politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Newark: The final day of campaigning in a battle so importa
Comments
-
He clearly doesn't know much about where he is then.TheScreamingEagles said:
But when you're in Malta, like Farage is, it's probably not the best place to make that comment.Ninoinoz said:
So what? He doesn't want to live in Malta? Presumably, that's why he doesn't.TheScreamingEagles said:What's that old saying, a little knowledge can be dangerous...
Lloyd Embley @Mirror_Editor 45s
Farage tells conference in Malta he doesn't want to live in a country with two languages - a country like, er, Malta
Ironic, given Malta's past relationship with the UK, in particular the Royal Navy. Would the Maltese be on the list of 'accepted' immigrants?0 -
The problem here, as in so many areas with the NHS is that politicians will not explain what is happening and why. Newark is too small to sustain a full A+E, even if it does increase to 45,000 people. Across the country there are large numbers of hospitals/services that simply aren't sustainable. Yes it would be lovely to have a well staffed, full service A+E just round the corner from everyone but that isn't an option. If I had anything seriously wrong with me then Newark A+E is definitely NOT where I would want to be. Newark A+E needed to close some time ago. Instead, as everywhere, the politicians join the campaigns to keep service X or Y open, while (I have to assume) being fully aware of the reasons why they need to close.Richard_Tyndall said:
That is an issue than none of the parties - including UKIP - have addressed properly. They have all turned up and mouthed platitudes nad played politics but it has only been the local candidates who have really fought this battle.
For context Newark is a town of around 30,000 which is in the process of increasing in population by 50% over the next decade. The A&E at the local hospital has been downgraded so it will no longer accept children or people with chest or stomach conditions or strokes. These people are now taken to Kings Mill at Sutton in Ashfield which even blue lighting is a good 30 minutes away along country lanes.
Not only does this mean that those who are refused at Newark now have to wait much longer before getting treatment it also means that the ambulances available in Newark are now tied up for much longer taking people on hour long round trips to A&E.
There have now been at least two cases reported in the paper where people have died as a result of this change. No one seems to be listening and a fast growing town is seeing more of its services being removed.
(cut for length)
More people will die as a result of the current setup in medical services Newark and it is a shame that none of the big four parties really seem to have picked up on the local anger
As an aside, Newark was downgraded some time ago when it was decided that patients with head injuries wouldn't be taken there.
There are costs and benefits to any setup, and while people will die due to longer transfer times the judgement is that more would die due to substandard treatment if lots of small, inadequate units are kept open.
The national example is children's cardiac services - the Bristol Inquiry report is 13 years old and the number of units still hasn't been reduced to safe/appropriate levels.
0 -
TSE, don't you know by know that EVERYBODY blames the immigrants . . . even (or rather especially) other immigrants!
For example, history of New York City can be encapsulated as follows:
Paleoamericans found the place a natural Garden of Eden
Native American came and ruined it for the Paleos
Dutch came and ruined it for the Natives
English came and ruined it for the Dutch
Irish came and ruined it for the English
Jews came and ruined it for the Irish
Italians came and ruined it for the Jews
Blacks came and ruined it for the Jews
Puerto Ricans came and ruined it for the Blacks
Dominicans came and ruined it for the Puerto Ricans
Russians came and ruined it for the Dominicans
Koreans came and ruined it for the Russians
Pakistanis came and ruined it for the Koreans
Nigerians came and ruined it for the Pakistanis
Afghans came and ruined it for the Nigerians . . .
Do you sense a pattern here?
0 -
That goal is a massive boost for the Yes campaign and Ukip.
0 -
Dear Sirs,
It was advertised in the Radio Times that tonight's football game between Ecuador and England would be shown on ITV Borders.
Because the Borders is in Scotland I/we were under the impression that we would be morally allowed to watch pre-stated match.
It appears the internet is not in agreement - and now we must spend our night posting on PB.com.
Yours sincerely.
Mr and Ms Briskin0 -
I'm struggling to square Shadsy's claim that everyone was betting on UKIP yesterday with the fact that the Conservatives' best odds moved in from 1/10 to 1/14 today.
UKIP to get 30%-35% at 6/4 seems a good value bet - both the Ashcroft and Survation polls tend to support this, after correcting for the general tendency of by-election polls to date to underestimate UKIP's performance.0 -
Th 'small' A&E at Newark was suitable for strokes for many decades until the trust decided to 'rationalise'. It has CT scanner that was bought by public subscription for the purpose of improving early diagnosis (as an aside the inventor of the CT scanner Godfrey Hounsfield was from Newark).foxinsoxuk said:Small A/E like Newark are not viable for major conditions like strokes. Contempory management requires 24 hour scanning and interventional radiology to re-perfuse the brain. If I had a stroke in Newark, I would want the blue light to QMC in Nottingham.
I agree though about transport and capacity though, if units are closing there obviously needs to be upgrading elsewhere. Sherwood Forest hospitals is a disaster from the management point of view. It would be better to be part of either Nottingham or Lincoln Trust, and of these Nottingham would be the viable one.
People in Newark are actually asking ambulance crews to Lincoln instead of Kings Mill where they are supposed to be taken because it is nearer. This happened to my grandmother when she had a stroke back in April. QMC refused to take her and insisted she be taken to Kings Mill but the crew got her to Lincoln instead.
