politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » For the first week in a very long time three different poll
Comments
-
Oh I agree. It shamed him and shamed the country.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. L, in foreign policy liberal interventionism is not only not copied by anyone, it's actively been run away from. Even in Syria after the use of chemical weapons no action was taken. That was partly due to MIliband playing politics over military action (both sides actually wanted us to do something and danced on the head of a pin over specifics), but it's undoubtedly true that in politics and the country the mood is more against general military intervention than it has been for a long time.
Turns out a prime minister lying to the Commons ahead of a vote on war didn't go down very well.
Curiuosly the former head of the General Staff was on Desert Island Discs this morning. He advised against involvement in both Libya and Syria. His reasons for doing so were that it would do positive harm to involve ourselves unless we were willing to do so decisively. I think this is sound but it undoubtedly reflects the Blair legacy.
In my opinion the latter period in Iraq where the British army had to hide itself away in Basra and let psychopathic lunatics take over Basra was even more shameful than the misrepresentations that got us involved in the invasion in the first place. The task they were given by our politicians, especially Blair, was far too great for the resources at their disposal. It is an embarrassing episode in British military history. Our soldiers are outstanding men and women and should not be treated like that.
0 -
Depends, I suspect when it happens. If he’s old, and “full of years” then there’ll be a different attitude from what it would be (and, if only for the sake of his family, I hope it doesn’t) if he died suddenly now.Charles said:
I'd imagine that the right, and most on the left, will pay their respects and move on. A few - most likely on the left fringes - will celebrate. Which says something about them as individuals, and perhaps the attitude of their fellow travellers, but very little about any mainstream parties or political beliefsSouthamObserver said:
I agree. But let's see what happens when Tony Blair pops his clogs.Blue_rog said:
Slightly better to mourn his passing rather than throw parties on the passing of a right wing 'firebrand' who was electable.SouthamObserver said:Tories mourn the passing of firebrand, no compromise left wingers because they know they are unelectable!
Although of course there were some very unpleasant comments about Mrs Thatcher, and I suspect there will be over Blair and Iraq.0 -
Rallings and Thrasher use local election results to predict general elections.JosiasJessop said:
Local by-elections are a far cry from general elections.MikeK said:Robert Kimbell @RedHotSquirrel 20m
#UKIP votes:
28.2% Chertsey Meads, Runnymede
26.8% Crewe W
23.0% Heanor W, Amber Valley
18.1% Barham Downs, Canterbury
13.3% Farley, Luton
Equalls an average of 21.96% over five districts. a far cry from Ipsos-Mori and co
"Analysis by Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher for The Sunday Times shows how strong UKIP has become. The professors at Plymouth University Elections Centre have recalibrated their celebrated analysis of more than 100,000 votes cast in council by-elections and now put UKIP in third place in their latest national forecast: Labour 34%, Tories 28%, UKIP 17%, Lib Dems 13%.
Since last year’s council elections, UKIP has taken 10 seats from the Conservatives and two each from Labour and the Lib Dems. In places where it stands, UKIP takes an average 22% of the vote compared with 15% for the Lib Dems."
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/comment/columns/adamboulton/article1370209.ece0 -
If UKIP got 17%, would they be likely to pick up seats?0
-
I stand by my comment.anotherDave said:
Rallings and Thrasher use local election results to predict general elections.JosiasJessop said:
Local by-elections are a far cry from general elections.MikeK said:Robert Kimbell @RedHotSquirrel 20m
#UKIP votes:
28.2% Chertsey Meads, Runnymede
26.8% Crewe W
23.0% Heanor W, Amber Valley
18.1% Barham Downs, Canterbury
13.3% Farley, Luton
Equalls an average of 21.96% over five districts. a far cry from Ipsos-Mori and co
"Analysis by Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher for The Sunday Times shows how strong UKIP has become. The professors at Plymouth University Elections Centre have recalibrated their celebrated analysis of more than 100,000 votes cast in council by-elections and now put UKIP in third place in their latest national forecast: Labour 34%, Tories 28%, UKIP 17%, Lib Dems 13%.
Since last year’s council elections, UKIP has taken 10 seats from the Conservatives and two each from Labour and the Lib Dems. In places where it stands, UKIP takes an average 22% of the vote compared with 15% for the Lib Dems."
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/comment/columns/adamboulton/article1370209.ece0 -
Electoral Calculus gives Lab 353, Cons 232, LD 37 and UKIP 0 on those figures. UNS, of course, and we all know that’s not wholly reliable. My money goes with Jack W’s ARSE!anotherDave said:
Rallings and Thrasher use local election results to predict general elections.JosiasJessop said:
Local by-elections are a far cry from general elections.MikeK said:Robert Kimbell @RedHotSquirrel 20m
#UKIP votes:
28.2% Chertsey Meads, Runnymede
26.8% Crewe W
23.0% Heanor W, Amber Valley
18.1% Barham Downs, Canterbury
13.3% Farley, Luton
Equalls an average of 21.96% over five districts. a far cry from Ipsos-Mori and co
"Analysis by Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher for The Sunday Times shows how strong UKIP has become. The professors at Plymouth University Elections Centre have recalibrated their celebrated analysis of more than 100,000 votes cast in council by-elections and now put UKIP in third place in their latest national forecast: Labour 34%, Tories 28%, UKIP 17%, Lib Dems 13%.
