no' campaign is still leading.

Neil said:

Theuniondivvie said:

The No campaign is teetering on the edge of ridiculousness, this just adds to the ridicule.

Ridiculous or not the 'no' campaign is still leading.

Being ridiculed doesn't mean you can't lead in polls (ask the herds of Miliband haters), it's how long you can sustain it.

This deflation stuff never actually materialises though !

Theuniondivvie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Theuniondivvie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Dave agrees with Alex that it should be a debate for Scots.

And Osborne, Hammond, May, Hague, Putin, Rajoy, all the countries that UK embassies have been instructed to brief, the UK civil service, love-bombing English celebrities and so on; pretty much everyone except that 'non Scot', David William Donald Cameron.

Make up your mind, either David William Donald Cameron is a English Home Counties Posh Boy Tory Fop or he is a Scot.

To be honest, I don't know why the SNP wants to debate Dave, he'll spank Alex Salmond silly in the debate.

The best option for Alex Salmond is to debate Darling, who is vastly overrated.

Put it this way, if Farage wanted a debate with Dave, and Dave sent William Hague or someone else, Farage would debate with whomever Dave sent.

To be fair to Rajoy, I and others have been saying for a long time, the outcome of the referendum may well be determined by Rajoy having to deal with his Catalonian secessionists, which is very unfair on Scottish secessionists.

I don't think the SNP/Alex/the Yes campaign are in the end that bothered about a debate with Cameron, entertaining as it would be (you public schoolboys and spanking, I don't know). It's about the political mileage to be got out of Dave's refusal to debate and the transparent hypocrisy of saying its a debate for Scots while using every non-Scottish power at your disposal to influence the debate. The No campaign is teetering on the edge of ridiculousness, this just adds to the ridicule.

Salmond's new found affection for the BoE and Sterling is touching. Is he now one of the "too wee, too poor, too stupid" drips?

taffys said:

Thanks for the heads up.

To be fair, Ben's economic medicine is working well in Argentina and France....

It's doing sterling work in the US.

Mr. LP, can't be certain, but I think there was no Emperor Contrarian.

Also, Eliogabalus probably should be Elagabalus. It was conflated and confused and became Heliogabalus (or known to many as that originally) because of Helios (Elagabalus was a priest or suchlike of the sun god in Edessa, or similar).

Charles said:

My old friend George has written me an email I thought people might be interested in:

So now we know.

Over the last few days, Ed Balls has been trying to claim that Labour 'will not duck the hard choices ahead'. They said they were serious about the economy.

But now we know that isn't true.

Analysis by the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies has shown that Labour are planning to borrow and spend billions more.

The front page of yesterday's Times put the cost of Labour's secret spending spree at an extra £25bn a year.

And today, official Treasury numbers have shown the full impact of Labour's plans: a borrowing bombshell adding an additional £166bn to the country's debt in just one parliament.

Labour's plan to borrow and spend more is the single biggest risk to our economic recovery.

And it's hardworking people who would pay the price, with higher taxes funding this latest Labour spending spree.

We can't let them get away with it - tell everyone you know about Labour's plans on Facebook and Twitter today.

The choice at the next election is now clear:

The Conservatives with our long-term economic plan that is building a stronger, more competitive economy, and securing a better future for Britain.

Or the Same Old Labour Party, with no plan, no direction, and no ideas other than more spending, more borrowing and more taxes.

Don't let Labour put the recovery at risk.

Did he send it to his backbenchers? They are a much more immediate problem than the electorate and seem determined to give Ed victory on a plate.

Wasn't Emperor Contrarian one of the Iconoclasts?

Neil said:

HurstLlama said:

have your own currency make your own decisions or what is the point?

Having your own currency doesnt mean you get to make your own decisions. You can sign up to a currency union that requires fiscal discipline or you can have fiscal discipline imposed on you by the markets, there's not much difference when it comes to sovereignty so you might as well go with whatever works best.