The point is that people are dying because the journey time to Kings Mill is too long and ambulances are being tied up with the round trip. That cannot be right.0 -
If UKIP win tomorrow, that policy may need to be reversed.Gasman said:
Newark was downgraded some time ago when it was decided that patients with head injuries wouldn't be taken there.Richard_Tyndall said:
That is an issue than none of the parties - including UKIP - have addressed properly. They have all turned up and mouthed platitudes nad played politics but it has only been the local candidates who have really fought this battle.
For context Newark is a town of around 30,000 which is in the process of increasing in population by 50% over the next decade. The A&E at the local hospital has been downgraded so it will no longer accept children or people with chest or stomach conditions or strokes. These people are now taken to Kings Mill at Sutton in Ashfield which even blue lighting is a good 30 minutes away along country lanes.
Not only does this mean that those who are refused at Newark now have to wait much longer before getting treatment it also means that the ambulances available in Newark are now tied up for much longer taking people on hour long round trips to A&E.
There have now been at least two cases reported in the paper where people have died as a result of this change. No one seems to be listening and a fast growing town is seeing more of its services being removed.
(cut for length)
More people will die as a result of the current setup in medical services Newark and it is a shame that none of the big four parties really seem to have picked up on the local anger
0 -
Hello SeaShanty:SeaShantyIrish said:TSE, don't you know by know that EVERYBODY blames the immigrants . . . even (or rather especially) other immigrants!
For example, history of New York City can be encapsulated as follows:
Paleoamericans found the place a natural Garden of Eden
Native American came and ruined it for the Paleos
Dutch came and ruined it for the Natives
English came and ruined it for the Dutch
Irish came and ruined it for the English
Jews came and ruined it for the Irish
Italians came and ruined it for the Jews
Blacks came and ruined it for the Jews
Puerto Ricans came and ruined it for the Blacks
Dominicans came and ruined it for the Puerto Ricans
Russians came and ruined it for the Dominicans
Koreans came and ruined it for the Russians
Pakistanis came and ruined it for the Koreans
Nigerians came and ruined it for the Pakistanis
Afghans came and ruined it for the Nigerians . . .
Do you sense a pattern here?
Does Godzilla factor in anywhere?0 -
Wow. As I said a few days ago I know little about asbestos but if your 'evidence based' views on immigration and climate change are anything to go by I suspect you are wrong on pretty much everything else as well.volcanopete said:What concerns me most most about Ukip is the lack of support for evidence-based policy.There is the dangerous ignorance of much of what Ukip says, eg Helmers' views on asbestos I posted here-I was a health and safety rep.- and on climate change which they want removed from the national curriculum.I could go on.There are enormous benefits from immigration too,both economic and social, and I for one appreciate the free movement of people like me who like to travel freely across the continent.There are workers' rights to consider too,never even mentioned in the 2 debates between Clegg and Farage.
Free movement is good for Britain,based on evidence,something in short supply in Ukip.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/hugo-dixon/free-movement-britain_b_5436803.html0 -
UKIP winning the Euros was an amazing result for at least four reasons:isam said:It's worth being honest in discussion, if ukip had not won the euros I would have been the first to say I was disappointed and the result was disappointing.
1. The support for UKIP of not a single national newspaper in England or Scotland.
2. The most vitriolic and dirty campaign in a national election in living memory against UKIP.
3. In an election with a poor turnout, the differential turnout due to locals being held in Labour areas, notably London.
4. Having UKIP election meetings disrupted by Leftist thugs and their leader physically assaulted on at least two occasions.
Frankly, I'm amazed UKIP won.0 -
But medicine has moved on. Even relatively recently the management of a stroke was essentially nursing care, see if you survive and then rehab. Now it can involve neurosurgery, intervential radiology or thrombolysis (clot busting). As medical technology has advanced it's not possible to provide all these services in lots of little hospitals.Richard_Tyndall said:
Th 'small' A&E at Newark was suitable for strokes for many decades until the trust decided to 'rationalise'. It has CT scanner that was bought by public subscription for the purpose of improving early diagnosis (as an aside the inventor of the CT scanner Godfrey Hounsfield was from Newark).
People in Newark are actually asking ambulance crews to Lincoln instead of Kings Mill where they are supposed to be taken because it is nearer. This happened to my grandmother when she had a stroke back in April. QMC refused to take her and insisted she be taken to Kings Mill but the crew got her to Lincoln instead.
The point is that people are dying because the journey time to Kings Mill is too long and ambulances are being tied up with the round trip. That cannot be right.
The same goes for many other things. If you go into Newark with stomach pain and need an operation for example there aren't any surgeons there to do it - so you'll be transferred.
From Newark QMC would be my first choice, Lincoln probably a distant second and you are quite correct to try to avoid the Mill!
0 -
Given the polls, the candidates standing and the campaign if the Tories win with anything less that 7 points it's trouble for them.
If it takes the PM and the Chancellor to visit 4 times, plus the cabinet, plus 15% of all their MP's, plus the Chancellor announcing lots of spending for the constituency and all this because they won there with only 50 point difference from UKIP last time, anything less that 7 will be a disaster.0 -
I think shadsy's mentioned there seems to be a definite difference between betting movement within the constituency vs outside the constituency.Wulfrun_Phil said:I'm struggling to square Shadsy's claim that everyone was betting on UKIP yesterday with the fact that the Conservatives' best odds moved in from 1/10 to 1/14 today.