Since last year’s council elections, UKIP has taken 10 seats from the Conservatives and two each from Labour and the Lib Dems. In places where it stands, UKIP takes an average 22% of the vote compared with 15% for the Lib Dems."
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/comment/columns/adamboulton/article1370209.ece
0 -
Blimey, obviously an outlier, but sleazy broken Labour on the slide
Populus @PopulusPolls 5m
New Populus VI: Lab 35 (-3); Cons 34 (=); LD 10 (+1); UKIP 13 (+1); Oth 8 (+1) Tables:http://popu.lu/s_vi1403140 -
I prefer to think the good people of Kent will march on London, surround Whitehall, and then throw anyone they find within into a lake of boiling tar.Morris_Dancer said:If UKIP got 17%, would they be likely to pick up seats?
0 -
Probably a couple or so. Clearly the 17% wouldn't be completely evenly spread and perhaps Farage and another notable might spike but as @Sean_Fear noted on last night results Ukip polled higher than the LibDems but failed to gain a seat whereas the yellow peril gained two from the Tories.Morris_Dancer said:If UKIP got 17%, would they be likely to pick up seats?
It's likely that on 17% Ukip would pile up dozens of second places and miss the main prize almost every time much like the Alliance in 1983 who outwith their incumbents and a few historical targets failed to gain a seat on over 25% of the vote.
0 -
Time to print out the 'UKIP - Not winning here' posters.JackW said:Morris_Dancer said:If UKIP got 17%, would they be likely to pick up seats?
Probably a couple or so. Clearly the 17% wouldn't be completely evenly spread and perhaps Farage and another notable might spike but as @Sean_Fear noted on last night results Ukip polled higher than the LibDems but failed to gain a seat whereas the yellow peril gained two from the Tories.
It's likely that on 17% Ukip would pile up dozens of second places and miss the main prize almost every time much like the Alliance in 1983 who outwith their incumbents and a few historical targets failed to gain a seat on over 25% of the vote.0 -
Bloody squirrels.TheScreamingEagles said:Blimey, obviously an outlier, but sleazy broken Labour on the slide
Populus @PopulusPolls 5m
New Populus VI: Lab 35 (-3); Cons 34 (=); LD 10 (+1); UKIP 13 (+1); Oth 8 (+1) Tables:http://popu.lu/s_vi1403140 -
Why obviously an outlier? Seems to be within (if on the edge) of MOE from the 4% or so lead that we are generally seeing.TheScreamingEagles said:Blimey, obviously an outlier, but sleazy broken Labour on the slide
Populus @PopulusPolls 5m
New Populus VI: Lab 35 (-3); Cons 34 (=); LD 10 (+1); UKIP 13 (+1); Oth 8 (+1) Tables:http://popu.lu/s_vi140314
More interesting to me is that it's another poll showing Labout at or around 35%, which presumably must be creating some angst for Ed and his merrie men.0 -
Ed on the TV a lot and his referendum pledge and Labour falls 3% with populus.
We saw the same with YouGov earlier on in the week.
Just saying, a general election campaign with Ed front and centre........0 -
Maybe Labour should go back to not having policies. It really doesn't seem to do them any good. All things to all men and women. That's the way to go.0
-
In his piece on Mr Benn, Daniel Hannan wrote:TheWatcher said:
Time to print out the 'UKIP - Not winning here' posters.JackW said:Morris_Dancer said:If UKIP got 17%, would they be likely to pick up seats?
Probably a couple or so. Clearly the 17% wouldn't be completely evenly spread and perhaps Farage and another notable might spike but as @Sean_Fear noted on last night results Ukip polled higher than the LibDems but failed to gain a seat whereas the yellow peril gained two from the Tories.
It's likely that on 17% Ukip would pile up dozens of second places and miss the main prize almost every time much like the Alliance in 1983 who outwith their incumbents and a few historical targets failed to gain a seat on over 25% of the vote.
"It was as a 21-year-old, listening to one of Benn's orations in Trafalgar Square, that I started to ponder how much can be achieved in politics by a man with no prospect of office."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100263643/tony-benn-was-a-titan-how-small-his-successors-seem-by-comparison/
UKIP don't need to form a government to achieve their policy goals.
0 -
Somewhat O/T - but is there somewhere central which details all the upcoming council by-elections when announced, rather than at the point of about to vote / having voted? (ie in sufficient time to stand a candidate if wanted?)0
-
The big news of the week was England winning a match with Jade Dernbach in the team.DavidL said:Maybe Labour should go back to not having policies. It really doesn't seem to do them any good. All things to all men and women. That's the way to go.
If only Sammy hadn't connected with that last ball, it was going for 4 wides.0 -
Much as it seems inappropriate for a Scot to comment on removing goalposts from the ground (after the Tartan Army Wembley invasion of yore) might one suggest that Messr Compouter & Co refer the issue to a competent authority for an likely early resolution ?!?
Squirrels ....0 -
Blessing in disguise for me... If he does just enough to stay in the England squad then there will be less opportunities for him to lose Surrey matches.TheScreamingEagles said:
The big news of the week was England winning a match with Jade Dernbach in the team.DavidL said:Maybe Labour should go back to not having policies. It really doesn't seem to do them any good. All things to all men and women. That's the way to go.