Fair go, Mr. Neil, but if the Scots are happy to have their fiscal and monetary policy imposed by London why bother with independence? A currency Union with the England would mean that in any real sense of the word Scotland would not be independent. Indeed it would have less influence over its own affairs than it does now.

“Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes the laws.” Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744-1812), founder of the House of Rothschild.

Mick_Pork said:

Gullible tory Eurosceptics. When will they ever learn?

BBC UK News Feed ‏@bbcukfeed 3m

EU referendum bill is killed off http://ift.tt/1bcH9s2


Ian Gilbert ‏@CllrIanGilbert 15m

Anyone would think the government didn't really want the referendum bill to pass. But no, I'm sure Cameron was straining every sinew...

I don't think the tory rebels are going to be too pleased about this somehow.

*chortle*

Popcorn time.

HurstLlama said:

Indeed it would have less influence over its own affairs than it does now.

It has zero fiscal autonomy now (or, rather, it has chosen not to exercise what very limited fiscal autonomy it would have been allowed to date). I can only repeat my comments that shared sovereignty is as much Edinburgh dictating to the rUK as it is London dictating to Scotland (ie it's neither).

TheScreamingEagles said:

Theuniondivvie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Theuniondivvie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Dave agrees with Alex that it should be a debate for Scots.

And Osborne, Hammond, May, Hague, Putin, Rajoy, all the countries that UK embassies have been instructed to brief, the UK civil service, love-bombing English celebrities and so on; pretty much everyone except that 'non Scot', David William Donald Cameron.

Make up your mind, either David William Donald Cameron is a English Home Counties Posh Boy Tory Fop or he is a Scot.

To be honest, I don't know why the SNP wants to debate Dave, he'll spank Alex Salmond silly in the debate.

The best option for Alex Salmond is to debate Darling, who is vastly overrated.

Put it this way, if Farage wanted a debate with Dave, and Dave sent William Hague or someone else, Farage would debate with whomever Dave sent.

To be fair to Rajoy, I and others have been saying for a long time, the outcome of the referendum may well be determined by Rajoy having to deal with his Catalonian secessionists, which is very unfair on Scottish secessionists.

I don't think the SNP/Alex/the Yes campaign are in the end that bothered about a debate with Cameron, entertaining as it would be (you public schoolboys and spanking, I don't know). It's about the political mileage to be got out of Dave's refusal to debate and the transparent hypocrisy of saying its a debate for Scots while using every non-Scottish power at your disposal to influence the debate. The No campaign is teetering on the edge of ridiculousness, this just adds to the ridicule.

I can only explain the spanking thing after the lagershed.

Must be worrying that the ridiculous No side who are frequented by SLAB who we are reassured couldn't organise a pregnancy on a council estate still lead yes in the polls.

As long as the Scottish Office and Colossus Carmichael tweets carp like this, I remain quietly confident.

TheScotlandOffice ‏@ScotlandOffice 57 mins
Want to know what @acarmichaelmp's favourite song is? Find out in this week's newsletter - alongside #indyref news. http://us7.campaign-archive2.com/?u=9531c274a02d7c00a0acc8d4e&id=42e745067c …

AndyJS said:

PaddyPower have a market on the following question:

"When will YouGov show Conservatives level with or leading Labour?"

2014:
Q1: 5/2
Q2: 6/1
Q3: 3/1
Q4: 11/2
Not before 2015: 6/4

http://www.paddypower.com/bet/novelty-betting/other-politics/uk-politics/When-will-YouGov-show-Conservatives-level-with-or-leading-Labour?-6450712.html

Objectively those odds are peculiar - perhaps just reflecting where people put their money up to now. The chance of a single outlier among the next 250 or so YG polls this year putting them at least level must be fairly good, so 6/4 for 2015+ is niggardly. By contrast, 6-1 for Q2 looks generous - perhaps the Budget will give a popularity boost for once?

Mr. LP, fair enough. I prefer Arbela to Gaugamela (I read the former first).

Wasn't Contrarian a usurper who failed to defeat Emperor Obversius?