UKIP to get 30%-35% at 6/4 seems a good value bet - both the Ashcroft and Survation polls tend to support this, after correcting for the general tendency of by-election polls to date to underestimate UKIP's performance.0 -
A well-focussed local issue and campaign can pay surprising dividends in a by-election often seen through the prism of national politics. Again, the political textbook tells any aspiring candidate to find and run with a local issue from the start.
The sole issue for UKIP is one of momentum going into the summer - to paraphrase a comment about a wholly different organisation, UKIP thrive on "the oxygen of publicity". Newark is the last chance before Ascot, the World Cup, Wimbledon and summer takes over and politics goes to sleep before the autumn (apart from the usual August/September international crisis).
A win and all that flows from it must be the aim less because of what it does for UKIP themselves but what it does for the Conservatives in terms of the media narrative. it can be a long summer if the background mood music is defensive - as the LDs have found, it can be a long week if they are on the spit and being roasted on a daily basis.
0 -
It 8s not just posession of a scanner, for viable stroke services it needs 24 hour staffing by interventional radiologists. That is never going to be viable in a town the size of Newark.Richard_Tyndall said:
Th 'small' A&E at Newark was suitable for strokes for many decades until the trust decided to 'rationalise'. It has CT scanner that was bought by public subscription for the purpose of improving early diagnosis (as an aside the inventor of the CT scanner Godfrey Hounsfield was from Newark).foxinsoxuk said:Small A/E like Newark are not viable for major conditions like strokes. Contempory management requires 24 hour scanning and interventional radiology to re-perfuse the brain. If I had a stroke in Newark, I would want the blue light to QMC in Nottingham.
I agree though about transport and capacity though, if units are closing there obviously needs to be upgrading elsewhere. Sherwood Forest hospitals is a disaster from the management point of view. It would be better to be part of either Nottingham or Lincoln Trust, and of these Nottingham would be the viable one.
People in Newark are actually asking ambulance crews to Lincoln instead of Kings Mill where they are supposed to be taken because it is nearer. This happened to my grandmother when she had a stroke back in April. QMC refused to take her and insisted she be taken to Kings Mill but the crew got her to Lincoln instead.
The point is that people are dying because the journey time to Kings Mill is too long and ambulances are being tied up with the round trip. That cannot be right.0 -
2 colour me doubtful on such a claim.Ninoinoz said:
UKIP winning the Euros was an amazing result for at least four reasons:isam said:It's worth being honest in discussion, if ukip had not won the euros I would have been the first to say I was disappointed and the result was disappointing.
1. The support for UKIP of not a single national newspaper in England or Scotland.
2. The most vitriolic and dirty campaign in a national election in living memory against UKIP.
3. In an election with a poor turnout, the differential turnout due to locals being held in Labour areas, notably London.
4. Having UKIP election meetings disrupted by Leftist thugs and their leader physically assaulted on at least two occasions.
Frankly, I'm amazed UKIP won.
3 was a benefit to UKIP.
4 I doubt made much difference at all to their vote total.0 -
Seems like the perfect place to make such a comment.TheScreamingEagles said:
But when you're in Malta, like Farage is, it's probably not the best place to make that comment.Ninoinoz said:
So what? He doesn't want to live in Malta? Presumably, that's why he doesn't.TheScreamingEagles said:What's that old saying, a little knowledge can be dangerous...
Lloyd Embley @Mirror_Editor 45s
Farage tells conference in Malta he doesn't want to live in a country with two languages - a country like, er, Malta
Plenty of people with first hand experience to agree or disagree.0 -
I reckon that the voters of Newark will make a late switch to UKIP in protest at the carrier bag tax. Highly regressive, and just results in a big jump in the sale of bin liners, so little overall saving in plastic consumption. Also, 99% of the packaging is wrapped around individual items, and has no second use. This is what the government should be targetting.
Voters of Newark unite! You have nothing to lose but your carriers!0 -
UKIP will never win Newark with a candidate like Helmer, this by-election was lost for them the day they chose him.
It's not about victory or defeat, we already know the winner, its about the swings and the margin of victory plus tactical voting.
So far we know that UKIP can't threaten Labour in Labour safe seats much more that the Tories in the past, tommorow is a test to see if UKIP can threaten Tory safe seats better than Labour can.0 -
So, I put it sixth due to brilliant Tory spinning and not some sort of judgement based on events?ToryJim said:
The skill is ensuring it's so low down the list. To have the narratives focus on everything but the government in a mid term election is more than impressive. The Tories played a blinder in media terms, which given past experience is something in itself.Ninoinoz said:
The stories from last months elections in my order of precedence:ToryJim said:
The trouble is that done right it works. Exhibit A the Tories last month.Socrates said:People criticising UKIP for not following the public relations playbook. That's one of the reasons people like them. None of this expectations management bullshit.
1. UKIP wins;1st non-ConLab victory for over 100 years.
2. LibDem drubbing; In a European election by PR.
3. UKIP taking votes off Labour at the locals.
4. UKIP winning a seat in Scotland or SNP/Salmond a laughing stock.
5. Labour just manging to finish 2nd as the Official Opposition in the Euros.
6. Tories finish 3rd for 1st time ever.
Now, you may query my order, but it doesn't huge political skill to keep the 6th rated story out of the media.