If only Sammy hadn't connected with that last ball, it was going for 4 wides.0 -
Farage is no Benn.anotherDave said:
In his piece on Mr Benn, Daniel Hannan wrote:TheWatcher said:
Time to print out the 'UKIP - Not winning here' posters.JackW said:Morris_Dancer said:If UKIP got 17%, would they be likely to pick up seats?
Probably a couple or so. Clearly the 17% wouldn't be completely evenly spread and perhaps Farage and another notable might spike but as @Sean_Fear noted on last night results Ukip polled higher than the LibDems but failed to gain a seat whereas the yellow peril gained two from the Tories.
It's likely that on 17% Ukip would pile up dozens of second places and miss the main prize almost every time much like the Alliance in 1983 who outwith their incumbents and a few historical targets failed to gain a seat on over 25% of the vote.
"It was as a 21-year-old, listening to one of Benn's orations in Trafalgar Square, that I started to ponder how much can be achieved in politics by a man with no prospect of office."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100263643/tony-benn-was-a-titan-how-small-his-successors-seem-by-comparison/
UKIP don't need to form a government to achieve their policy goals.
Incidentally, reading this weeks news articles on the former's 'Friends and Family' payroll antics, it's becoming increasingly difficult to differentiate him from the average Westminster time servers and troughers. What was his USP again?
0 -
Would England and Labour be better off if Ed Miliband and Jade Dernbach swapped jobs.
Discuss.0 -
In fairness Jade did try hard to keep his record. 7 needed off 1 ball and he bowls a wide. That takes a special kind of dedication. As you say he was having another go when Sammy helped him out.TheScreamingEagles said:
The big news of the week was England winning a match with Jade Dernbach in the team.DavidL said:Maybe Labour should go back to not having policies. It really doesn't seem to do them any good. All things to all men and women. That's the way to go.
If only Sammy hadn't connected with that last ball, it was going for 4 wides.
Jordan looks a prospect though.
0 -
Some questions:anotherDave said:
In his piece on Mr Benn, Daniel Hannan wrote:TheWatcher said:
Time to print out the 'UKIP - Not winning here' posters.JackW said:Morris_Dancer said:If UKIP got 17%, would they be likely to pick up seats?
Probably a couple or so. Clearly the 17% wouldn't be completely evenly spread and perhaps Farage and another notable might spike but as @Sean_Fear noted on last night results Ukip polled higher than the LibDems but failed to gain a seat whereas the yellow peril gained two from the Tories.
It's likely that on 17% Ukip would pile up dozens of second places and miss the main prize almost every time much like the Alliance in 1983 who outwith their incumbents and a few historical targets failed to gain a seat on over 25% of the vote.
"It was as a 21-year-old, listening to one of Benn's orations in Trafalgar Square, that I started to ponder how much can be achieved in politics by a man with no prospect of office."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100263643/tony-benn-was-a-titan-how-small-his-successors-seem-by-comparison/
UKIP don't need to form a government to achieve their policy goals.
1) Aside from getting out of the EU, what are their policy goals? It's so hard to tell after the 2010 manifesto.
2) They are not going to form a government, and there's a good chance that they will permit the creation of a government that is totally antithetical to getting out of the EU.0 -
As they both tend to the bloody useless I'm unsure how we'd tell the difference ?!?TheScreamingEagles said:Would England and Labour be better off if Ed Miliband and Jade Dernbach swapped jobs.
Discuss.
0 -
I've been away for three days to find that two giants of the left have sadly departed this planet.
Not how I prefer to win the argument.0 -
I predict a new verb will enter the political vocabulary as we head towards the general election. To Wales.
Dougie Alexander was about to get all holy on the NHS on QT after being set up by the nurses pay question last night, but suddenly he was comprehensively Walesed by his tory counterpart.
The mention of the Wales NHS reduced him to gobsmacked silence and a mere shake of the head with a 'you don't understand' look on his face. Other labour plants in the audience were reduced to the same.
Labour are only just waking up to the fact their catastrophic record in the principality is going to be political kryptonite for them, on their own turf.0 -
Edpocalypse Now. The tide has turned. Crossover nailed on if we get a non-shambolic budget, and ed's reply is as weak as we can confidently expect it to be.TheScreamingEagles said:Blimey, obviously an outlier, but sleazy broken Labour on the slide
Populus @PopulusPolls 5m
New Populus VI: Lab 35 (-3); Cons 34 (=); LD 10 (+1); UKIP 13 (+1); Oth 8 (+1) Tables:http://popu.lu/s_vi140314
0 -
I was watching the match on my iPad on the train journey home.DavidL said:
In fairness Jade did try hard to keep his record. 7 needed off 1 ball and he bowls a wide. That takes a special kind of dedication. As you say he was having another go when Sammy helped him out.TheScreamingEagles said:
The big news of the week was England winning a match with Jade Dernbach in the team.DavidL said:Maybe Labour should go back to not having policies. It really doesn't seem to do them any good. All things to all men and women. That's the way to go.
If only Sammy hadn't connected with that last ball, it was going for 4 wides.
Jordan looks a prospect though.
The signal ranges from 4g to no signal at all on the route.
I lost signal when we were 90 without loss after 8 and then saw the last 3 and a bit overs.
I couldn't work out how that happened.