Maybe Contrarian is a Red Bull driver.....

Between a fop and a hard place.

Alistair Shepherd ‏@al_shepherd 2h #IP33820
Unsurprisingly convincing France to allow renegotiation of EU treaties to suit UK fails. http://bbc.in/1bEYFSF

The tory rebels will be even more keen to get those renegotiation details now.
Or perhaps they have already guessed why Cammie is so reluctant to give them?

Theuniondivvie said:

Neil said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Want to know what @acarmichaelmp's favourite song is?

How long do you intend to keep us in suspense for?! Tell us, dammit! We need to know!!!!

I haven't checked just in case it's something I like and I have to (minutely) raise my opinion of him.

I too would be disappointed if it was 'He Drinks Tequila'.

Scrapheap_as_was said:

TSE - have you bet on Hull this weekend by any chance?

No. Have been uhming and ahhing about it.

Quite a few tweets that Ann Macintosh has been deselected....

TheScreamingEagles said:

I can only think he's trying to lull you into a false sense of security.

I put your link into Tuesday's nighthawks.

Well Al has still to release his inner berserker - http://tinyurl.com/qhposd7

Yeah, noticed the link, ta. I imagined David Mundell printing off a copy of that article, going to the Panda House at Edinburgh Zoo and roaring 'Get that right up ye, ye black and white ****s.'

Paul Brand ‏@PaulBrandITV 38m

We think Anne McIntosh result is now known within CCHQ. What makes the mind boggle is why they're not telling us yet. Hmmm

Chris Mason ‏@ChrisMasonBBC 2m

Conservative Party: "Thirsk&Malton Conservative Association have voted not to re-adopt Anne McIntosh MP as their candidate.

Most curious.

Are the Tories trying to knife this MP to make way for Cameron's Eton chum?

The local party trying to oust one of the north's only woman MPs after 17 years' service

A vote in Thirsk, North Yorkshire, will decide Anne McIntosh's fate today
She was elected in 1997 and has criticised the government over floods
But local party members say 11 chairman have fallen out with her
In the frame to replace her is Edward Legard, 47, an Old Etonian judge
ANDREW PIERCE reports on the web of intrigue in the Tories' Falkirk

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2549155/Are-Tories-trying-knife-MP-make-way-Camerons-Eton-chum-Local-association-tries-oust-one-norths-woman-MPs-17-years-service.html#ixzz2rzk7u6La

NickPalmer said:

AndyJS said:

PaddyPower have a market on the following question:

"When will YouGov show Conservatives level with or leading Labour?"

2014:
Q1: 5/2
Q2: 6/1
Q3: 3/1
Q4: 11/2
Not before 2015: 6/4

http://www.paddypower.com/bet/novelty-betting/other-politics/uk-politics/When-will-YouGov-show-Conservatives-level-with-or-leading-Labour?-6450712.html

Objectively those odds are peculiar - perhaps just reflecting where people put their money up to now. The chance of a single outlier among the next 250 or so YG polls this year putting them at least level must be fairly good, so 6/4 for 2015+ is niggardly. By contrast, 6-1 for Q2 looks generous - perhaps the Budget will give a popularity boost for once?

Congratulations on storming the Winter Palace. The Albion is in most capable hands.

Anne McIntosh deselected by Tories in Thirsk & Malton, (although apparently she can still apply to stand in the open selection to follow):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25979148

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. LP, fair enough. I prefer Arbela to Gaugamela (I read the former first).

Wasn't Contrarian a usurper who failed to defeat Emperor Obversius?

There is a wonderful Flemish tapestry of the Battle of Arbela [Gaugamela] which is reproduced on the Wiki site.

http://bit.ly/1aMVr53

Now if I owned that I might even be prepared to hang it in the Great Hall in place of Raphael's oil painting of 'St. George Slaying the Deficit'.