Your next post:
SUN ROSE THIS MORNING DUE TO CAMERON AND OSBORNE'S BRILLIANCE!0 -
Gasman said:
The problem here, as in so many areas with the NHS is that politicians will not explain what is happening and why. Newark is too small to sustain a full A+E, even if it does increase to 45,000 people. Across the country there are large numbers of hospitals/services that simply aren't sustainable. Yes it would be lovely to have a well staffed, full service A+E just round the corner from everyone but that isn't an option. If I had anything seriously wrong with me then Newark A+E is definitely NOT where I would want to be. Newark A+E needed to close some time ago. Instead, as everywhere, the politicians join the campaigns to keep service X or Y open, while (I have to assume) being fully aware of the reasons why they need to close.
As an aside, Newark was downgraded some time ago when it was decided that patients with head injuries wouldn't be taken there.
There are costs and benefits to any setup, and while people will die due to longer transfer times the judgement is that more would die due to substandard treatment if lots of small, inadequate units are kept open.
The national example is children's cardiac services - the Bristol Inquiry report is 13 years old and the number of units still hasn't been reduced to safe/appropriate levels.
I have no problem with centralising and specialising as long as that does not mean - as it does in Newark - that the time to get people to A&E becomes so long that people die. And if you are going to centralise and increase transit time then you need more ambulances to make sure there are vehicles and crews available to provide cover. Something that has not happened at Newark.
A few examples
http://newarkadvertiser.co.uk/articles/news/High-level-apology-over-999-mistakes
http://www.newarkadvertiser.co.uk/articles/news/Family-plans-to-provide-ambulance
http://www.newarkadvertiser.co.uk/articles/news/Teens-agony-over-wait-for-ambulance-0 -
Gasman?
Do you work for "the Gas Board"?Gasman said:
But medicine has moved on. Even relatively recently the management of a stroke was essentially nursing care, see if you survive and then rehab. Now it can involve neurosurgery, intervential radiology or thrombolysis (clot busting). As medical technology has advanced it's not possible to provide all these services in lots of little hospitals.Richard_Tyndall said:
Th 'small' A&E at Newark was suitable for strokes for many decades until the trust decided to 'rationalise'. It has CT scanner that was bought by public subscription for the purpose of improving early diagnosis (as an aside the inventor of the CT scanner Godfrey Hounsfield was from Newark).
People in Newark are actually asking ambulance crews to Lincoln instead of Kings Mill where they are supposed to be taken because it is nearer. This happened to my grandmother when she had a stroke back in April. QMC refused to take her and insisted she be taken to Kings Mill but the crew got her to Lincoln instead.
The point is that people are dying because the journey time to Kings Mill is too long and ambulances are being tied up with the round trip. That cannot be right.
The same goes for many other things. If you go into Newark with stomach pain and need an operation for example there aren't any surgeons there to do it - so you'll be transferred.
From Newark QMC would be my first choice, Lincoln probably a distant second and you are quite correct to try to avoid the Mill!0 -
I'm getting sick of this I'm anti UKIP crap. Read what I've been saying.
My big thing this week has been an argument with Lord Ashcroft over his polling methodology that I believe understates UKIP. I've gone out on a limb to make these points and if I'm wrong tomorrow night I'll be eating humble pie.
I've also reminded everybody about how UKIP has been understated in every by-election poll since GE10.
This hardly represents a bias against UKIP.
So the unthinking crap on this and other thread is not based on reality. Get a life.0 -
By all means have whatever opinion you want about immigration, I'm sure that there are pluses and minuses to which different people attach different importance. However the truth about climate change and to an extent white asbestos are pretty solidly known:Richard_Tyndall said:
Wow. As I said a few days ago I know little about asbestos but if your 'evidence based' views on immigration and climate change are anything to go by I suspect you are wrong on pretty much everything else as well.volcanopete said:What concerns me most most about Ukip is the lack of support for evidence-based policy.There is the dangerous ignorance of much of what Ukip says, eg Helmers' views on asbestos I posted here-I was a health and safety rep.- and on climate change which they want removed from the national curriculum.I could go on.There are enormous benefits from immigration too,both economic and social, and I for one appreciate the free movement of people like me who like to travel freely across the continent.There are workers' rights to consider too,never even mentioned in the 2 debates between Clegg and Farage.
Free movement is good for Britain,based on evidence,something in short supply in Ukip.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/hugo-dixon/free-movement-britain_b_5436803.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
The good thing about the scientific method is that nothing is based on opinion or belief it's based on experiment and facts. Also the search for truth is continuous and becomes refined as more is learnt.0 -
IN NINO VERITASNinoinoz said:
SUN ROSE THIS MORNING DUE TO CAMERON AND OSBORNE'S BRILLIANCE!ToryJim said:
The skill is ensuring it's so low down the list. To have the narratives focus on everything but the government in a mid term election is more than impressive. The Tories played a blinder in media terms, which given past experience is something in itself.Ninoinoz said:
The stories from last months elections in my order of precedence:ToryJim said:
The trouble is that done right it works. Exhibit A the Tories last month.Socrates said:People criticising UKIP for not following the public relations playbook. That's one of the reasons people like them. None of this expectations management bullshit.
1. UKIP wins;1st non-ConLab victory for over 100 years.
2. LibDem drubbing; In a European election by PR.
3. UKIP taking votes off Labour at the locals.
4. UKIP winning a seat in Scotland or SNP/Salmond a laughing stock.
5. Labour just manging to finish 2nd as the Official Opposition in the Euros.
6. Tories finish 3rd for 1st time ever.
Now, you may query my order, but it doesn't huge political skill to keep the 6th rated story out of the media.