Jordan does look like a prospect, I've been impressed by Moeen Ali.
Although what's happened to Ben Stokes?0 -
According to Owen Jones:TheWatcher said:
Farage is no Benn.anotherDave said:
In his piece on Mr Benn, Daniel Hannan wrote:TheWatcher said:
Time to print out the 'UKIP - Not winning here' posters.JackW said:Morris_Dancer said:If UKIP got 17%, would they be likely to pick up seats?
Probably a couple or so. Clearly the 17% wouldn't be completely evenly spread and perhaps Farage and another notable might spike but as @Sean_Fear noted on last night results Ukip polled higher than the LibDems but failed to gain a seat whereas the yellow peril gained two from the Tories.
It's likely that on 17% Ukip would pile up dozens of second places and miss the main prize almost every time much like the Alliance in 1983 who outwith their incumbents and a few historical targets failed to gain a seat on over 25% of the vote.
"It was as a 21-year-old, listening to one of Benn's orations in Trafalgar Square, that I started to ponder how much can be achieved in politics by a man with no prospect of office."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100263643/tony-benn-was-a-titan-how-small-his-successors-seem-by-comparison/
UKIP don't need to form a government to achieve their policy goals.
Incidentally, reading this weeks news articles on the former's 'Friends and Family' payroll antics, it's becoming increasingly difficult to differentiate him from the average Westminster time servers and troughers. What was his USP again?
"Farage's conscious deviation from the script of how a professional politician is supposed to speak and behave endears him to voters bored of on-message Westminster clones."
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/13/operation-get-nigel-farage-lowest-politics-ukip-smear
I think UKIP's USP is simply that they offer different policies to the three main parties, who appear differentiate themselves by rhetoric only.
0 -
Dernbach playing for Jordan .... sounds about right but what middle east cricket has done that deserves such humiliation I'm not quite sure ?!?DavidL said:
In fairness Jade did try hard to keep his record. 7 needed off 1 ball and he bowls a wide. That takes a special kind of dedication. As you say he was having another go when Sammy helped him out.TheScreamingEagles said:
The big news of the week was England winning a match with Jade Dernbach in the team.DavidL said:Maybe Labour should go back to not having policies. It really doesn't seem to do them any good. All things to all men and women. That's the way to go.
If only Sammy hadn't connected with that last ball, it was going for 4 wides.
Jordan looks a prospect though.
On the other hand the cricket correspondent of the "Sun" has oft said on page 3 that "Jordan looks a prospect though." - 2 wides there !!
0 -
Ed would be equally unable to resist using his ineffective slower Balls.TheScreamingEagles said:Would England and Labour be better off if Ed Miliband and Jade Dernbach swapped jobs.
Discuss.0 -
Crossover nailed on if we get a non-shambolic budget
I'm concerned this budget will look like it is by liberal democrats for liberal democrats. Osborne and Cameron are desperate not to be seen as the party of the rich. The tail is wagging the dog.0 -
"I did not enter the Labour Party 47 years ago to have our manifesto written by Dr Mori, Dr Gallup and Mr Harris" (via the New Statesman)0
-
As I understand it the Conservatives, Labour, and the LDs have identical positions on an EU referendum. If there is a treaty change "that transfers power from the UK to the EU" there will be a referendum.JosiasJessop said:
2) They are not going to form a government, and there's a good chance that they will permit the creation of a government that is totally antithetical to getting out of the EU.
They all offered a referendum on the last treaty change too.0 -
Powerful dispatch from Richard Spencer from Syria in the torygraph.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10695217/Syria-anniversary-the-psychopaths-are-unstoppable.html0 -
The Ludlow result is probably not that significant from the LibDem point of view. The Lib Dems gained a seat from the Tories last year in Ludlow South defeating a Shropshire cabinet member. This by-election was caused by the resignation of his wife - they have both moved out of the area now. There were strong feelings about the couple. Some members of the local Tory party disliked them intensely, and openly said they were not disappointed by last year's lost. The Lib Dems were the beneficiaries campaigning solely on local issues. Labour did not put up any serious campaign. Their candidate was not local and had no connection with Ludlow. Their only leaflet was delivered over a week after postal voting forms had gone out in an area with a high proportion of postal votes.0
-
Not necessarily. If they targeted properly they could win a seat on 10% or less. But if they dont then they risk what happened last year when they polled 20%+ but only "won" a handful of seats (on 17% they might well have won none).Morris_Dancer said:If UKIP got 17%, would they be likely to pick up seats?
0 -
Dont join the haters, JackW!JackW said:
As they both tend to the bloody useless I'm unsure how we'd tell the difference ?!?TheScreamingEagles said:Would England and Labour be better off if Ed Miliband and Jade Dernbach swapped jobs.
Discuss.
Jade has lovely hair. And single handedly beat the West Indies yesterday.0 -
I’ve long been of the opinion that Dernbach must have some sort of “hold” over someone influential at Lords. Either that or there’s some sort of psychic power in those tattoos.JackW said:
Dernbach playing for Jordan .... sounds about right but what middle east cricket has done that deserves such humiliation I'm not quite sure ?!?DavidL said:
In fairness Jade did try hard to keep his record. 7 needed off 1 ball and he bowls a wide. That takes a special kind of dedication. As you say he was having another go when Sammy helped him out.TheScreamingEagles said:
The big news of the week was England winning a match with Jade Dernbach in the team.DavidL said:Maybe Labour should go back to not having policies. It really doesn't seem to do them any good. All things to all men and women. That's the way to go.