Mr Divvie, I personally can't wait for the interventions of Lord "I punch women police officers" Foulkes and Lord "killing nationalism stone dead" Robertson

If Legard is 47 then he and Cameron were probably in the same year at Eton. Probably senisble to have someone the same age. The trouble with older boys (Boris?) is they always tend to look down on the lads in the year groups below them.

Interesting BBC angle on the Cameron/Hollande discussions. If you look at the headline on BBC newsfeed it says, 'Hollande rebuffs UK PM on EU reform'. Now, from quickly skimming that, I got the view that Hollande had basically told Cameron where to go.

However, when you read the detail of the article it says Hollande said, it was 'not a priority for the time being'. He also said he hopes for the UK to become part of a more 'efficient' union. That's hardly an outright rejection.

I suspect both are playing to the gallery. Cameron has to play tough-man to the French. Hollands realises he's got to be seen to be rebuffing him. But look carefully at the language and it suggests Hollande does appreciate a renegotiation is on-the-cards at some point, and France would be willing to make some changes, but that'll be behind the scenes until its concluded.

Showmanship will be the order of the day until then.

MikeK said:

Only UKIP will give the British people a true referendum on Europe

What would be an untrue referendum on Europe?

Casino_Royale said:

Interesting BBC angle on the Cameron/Hollande discussions. If you look at the headline on BBC newsfeed it says, 'Hollande rebuffs UK PM on EU reform'. Now, from quickly skimming that, I got the view that Hollande had basically told Cameron where to go.

However, when you read the detail of the article it says Hollande said, it was 'not a priority for the time being'. He also said he hopes for the UK to become part of a more 'efficient' union. That's hardly an outright rejection.

I suspect both are playing to the gallery. Cameron has to play tough-man to the French. Hollands realises he's got to be seen to be rebuffing him. But look carefully at the language and it suggests Hollande does appreciate a renegotiation is on-the-cards at some point, and France would be willing to make some changes, but that'll be behind the scenes until its concluded.

Showmanship will be the order of the day until then.

I will bet anyone around that Germany will not oppose a treaty change that unpicks membership of the ECHR and the EU.

TGOHF said:

CarlottaVance said:

Quite a few tweets that Ann Macintosh has been deselected....

She should have been less crap then. Democracy in action..

That she has faced three previous deselection attempts and only got on with 1 out of 12 association Chairmen rather suggests she should have seen this coming......

rcs1000 said:

I will bet anyone around that Germany will not oppose a treaty change that unpicks membership of the ECHR and the EU.

What do you mean by that?

CarlottaVance said:

TGOHF said:

CarlottaVance said:

Quite a few tweets that Ann Macintosh has been deselected....

She should have been less crap then. Democracy in action..

That she has faced three previous deselection attempts and only got on with 1 out of 12 association Chairmen rather suggests she should have seen this coming......

The fact that she saw off two attempts might have given here some reason to hope! I'm conflicted, I dislike her politics, I found her completely disingenuous over gay marriage but she is the kind of independent, opinionated MP that we all say we like to hear speak their minds.

Not sure whether to put up a pre-season piece about the first test or wait until all testing is done. Bahrain's 19-22 February, so I might put up a piece before then and another after the third test (also Bahrain) which is 27 February-2 March.

john_zims said:

@MikeK

'Only UKIP will give the British people a true referendum on Europe'

Will anyone still be alive?

I am not sure Old Weathercock is seeing straight at the moment.

Give him time for the surgeons to remove his eyepatches.

Neil said:

rcs1000 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Interesting BBC angle on the Cameron/Hollande discussions. If you look at the headline on BBC newsfeed it says, 'Hollande rebuffs UK PM on EU reform'. Now, from quickly skimming that, I got the view that Hollande had basically told Cameron where to go.

However, when you read the detail of the article it says Hollande said, it was 'not a priority for the time being'. He also said he hopes for the UK to become part of a more 'efficient' union. That's hardly an outright rejection.