0 -
O'Malley.TheScreamingEagles said:@SeaShantyIrish - If Hillary doesn't run, who will get the Democrat Party nomination?
Thanks for your reply (I really am getting on a train now and won't be able to reply for a bit)0 -
And yet you still post rubbish like this thread. Perhaps you should look to yourself for getting a life Mike.MikeSmithson said:I'm getting sick of this I'm anti UKIP crap. Read what I've been saying.
My big thing this week has been an argument with Lord Ashcroft over his polling methodology that I believe understates UKIP. I've gone out on a limb to make these points and if I'm wrong tomorrow night I'll be eating humble pie.
I've also reminded everybody about how UKIP has been understated in every by-election poll since GE10.
This hardly represents a bias against UKIP.
So the unthinking crap on this and other thread is not based on reality. Get a life.0 -
On 2. Find me a dirtier one.corporeal said:
2 colour me doubtful on such a claim.Ninoinoz said:
UKIP winning the Euros was an amazing result for at least four reasons:isam said:It's worth being honest in discussion, if ukip had not won the euros I would have been the first to say I was disappointed and the result was disappointing.
1. The support for UKIP of not a single national newspaper in England or Scotland.
2. The most vitriolic and dirty campaign in a national election in living memory against UKIP.
3. In an election with a poor turnout, the differential turnout due to locals being held in Labour areas, notably London.
4. Having UKIP election meetings disrupted by Leftist thugs and their leader physically assaulted on at least two occasions.
Frankly, I'm amazed UKIP won.
3 was a benefit to UKIP.
4 I doubt made much difference at all to their vote total.
On 3. How are more people voting Labour beneficial to UKIP?
On 4. On balance, having White thugs disrupt their meetings made UKIP look like the voice of reason and LibLabCon look like the BNP.0 -
Well done OGH for taking on Lord A!!! That's why we love you!!!0
-
Why are we supporting anyone? Isolationism, or as Lord Salisbury put it splendid isolation, is another Tory tradition abandoned by the neo-con modernisers.Socrates said:@Luckyguy1983
You haven't provided any evidence at all that the people the UK is training in Syria are the same ones that have conducted terrorist attacks. Your whole argument is about as sensible as Saddam causing 9/11, just because he's also a Muslim from the same part of the world Al-Nusra have been the psychopaths in the conflict, and they've been killing FSA troops, who are the ones we're backing.0 -
I think Newark is too safe, they need one of the biggest swings in history to do it.corporeal said:
Go look at the history. Hamilton was never likely to be a SNP win, but it was. Same for Crosby, Croydon North West etc for the Alliance, and Carmarthen etc for Plaid Cymru.Richard_Tyndall said:
Yes I did and that coincides with my view as well. That does not for a second excuse the idiocy of the claim that UKIP failing to win a seat that was never a likely win is going to do anything to change the narrative.TheScreamingEagles said:
Did you read my comment? His sense when it came to UKIP was back them to win 2 plus seats at the General Election at 8/1.Richard_Tyndall said:
Nope, just pointing out that however good a tipster Mike might be, when it comes to UKIP his deep seated hatred of the party means his sense goes right out of the window.TheScreamingEagles said:
Christ you kippers really do have chips on both shoulders.isam said:I get it.
The more votes UKIP get, the worse they are doing!!
They have improved on vote % across the whole country in the last 18 months, almost everywhere there has been an election (even the locals that some are desperately trying to spin as bad, their vote % went through the roof compared to the last time the seats were fought).
But that doesnt matter?
At various stages of PB Mike's been accused of being irrational and ignoring public opinion, from when he said Gordon Brown would be crap before he became PM.
I suspect one of Mike's most profitable tips at the next General Election will be when he tipped UKIP to win 2 or more seats at 8/1.
Re public opinion, as you Kippers love to point out that the Lab/Lib/Con parties are the same, must be galling that more people voted for them than UKIP.
The thread he has written here is a perfect example of that. It is the equivalent of saying the Tory party is finished if it can't win Bootle or the Rhondda.
Now you can only get 5/6.
Wishful thinking from Mike I am afraid.
We've seen safe seats fall at by-elections several times before. Indeed most significant parties we've seen emerge have won such seats early on in their progression.
That's not to say UKIP have to win or they're finished, but expecting them to pull off a by-election win is to expect them to do well as other parties have done while emerging.
In short, to claim the expectations as unreasonable is to ignore all the comparable precedents.
Some one else might had a go at the Labour tactical votes needed but not Helmer.0 -
Yes. If you don't mind me asking, what is your specialty?foxinsoxuk said:Gasman?
Do you work for "the Gas Board"?
0 -
LOL. As I have said many times on here before, linking to such an overtly biased blog as skeptical science just shows the paucity of your knowledge and understanding of climate science. I say exactly the same to anyone who links to Watts Up With That to try and prove a point. Both are blogs with no scientific credibility at all.LogicalSong said:
By all means have whatever opinion you want about immigration, I'm sure that there are pluses and minuses to which different people attach different importance. However the truth about climate change and to an extent white asbestos are pretty solidly known:Richard_Tyndall said:
Wow. As I said a few days ago I know little about asbestos but if your 'evidence based' views on immigration and climate change are anything to go by I suspect you are wrong on pretty much everything else as well.volcanopete said:What concerns me most most about Ukip is the lack of support for evidence-based policy.There is the dangerous ignorance of much of what Ukip says, eg Helmers' views on asbestos I posted here-I was a health and safety rep.- and on climate change which they want removed from the national curriculum.I could go on.There are enormous benefits from immigration too,both economic and social, and I for one appreciate the free movement of people like me who like to travel freely across the continent.There are workers' rights to consider too,never even mentioned in the 2 debates between Clegg and Farage.