If only Sammy hadn't connected with that last ball, it was going for 4 wides.
Jordan looks a prospect though.
On the other hand the cricket correspondent of the "Sun" has oft said on page 3 that "Jordan looks a prospect though." - 2 wides there !!
If the latter, it obviously doesn’t usually affect the batsman at the other end!0 -
Quite so.BobaFett said:@ishmael
Last time we had over-analysis of a good poll for the Tories, the next thing that happened was that the Labour lead went up.
See yesterday's thread for more details.
But it's more than one poll, and it's explicable on the basis that the recovery is beginning to be felt by voters. Let's see where we are after the budget.
0 -
RE: Populus Poll and Certainty to Vote
The GB turnout at the 2010 GE was 65.3%
If we take from Populus the 100% Definite to Vote plus the 90% Certain to Vote, these total 64% of the electorate polled.
For the same Certainties given for the VI for each political party:
Cons are 87% certain to vote
Labour are 78% certain.
LDs are 71% certain and
UKIP are 88% certain.
Strikingly for this poll Males are 74% certain and Females are 54% certain.(sampling problem?)
As we know certainty to vote increases with age. So for this poll and the same degrees of certainty to vote::
18-24: 36%
25-34: 43%
35-44: 63%
45-54: 70%
55-64: 76%
65+: 84%
:0 -
Also the Independent candidate was an ex-Tory councillor, ex Mayor, who took votes primarily from the Tory candidate.0
-
UKIP are still discovering where their support lies. They don't have much in the way of historical canvassing data.JackW said:
Probably a couple or so. Clearly the 17% wouldn't be completely evenly spread and perhaps Farage and another notable might spike but as @Sean_Fear noted on last night results Ukip polled higher than the LibDems but failed to gain a seat whereas the yellow peril gained two from the Tories.Morris_Dancer said:If UKIP got 17%, would they be likely to pick up seats?
It's likely that on 17% Ukip would pile up dozens of second places and miss the main prize almost every time much like the Alliance in 1983 who outwith their incumbents and a few historical targets failed to gain a seat on over 25% of the vote.
0 -
My Cheltenham bets for today
13.30 - Royal Irish Hussar
14:05 - Lac Fontana
14:40 - Apache Jack
15:20 - The Giant Bolster
16:00 - That's Rhythm
16:40 - SkyFarmer and Thomas Crapper
17:15 - Tanks for that0 -
And Ed's been more visible in the media.Ishmael_X said:
Quite so.BobaFett said:@ishmael
Last time we had over-analysis of a good poll for the Tories, the next thing that happened was that the Labour lead went up.
See yesterday's thread for more details.
But it's more than one poll, and it's explicable on the basis that the recovery is beginning to be felt by voters.
0 -
"As I understand it the Conservatives, Labour, and the LDs have identical positions on an EU referendum. "anotherDave said:
As I understand it the Conservatives, Labour, and the LDs have identical positions on an EU referendum. If there is a treaty change "that transfers power from the UK to the EU" there will be a referendum.JosiasJessop said:
2) They are not going to form a government, and there's a good chance that they will permit the creation of a government that is totally antithetical to getting out of the EU.
They all offered a referendum on the last treaty change too.
I think you may be wrong.
The Conservative position seems to be that they will use the Parliament Act to force through James Wharton's backbench bill (2) for there to be a referendum in 2017. Cameron seems to back this. Hence, if the Conservatives win, it looks distinctly possible that there would be a referendum (although what the question would be is another, well, question). (1)
Labour's recently stated position is that Labour will not hold a referendum unless there was a further transfer of powers.
The Lib Dems are thoroughly pro-Europe - and fair enough. But their stated position is remarkably similar to Labour's new position. however I doubt that the Lib Dems will actually do this if they are in coalition, or make the question and process favour a 'stay -in' vote. (3)
"They all offered a referendum on the last treaty change too."
Which, as argued on here passim, they could not offer because Brown traitorously slunk in through the back doors to sign the treaty. Having a referendum on a treaty that had already been signed would have been a massively costly farce. And would have lost, IMHO. Others respectfully differ. :-)
(1): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25977258
(2): http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2013-2014/0063/lbill_2013-20140063_en_2.htm#l1g1
(3): http://www.libdemvoice.org/miliband-on-inout-europe-referendum-i-agree-with-nick-38548.html0 -
For Morris Dancer, my sporting bets for the weekend,
Hull to beat Manchester City 11/2
http://www.oddschecker.com/football/english/premier-league/hull-v-man-city/winner
France to win the Six Nations at 33/1
http://www.oddschecker.com/rugby-union/six-nations/winner0 -
You are right that the Budget is the biggie.