I suspect both are playing to the gallery. Cameron has to play tough-man to the French. Hollands realises he's got to be seen to be rebuffing him. But look carefully at the language and it suggests Hollande does appreciate a renegotiation is on-the-cards at some point, and France would be willing to make some changes, but that'll be behind the scenes until its concluded.

Showmanship will be the order of the day until then.

I will bet anyone around that Germany will not oppose a treaty change that unpicks membership of the ECHR and the EU.

I'm sure countries can agree on the need for reform, Cameron's problem is that many countries cant countenance a treaty change / referendum. Including those most in favour of reform (like the Dutch).

The next step by Cameron is a commitment by the major EU powers to enter into serious discussions about the future role of the EU, its structure and powers.

That shouldn't be a hard sell.

As for the timetable, there are many beasts of burden willing to carry goalposts.

rcs1000 said:

RichardNabavi said:

rcs1000 said:

I will bet anyone around that Germany will not oppose a treaty change that unpicks membership of the ECHR and the EU.

What do you mean by that?

Current treaties require that members of the EU are also signatories to the EHCR. I believe that Germany will not oppose a treaty change that would allow members of the EU to leave the ECHR. (Or more specifically, membership of the EU would no longer require being a signed up member of the ECHR.)

I'm not sure I understand you correctly: are you saying that Germany would acquiese in any treaty change that allowed the UK to leave or modify aspects of the ECHR from inside the EU, or are you saying Germany would oppose any such changes in all circumstances?

Casino_Royale said:

@malcolmg:
“We will see when the markets are spooked and financial reality sets in , they will be shaking in their boots.”
“Rump UK will be begging for it once they accept they are whipped.”

LOL. It’s the sobriety of your arguments that makes them so compelling. You’ve got some interesting Freudian fantasies going on there with your last statement.

Thank you for your penetrating insight.
By Freudian theory Malcolm has left the Oral Phase and is now encountering the Anal/Sadistic Phase which is typical of three year olds.

yes, I've been busy in the last couple of weeks. Thankfully I am freed myself for Ann McIntosh's afternoon.

I didn't want to check back if you have analyzed the road the candidates live in..or have found a willing house to register themselves in

Neil said:

@Andrea

I am *shocked* ... you are days late with the SOPN!!!!

Casino_Royale said:

rcs1000 said:

RichardNabavi said:

rcs1000 said:

I will bet anyone around that Germany will not oppose a treaty change that unpicks membership of the ECHR and the EU.

What do you mean by that?

Current treaties require that members of the EU are also signatories to the EHCR. I believe that Germany will not oppose a treaty change that would allow members of the EU to leave the ECHR. (Or more specifically, membership of the EU would no longer require being a signed up member of the ECHR.)

I'm not sure I understand you correctly: are you saying that Germany would acquiese in any treaty change that allowed the UK to leave or modify aspects of the ECHR from inside the EU, or are you saying Germany would oppose any such changes in all circumstances?

I'm clearly missing the ambiguity in OGH Junior's writing, as it reads pretty clearly to me. Germany will not oppose, will not stand in the way of, and will not make any fuss that may be construed as getting in the way of said change.

They will be largely indifferent and will let the change pass with not so much as a raised Teutonic brow.

CarlottaVance said:

Prince Charles is a man of faith:

Prince Charles: climate change deniers are 'headless chickens'
Prince Charles, who has campaigned for years to reduce global warming, labels climate change deniers the 'headless chicken brigade'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/prince-charles/10610108/Prince-Charles-climate-change-deniers-are-headless-chickens.html

His advocacy of homeopathy and penchant for conversing with foliage make me doubt his scientific credentials.

Casino_Royale said:

Anorak said:

Casino_Royale said:

rcs1000 said:

RichardNabavi said:

rcs1000 said:

I will bet anyone around that Germany will not oppose a treaty change that unpicks membership of the ECHR and the EU.

What do you mean by that?

Current treaties require that members of the EU are also signatories to the EHCR. I believe that Germany will not oppose a treaty change that would allow members of the EU to leave the ECHR. (Or more specifically, membership of the EU would no longer require being a signed up member of the ECHR.)