Free movement is good for Britain,based on evidence,something in short supply in Ukip.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/hugo-dixon/free-movement-britain_b_5436803.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
The good thing about the scientific method is that nothing is based on opinion or belief it's based on experiment and facts. Also the search for truth is continuous and becomes refined as more is learnt.
Current climate science has singularly failed to follow the scientific method and has forgotten Feynman's golden rule of science.
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."0 -
OGH,
I'm getting into your book "The Political Punter" (2007), and can recommend it as clearly written. As a punting Puritan I find it good fun and most informative. Margaret Mead couldn't have done better.0 -
Late swing to Britain sees France lose 6-0 in final set.0
-
Biden, he is getting very neocon and active on foreign policy, almost Dick Cheney levels.Socrates said:
O'Malley.TheScreamingEagles said:@SeaShantyIrish - If Hillary doesn't run, who will get the Democrat Party nomination?
Thanks for your reply (I really am getting on a train now and won't be able to reply for a bit)
However no Hillary no presidency for the democrats, every other candidate loses by any potencial republican asked in polls, it's the female novelty effect.0 -
What do you think the chances are that it will be Biden if Clinton does not run?Speedy said:
Biden, he is getting very neocon and active on foreign policy, almost Dick Cheney levels.Socrates said:
O'Malley.TheScreamingEagles said:@SeaShantyIrish - If Hillary doesn't run, who will get the Democrat Party nomination?
Thanks for your reply (I really am getting on a train now and won't be able to reply for a bit)
However no Hillary no presidency for the democrats, every other candidate loses by any potencial republican asked in polls, it's the female novelty effect.0 -
Toms-
You are damning with faint praise.
It is not meant for you.
It's meant for people that at least have the imagination to want to try.0 -
A smaller speciality, but one that needs help from the gas board at times!Gasman said:
Yes. If you don't mind me asking, what is your specialty?foxinsoxuk said:Gasman?
Do you work for "the Gas Board"?0 -
Pax. Good comment. As a mathematical type I value minimalism and regard that comment as shouting from the roof tops. And I fancy I have the imagination to want to understand.JBriskin said:Toms-
You are damning with faint praise.
It is not meant for you.
It's meant for people that at least have the imagination to want to try.
0 -
The book is now available to read on Google books. It is 7 years old.Toms said:OGH,
I'm getting into your book "The Political Punter" (2007), and can recommend it as clearly written. As a punting Puritan I find it good fun and most informative. Margaret Mead couldn't have done better.
http://goo.gl/r0qjAo
0 -
He's a Doctor, Gasman0
-
I think you are near the crux, but haven't quite nailed it.TheScreamingEagles said:I will be expanding on Mike's point, if UKIP don't win Newark in a thread on Friday.
One of the biggest problem for the SDP/Alliance and the Lib Dems winning seats at Westminster was the voters told pollsters, that voting for them was a wasted vote so they didn't vote for them.
If UKIP keep on getting nothing but impressive second places, then the same problem will arise for them..
The problem Ukippers have, if they are motivated by an anti-Tory, is how best to hurt them. Strong UKIP showing? Vote UKIP. No UKIP showing i.e. 2010? Vote whoever can beat the Tory.
UKIP's strong second places will be very useful in 2015 and especially useful when Labour come to power and their inevitable unpopularity sets in.
I have a horse-racing analogy, but I'll leave it to someone who knows more about horse-racing than I.0 -
Because Assad was butchering his own people. And it is a moral responsibility of the powerful to look out for the powerless in a time of extreme need.FalseFlag said:
Why are we supporting anyone?Socrates said:@Luckyguy1983
You haven't provided any evidence at all that the people the UK is training in Syria are the same ones that have conducted terrorist attacks. Your whole argument is about as sensible as Saddam causing 9/11, just because he's also a Muslim from the same part of the world Al-Nusra have been the psychopaths in the conflict, and they've been killing FSA troops, who are the ones we're backing.0 -
I don't think you're biased.MikeSmithson said:I'm getting sick of this I'm anti UKIP crap. Read what I've been saying.
My big thing this week has been an argument with Lord Ashcroft over his polling methodology that I believe understates UKIP. I've gone out on a limb to make these points and if I'm wrong tomorrow night I'll be eating humble pie.
I've also reminded everybody about how UKIP has been understated in every by-election poll since GE10.
This hardly represents a bias against UKIP.
So the unthinking crap on this and other thread is not based on reality. Get a life.
But this article looks like its written by captain oblivious for the following reason.
A failure for UKIP to win does pose that risk, however everyone already knows for days and weeks that they don't have a chance so expectations are extremely low, just look at the odds.