It would be interesting to see what folk on here think would constitute a 'good' and 'bad' budget for Ozzie0 -
You can't use what politicians appear to try to do when they know it won't actually succeed to predict what they'd do if it was actually going to succeed.JosiasJessop said:The Conservative position seems to be that they will use the Parliament Act to force through James Wharton's backbench bill (2) for there to be a referendum in 2017. Cameron seems to back this. Hence, if the Conservatives win, it looks distinctly possible that there would be a referendum (although what the question would be is another, well, question). (1)
The common thread here is that every party always supports a referendum if they're not in a position to deliver it, and never supports a referendum if they are in a position to deliver it. This principle would have accurately predicted pretty much all the many and varied positions the various leaders have taken on this in every parliament for the last couple of decades.0 -
You not betting against Spurs? That's a gimme surely?TheScreamingEagles said:For Morris Dancer, my sporting bets for the weekend,
Hull to beat Manchester City 11/2
http://www.oddschecker.com/football/english/premier-league/hull-v-man-city/winner
France to win the Six Nations at 33/1
http://www.oddschecker.com/rugby-union/six-nations/winner
0 -
Yesterday was a wipe out for "STJOHN". Last rolls of the dice today.
Day 4
1.30 Plinth each way at 16/1
2.05 Minella Foru each way at 12/1; Flaxen Flare each way at 20/1
2.40 Kings Palace win at 7/2 (NAP)
3.20 The Giant Bolster each way at 16/1
4.00 Pearlysteps each way at 12/1 4 places (Betfair Sportsbook)
4.40 Full Shift win at 6/1
5.15 Ned Buntline win at 9/1
I've backed 4 of JP's.
Good luck everyone.0 -
I may do, depends on the teams. I can see Adebayor scoring first.Lennon said:
You not betting against Spurs? That's a gimme surely?TheScreamingEagles said:For Morris Dancer, my sporting bets for the weekend,
Hull to beat Manchester City 11/2
http://www.oddschecker.com/football/english/premier-league/hull-v-man-city/winner
France to win the Six Nations at 33/1
http://www.oddschecker.com/rugby-union/six-nations/winner
Fortunately I'm at Old Trafford on Sunday Afternoon to see Liverpool take on Manchester United. Unfortunately I'm going to in the Stretford End with squillions of Mancs Manchester United fans.
I may not make it back in one piece.0 -
You think that Wharton's Bill won't become law through the use of the parliament act?edmundintokyo said:
You can't use what politicians appear to try to do when they know it won't actually succeed to predict what they'd do if it was actually going to succeed.JosiasJessop said:The Conservative position seems to be that they will use the Parliament Act to force through James Wharton's backbench bill (2) for there to be a referendum in 2017. Cameron seems to back this. Hence, if the Conservatives win, it looks distinctly possible that there would be a referendum (although what the question would be is another, well, question). (1)
The common thread here is that every party always supports a referendum if they're not in a position to deliver it, and never supports a referendum if they are in a position to deliver it. This principle would have accurately predicted pretty much every parties' positions on this in every parliament for the last couple of decades.
Oh, and referendums do occur, so obviously 'never supports a referendum if they are in a position to deliver it.' is wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_in_the_United_Kingdom0 -
"It would be interesting to see what folk on here think would constitute a 'good' and 'bad' budget for Ozzie"
Bad -> If he tries more of the Brown-esque sleight of hand and gets caught out again....0 -
Suspect that with the polls tightening, the budget will be spectacularly dull.
Not a course of actio I agree with but what will happen...0 -
Spot on. The nightmare scenario for Cameron would be one in which he actually had to deliver on his promise.edmundintokyo said:
You can't use what politicians appear to try to do when they know it won't actually succeed to predict what they'd do if it was actually going to succeed.JosiasJessop said:The Conservative position seems to be that they will use the Parliament Act to force through James Wharton's backbench bill (2) for there to be a referendum in 2017. Cameron seems to back this. Hence, if the Conservatives win, it looks distinctly possible that there would be a referendum (although what the question would be is another, well, question). (1)
The common thread here is that every party always supports a referendum if they're not in a position to deliver it, and never supports a referendum if they are in a position to deliver it. This principle would have accurately predicted pretty much all the many and varied positions the various leaders have taken on this in every parliament for the last couple of decades.
A continued hung Parliament after 2015 would be the ideal for him. He could put forward the Referendum Bill, only to see it voted down.
0 -
No, there was another piece recently on the 'Conservatives woman problem', that pointed out there was very little difference on the various parties male:female ratio, and that this was caused by the high Don't Know numbers among women.Financier said:
Strikingly for this poll Males are 74% certain and Females are 54% certain.(sampling problem?)
0 -
Re the budget, the past budgets of 2007 and 2012 were praised on the day by the media.
But within a few short weeks and months they were being panned as the worst budgets since JackW was in short trousers and caused long term damage.
Who can forget the day Labour MPs cheered the budget that abolished the 10p budget?
0 -
It is not for the government to decide whether a Bill is passed under the provisions of the Parliaments Acts 1911 and 1949. For the European Union (Referendum) Bill to be enacted, it must be passed by the Commons in two successive sessions, and sent to the Lords at least one month before the end of each Session, and at least a year must have elapsed between the first occasion that the Bill was read a second time in the Commons. In short, for the Bill to become law, (1) a Conservative MP must win the Private Members' Bill Ballot for the 2014-2015 Session. (2) The Commons must then pass the European Union (Referendum) Bill in the same form as it was passed in the 2013-2014 session. (3) That Bill must be sent to the Lords by 14 March 2015 at the latest. (4) If (1)-(3) occur, after 5 July 2014, and unless the House of Commons directs to the contrary, the Speaker may issue his certificate under section 2(2) of the Parliament Act 1911, and the Bill may be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.JosiasJessop said:I think you may be wrong.