I'm not sure I understand you correctly: are you saying that Germany would acquiese in any treaty change that allowed the UK to leave or modify aspects of the ECHR from inside the EU, or are you saying Germany would oppose any such changes in all circumstances?

I'm clearly missing the ambiguity in OGH Junior's writing, as it reads pretty clearly to me. Germany will not oppose, will not stand in the way of, and will not make any fuss that may be construed as getting in the way of said change.

They will be largely indifferent and will let the change pass with not so much as a raised Teutonic brow.

I'm pleased you understand it so clearly, Anorak. Perhaps I'm tired, perhaps I'm not reading it properly. Perhaps I'm not very bright. It just seemed out of character for rcs1000 to say that given past comments made on the EU, and my post, and the statement being made in the negative confused me.

If it is the case that rcs1000 meant that, then I agree with him.

I could be wrong. It's been one of those days, to be honest. Three glasses of wine at lunch have lead to a very, very long afternoon.

[which is a roundabout way of apologising for my tone]

Anorak said:

Casino_Royale said:

Anorak said:

Casino_Royale said:

rcs1000 said:

RichardNabavi said:

rcs1000 said:

I will bet anyone around that Germany will not oppose a treaty change that unpicks membership of the ECHR and the EU.

What do you mean by that?

Current treaties require that members of the EU are also signatories to the EHCR. I believe that Germany will not oppose a treaty change that would allow members of the EU to leave the ECHR. (Or more specifically, membership of the EU would no longer require being a signed up member of the ECHR.)

I'm not sure I understand you correctly: are you saying that Germany would acquiese in any treaty change that allowed the UK to leave or modify aspects of the ECHR from inside the EU, or are you saying Germany would oppose any such changes in all circumstances?

I'm clearly missing the ambiguity in OGH Junior's writing, as it reads pretty clearly to me. Germany will not oppose, will not stand in the way of, and will not make any fuss that may be construed as getting in the way of said change.

They will be largely indifferent and will let the change pass with not so much as a raised Teutonic brow.

I'm pleased you understand it so clearly, Anorak. Perhaps I'm tired, perhaps I'm not reading it properly. Perhaps I'm not very bright. It just seemed out of character for rcs1000 to say that given past comments made on the EU, and my post, and the statement being made in the negative confused me.

If it is the case that rcs1000 meant that, then I agree with him.

I could be wrong. It's been one of those days, to be honest. Three glasses of wine at lunch have lead to a very, very long afternoon.

[which is a roundabout way of apologising for my tone]

Don't worry about it. Just off for a few jars myself. Have a good one.

Little-known fact about Anne McIntosh: she's half-Danish. We were lynchpins of the all-party Danish group, together with the Wintertons. We all fell out when I criticised Mrs Winterton for telling a dodgy joke at a meeting with a Danish company in London. But AM was a competent, mild-mannered MP and I'm sorry she's apparently come to a sticky end.

AndreaParma_82 said:

Wythenshawe and Sale East SoPN
Address given by candidates

UKIP: Eddisbury constituency
OMRLP: Wythenshawe and Sale East
Con: Stretford and Urmston
LD: Wythenshawe and Sale East
Lab: Wythenshawe and Sale East
BNP: Salford and Eccles
Green: Stretford and Urmston

Not sure it matters to many voters. My address on the ballot paper in 1997 was a thousand miles away, in Switzerland. We were a bit nervous about it but nobody commented. As soon as i moved to the constituency, my support started to decline. There's a lesson in there somerwhere.

JosiasJessop said:

Off-topic:

If you've got any objections to the HS2 phase two route, then you have fourteen minutes in which to submit your objections. In other words, you've probably left it a little late ...

Has anyone here submitted anything?

http://www.ipsos-mori.com/HS2PhaseTwoconsultation

Absolutely. This doesn't ask for an opinion on the project as a whole but comments on the route, so I raised a string of queries that constituents requested.