UKIP have failed to win in safe seats in the past but that didn't do much damage to them because everyone knew they couldn't do miracles.0 -
2 out of 3.Socrates said:
What do you think the chances are that it will be Biden if Clinton does not run?Speedy said:
Biden, he is getting very neocon and active on foreign policy, almost Dick Cheney levels.Socrates said:
O'Malley.TheScreamingEagles said:@SeaShantyIrish - If Hillary doesn't run, who will get the Democrat Party nomination?
Thanks for your reply (I really am getting on a train now and won't be able to reply for a bit)
However no Hillary no presidency for the democrats, every other candidate loses by any potencial republican asked in polls, it's the female novelty effect.
He is the most organised and the most well known, if Hillary wasn't there then I'd say he is already running for the nomination and the presidency.
Problem is, he is behind every republican except marginally Ted Cruz and Chris Christie.0 -
Thanks Toms - I like mathematical types - I try to stop shouting from the rooftops but I was, unfortunately, perhaps, taught to touch type at one point
0 -
more bad blood between Salmond and Darling.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-276968110 -
I wonder if he will rue the day? ;-)dr_spyn said:more bad blood between Salmond and Darling.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-276968110 -
I have a felling that realpolitik is taking over and privately the west is now supporting Assad against the islamic rebels.Socrates said:
Because Assad was butchering his own people. And it is a moral responsibility of the powerful to look out for the powerless in a time of extreme need.FalseFlag said:
Why are we supporting anyone?Socrates said:@Luckyguy1983
You haven't provided any evidence at all that the people the UK is training in Syria are the same ones that have conducted terrorist attacks. Your whole argument is about as sensible as Saddam causing 9/11, just because he's also a Muslim from the same part of the world Al-Nusra have been the psychopaths in the conflict, and they've been killing FSA troops, who are the ones we're backing.0 -
JBriskin,
I'd assumed gasman was an anaesthetist.
0 -
CD13-
I get confused. Oh, I know what you mean. I'm unemployed and drunk for the record.0 -
I agree with what Gasman and others is saying about A&E Dept's. They need to be a certain size to be effective. And what you also need are the effective surgeons and doctors available... and not just individuals you need whole teams of individual specialists and their back up as well. As a simple example a guy who is sent spinning off his motorbike might need a pretty useful brain surgeon and somebody useful to look after his spleen.0
-
BTW I hope everyone has the Blue Nun on standby for the 3 hours This Week extravaganza tomorrow ;-)0
-
You have to remember that the SNP is already in Labour's; black books for just existing, never mind winning an election on a system which Labour fiddled to make that impossible ... or so it thought. So it seems even more rich of Mr Darling to try to play dictator bingo when Salmond is the only majority democratically elected politician [edit: head of a national assembly/pmt] in the entire UK above local council level. And given the level to which the Unionists dominate the media. Anyway, it looks very much like advertising for NS given the interview has not actually been published. We'll see what is actually in the interviewdr_spyn said:more bad blood between Salmond and Darling.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-27696811
0 -
Smaller swings than the SNP achieved early on to win, than the SDP/Liberals/Alliance achieved multiple times early on to win. Plaid had bigger swings but lost (they did win in Carmarthen but on a smaller swing). Respect won on a bigger swing.Speedy said:
I think Newark is too safe, they need one of the biggest swings in history to do it.corporeal said:
Go look at the history. Hamilton was never likely to be a SNP win, but it was. Same for Crosby, Croydon North West etc for the Alliance, and Carmarthen etc for Plaid Cymru.Richard_Tyndall said:TheScreamingEagles said:
Did you read my comment? His sense when it came to UKIP was back them to win 2 plus seats at the General Election at 8/1.Richard_Tyndall said:
Nope, just pointing out that however good a tipster Mike might be, when it comes to UKIP his deep seated hatred of the party means his sense goes right out of the window.TheScreamingEagles said:
.isam said:I get it.
The thread he has written here is a perfect example of that. It is the equivalent of saying the Tory party is finished if it can't win Bootle or the Rhondda.
Now you can only get 5/6.
We've seen safe seats fall at by-elections several times before. Indeed most significant parties we've seen emerge have won such seats early on in their progression.
That's not to say UKIP have to win or they're finished, but expecting them to pull off a by-election win is to expect them to do well as other parties have done while emerging.
In short, to claim the expectations as unreasonable is to ignore all the comparable precedents.
Some one else might had a go at the Labour tactical votes needed but not Helmer.
It's not so much Newark individually as it being a continuation of the trend of by-elections. So many other emerging parties managed it. It's not unreasonable to compare UKIP to their precedents.
0 -
There's cheering down Mark Senior's way as LibDem redoubt Gibraltar crush Malta 1:0 in the football and thus remain the worlds only unbeaten team !!
Mark now singing "Malta are you UKIP in disguise ?"0 -
Yes RobD!! I wish me and Ms Briskin could pace ourselves more. Jo Co and her cups of tea set me off and (secret male post bit -and as far as I can tell women just do what they want!?!)0
-
Come on, the Liberals didn't stand in the Crosby by-election, for the simple reason that they were supporting the SDP.Fernando said:Andy J S - "The Alliance was 50% Liberals who had existed for hundreds of years, so it's not a very good comparison."