The Conservative position seems to be that they will use the Parliament Act to force through James Wharton's backbench bill (2) for there to be a referendum in 2017. Cameron seems to back this. Hence, if the Conservatives win, it looks distinctly possible that there would be a referendum (although what the question would be is another, well, question).
The more interesting question, in my view, is what will happen if the Bill is enacted and the Conservatives are thrown out by the electorate on 7 May 2015.0 -
No, I don't think Wharton's Bill will become law through the use of the Parliament Act or otherwise. Cameron may end up getting forced into some kind of referendum in the event that he's unlucky enough to get a majority, but he definitely doesn't think what he says is going to happen is going to happen, so who knows what he really plans to do.JosiasJessop said:
You think that Wharton's Bill won't become law through the use of the parliament act?edmundintokyo said:
You can't use what politicians appear to try to do when they know it won't actually succeed to predict what they'd do if it was actually going to succeed.JosiasJessop said:The Conservative position seems to be that they will use the Parliament Act to force through James Wharton's backbench bill (2) for there to be a referendum in 2017. Cameron seems to back this. Hence, if the Conservatives win, it looks distinctly possible that there would be a referendum (although what the question would be is another, well, question). (1)
The common thread here is that every party always supports a referendum if they're not in a position to deliver it, and never supports a referendum if they are in a position to deliver it. This principle would have accurately predicted pretty much every parties' positions on this in every parliament for the last couple of decades.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_in_the_United_Kingdom
I'm talking about EU referendums not referendums in general. Governments do call referendums on things that they want to do but that are hard to ram through without one, but they do their best to avoid calling referendums on things they that they don't want to happen. This is understandable because they've gone to a lot of trouble to get elected so that _they_ can decide what happens instead of somebody else, and if, like the Tory leadership on the EU, they've already got what they want (membership of the EU), they won't be keen to roll the dice and see if that gets replaced by something they don't want.JosiasJessop said:
Oh, and referendums do occur, so obviously 'never supports a referendum if they are in a position to deliver it.' is wrong.0 -
I can definitely see where you are coming from but in the event that he does get a majority and has to make a decision dont you think he's far more likely to go for a referendum than allow his parliamentary party to string him up from the nearest lamppost?Sean_F said:The nightmare scenario for Cameron would be one in which he actually had to deliver on his promise.
A continued hung Parliament after 2015 would be the ideal for him. He could put forward the Referendum Bill, only to see it voted down.0 -
In that situation some kind of referendum would be more likely than not, but on the principle that politicians don't like to call referendums on things that they don't want to happen, he'd be more likely to go for a "mandate referendum" so the voters can show those recalcitrant Europeans who refuse to negotiate properly how angry they are.Neil said:
I can definitely see where you are coming from but in the event that he does get a majority and has to make a decision dont you think he's far more likely to go for a referendum than allow his parliamentary party to string him up from the nearest lamppost?Sean_F said:The nightmare scenario for Cameron would be one in which he actually had to deliver on his promise.
A continued hung Parliament after 2015 would be the ideal for him. He could put forward the Referendum Bill, only to see it voted down.
I think he could get away with that - a Cameron who had won an unhoped-for majority would be a much stronger figure than the current Cameron, and the same calculus would apply to the in-but-grumpy parliamentary Tory majority that applies now: A referendum is lose-lose - either they leave the EU, which they don't want, or they get a positive vote in favour, which undermines their grumpy stance.0 -
Ludlow North and it's predecessor seat Ludlow St Laurence's was the one safe Conservative seat in Ludlow even when the Lib Dems won the parliamentary seat .TrotterPG said:The Ludlow result is probably not that significant from the LibDem point of view. The Lib Dems gained a seat from the Tories last year in Ludlow South defeating a Shropshire cabinet member. This by-election was caused by the resignation of his wife - they have both moved out of the area now. There were strong feelings about the couple. Some members of the local Tory party disliked them intensely, and openly said they were not disappointed by last year's lost. The Lib Dems were the beneficiaries campaigning solely on local issues. Labour did not put up any serious campaign. Their candidate was not local and had no connection with Ludlow. Their only leaflet was delivered over a week after postal voting forms had gone out in an area with a high proportion of postal votes.
0 -
As ever, thanks.Life_ina_market_town said:
It is not for the government to decide whether a Bill is passed under the provisions of the Parliaments Acts 1911 and 1949. For the European Union (Referendum) Bill to be enacted, it must be passed by the Commons in two successive sessions, and sent to the Lords at least one month before the end of each Session, and at least a year must have elapsed between the first occasion that the Bill was read a second time in the Commons. In short, for the Bill to become law, (1) a Conservative MP must win the Private Members' Bill Ballot for the 2014-2015 Session. (2) The Commons must then pass the European Union (Referendum) Bill in the same form as it was passed in the 2013-2014 session. (3) That Bill must be sent to the Lords by 14 March 2015 at the latest. (4) If (1)-(3) occur, after 5 July 2014, and unless the House of Commons directs to the contrary, the Speaker may issue his certificate under section 2(2) of the Parliament Act 1911, and the Bill may be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.JosiasJessop said:I think you may be wrong.
The Conservative position seems to be that they will use the Parliament Act to force through James Wharton's backbench bill (2) for there to be a referendum in 2017. Cameron seems to back this. Hence, if the Conservatives win, it looks distinctly possible that there would be a referendum (although what the question would be is another, well, question).
The more interesting question, in my view, is what will happen if the Bill is enacted and the Conservatives are thrown out by the electorate on 7 May 2015.0 -
The other point to be realised about the European Union (Referendum) Bill is that its drafting is seriously deficient. It is a useful statement of intent, and will remain a statement of intent, even on the statute book. The result is that the next Parliament will have to return to the issue if the Bill is passed.0
-
I really dont think he could.edmundintokyo said:
I think he could get away with that0 -
That would be a dealbreaker for the coalition. To get a new coalition approved by his backbenchers it would need to be a red line. But perhaps no official government position / freedom for LibDems to vote and campaign against will be sufficientSean_F said:
Spot on. The nightmare scenario for Cameron would be one in which he actually had to deliver on his promise.edmundintokyo said:
You can't use what politicians appear to try to do when they know it won't actually succeed to predict what they'd do if it was actually going to succeed.JosiasJessop said:The Conservative position seems to be that they will use the Parliament Act to force through James Wharton's backbench bill (2) for there to be a referendum in 2017. Cameron seems to back this. Hence, if the Conservatives win, it looks distinctly possible that there would be a referendum (although what the question would be is another, well, question). (1)
The common thread here is that every party always supports a referendum if they're not in a position to deliver it, and never supports a referendum if they are in a position to deliver it. This principle would have accurately predicted pretty much all the many and varied positions the various leaders have taken on this in every parliament for the last couple of decades.
A continued hung Parliament after 2015 would be the ideal for him. He could put forward the Referendum Bill, only to see it voted down.0 -
TheScreamingEagles said:
Re the budget, the past budgets of 2007 and 2012 were praised on the day by the media.
But within a few short weeks and months they were being panned as the worst budgets since JackW was in short trousers and caused long term damage.
Who can forget the day Labour MPs cheered the budget that abolished the 10p budget?
Can anyone remember what the problems with the 2012 budget were?0 -
Correcting myself, I think I may have been confusing this with a piece on Scottish independence polling, where women were consistently less decided than men.anotherDave said:
No, there was another piece recently on the 'Conservatives woman problem', that pointed out there was very little difference on the various parties male:female ratio, and that this was caused by the high Don't Know numbers among women.Financier said:
Strikingly for this poll Males are 74% certain and Females are 54% certain.(sampling problem?)
0 -
Primarily, politically and presentationally you cannot preach "We're all in this together" and austerity and then cut the higher rate of tax without it causing you a lot of damage.JonathanD said:TheScreamingEagles said:Re the budget, the past budgets of 2007 and 2012 were praised on the day by the media.
But within a few short weeks and months they were being panned as the worst budgets since JackW was in short trousers and caused long term damage.
Who can forget the day Labour MPs cheered the budget that abolished the 10p budget?
Can anyone remember what the problems with the 2012 budget were?
To undo this damage the coalition engaged in some u turns which made them look weak, IIRC on caravans and pasties to name but two.0 -
You think the MPs would knife their first majority-winning leader in 25 years for failing to give them a referendum they don't want, which they lose either way? 15% might object and trigger a leadership election, but at that point, unlike now, he'd be strong enough to fight them. (The obvious move would be to pick a fight on something else where he was on stronger ground like gay marriage a few months before he told them about the mandate referendum plan, then he'd beat them and win a moral victory, and they wouldn't be allowed another challenge for a year.)Neil said:
I really dont think he could.edmundintokyo said:
I think he could get away with that0 -
The Lib Dems would surely demand a high price, say PR in local elections. I wonder if the Conservatives would be willing to concede that (it would gift UKIP hundreds of council seats).Charles said:
That would be a dealbreaker for the coalition. To get a new coalition approved by his backbenchers it would need to be a red line. But perhaps no official government position / freedom for LibDems to vote and campaign against will be sufficientSean_F said:
Spot on. The nightmare scenario for Cameron would be one in which he actually had to deliver on his promise.edmundintokyo said:
You can't use what politicians appear to try to do when they know it won't actually succeed to predict what they'd do if it was actually going to succeed.JosiasJessop said:The Conservative position seems to be that they will use the Parliament Act to force through James Wharton's backbench bill (2) for there to be a referendum in 2017. Cameron seems to back this. Hence, if the Conservatives win, it looks distinctly possible that there would be a referendum (although what the question would be is another, well, question). (1)
The common thread here is that every party always supports a referendum if they're not in a position to deliver it, and never supports a referendum if they are in a position to deliver it. This principle would have accurately predicted pretty much all the many and varied positions the various leaders have taken on this in every parliament for the last couple of decades.
A continued hung Parliament after 2015 would be the ideal for him. He could put forward the Referendum Bill, only to see it voted down.
0 -
New Thread0
-
Interim report on the Co-op group:
http://www.co-operative.coop/PageFiles/989317209/Progress-Update-of-the-Independent-Governance-Review.pdf
From a skim, it seems fairly excoriating. Dos anyone know if this was meant to come out (phase 1 of the report is scheduled for the end of next month), or is a hurried reaction to Euan Sutherland's resignation?0