The Crosby by-election in 1981 was won by the SDP, a very new party at the time, even newer than UKIP are now. The Alliance did not yet exist.0 -
Ha Ha
Carnyx reduced to Scots at 21:15
Yes Is Toast0 -
Evening all, so any last minute pearls of wisdom from Newark? Has Ed's reply today gobsmacked everyone into voting Labour tomorrow?0
-
Newark - best prices
Con 1/14 (various)
UKIP 11/1 (Betfair)
Lab 200/1 (Betfair)
Grn 250/1
LD 1000/10 -
Sounds like you would have been right at home in Andrew Neil's booze cruise for the 2010 election ;-) Not sure if JoCo will be on though.. just to avoid hopes getting up!JBriskin said:Yes RobD!! I wish me and Ms Briskin could pace ourselves more. Jo Co and her cups of tea set me off and (secret male post bit -and as far as I can tell women just do what they want!?!)
0 -
The ultimate in trash TV now on ITV 2 'I wanna marry Harry!'
http://www.itv.com/goodmorningbritain/entertainment/i-wanna-marry-harry0 -
Shock win for Assad in the what's-left-of-Syria election.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-277064710 -
The Alliance did it only once and against Labour.corporeal said:
Smaller swings than the SNP achieved early on to win, than the SDP/Liberals/Alliance achieved multiple times early on to win. Plaid had bigger swings but lost (they did win in Carmarthen but on a smaller swing). Respect won on a bigger swing.Speedy said:
I think Newark is too safe, they need one of the biggest swings in history to do it.corporeal said:
Go look at the history. Hamilton was never likely to be a SNP win, but it was. Same for Crosby, Croydon North West etc for the Alliance, and Carmarthen etc for Plaid Cymru.Richard_Tyndall said:TheScreamingEagles said:
Did you read my comment? His sense when it came to UKIP was back them to win 2 plus seats at the General Election at 8/1.Richard_Tyndall said:
Nope, just pointing out that however good a tipster Mike might be, when it comes to UKIP his deep seated hatred of the party means his sense goes right out of the window.TheScreamingEagles said:
.isam said:I get it.
The thread he has written here is a perfect example of that. It is the equivalent of saying the Tory party is finished if it can't win Bootle or the Rhondda.
Now you can only get 5/6.
We've seen safe seats fall at by-elections several times before. Indeed most significant parties we've seen emerge have won such seats early on in their progression.
That's not to say UKIP have to win or they're finished, but expecting them to pull off a by-election win is to expect them to do well as other parties have done while emerging.
In short, to claim the expectations as unreasonable is to ignore all the comparable precedents.
Some one else might had a go at the Labour tactical votes needed but not Helmer.
It's not so much Newark individually as it being a continuation of the trend of by-elections. So many other emerging parties managed it. It's not unreasonable to compare UKIP to their precedents.
The SNP again only once and against Labour, aided by the absence of a Liberal
Respect did it in Bradford West, but Galloway always appeals to the islamic voters.
And in Christchurch it was a 2 horse race with the LD.
Those things are very rare, only 4 of them have occured since 1945 and only on special circumstances.0 -
Yeah, I've heard reports RobD - my vaguest memories of 10 is at least a percentage upswing. With me they will fail. I plan to be here for 16 regardless.0
-
Leaving aside the question of how strong the Liberal party brand was at the time (even if you count the swing from the 79 liberal vote it was big), you can point to other new parties with big by-election results.AndyJS said:
Come on, the Liberals didn't stand in the Crosby by-election, for the simple reason that they were supporting the SDP.Fernando said:Andy J S - "The Alliance was 50% Liberals who had existed for hundreds of years, so it's not a very good comparison."
The Crosby by-election in 1981 was won by the SDP, a very new party at the time, even newer than UKIP are now. The Alliance did not yet exist.0 -
Must be a butcher, then. They're the only ones that use blow torches ;-)foxinsoxuk said:A smaller speciality, but one that needs help from the gas board at times!
Gasman said:
Yes. If you don't mind me asking, what is your specialty?foxinsoxuk said:Gasman?
Do you work for "the Gas Board"?
But you up for a convo at some point on the potential to extend current treatment modalities in interventional radiology? Wondering what the NE view is on that topic.0 -
It could be worse, it could have been Harry Hill.HYUFD said:The ultimate in trash TV now on ITV 2 'I wanna marry Harry!'
http://www.itv.com/goodmorningbritain/entertainment/i-wanna-marry-harry0 -
I started watching at the beginning of the third set and by the end of the fourth thought I had jinxed Murray's chances.JackW said:
Monfils imploded like a UKIP general election manifesto.AveryLP said:Late swing to Britain sees France lose 6-0 in final set.
You are right that Monfils, a true Frenchie, surrendered in the fifth but Murray is the only British player in my life time that has consistently surprised on the upside.
Can't see him beating Nadal though. It's not just the clay surface: his form is not yet quite back up to the heights of 2012-13. Still, 'better than expected' is all we can ask.
0 -
In Ukip's favour,if people who have never voted, or who may have got out of the habit of voting, are actually voting, that is a good thing,even though they are voting for Ukip.Ed Miliband put his finger on the wider problem today,the 60% or so who did not vote in the recent elections.Somehow all democrats must address this ,as Churchill indicated,the alternatives are much worse.For those of us who support electoral reform Ed Miliband seemed to be indicating he has some unfinished business in this regard.He is correct to identify the crisis in political representation that exists in UK politics,a huge challenge.
Not in Ukip's favour is the hypocrisy revealed today in Wales.Ukip's representatives certainly like the old gravy train the EU gives them.I think the public might take the wise advice of The Who and not get fooled again.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/06/04/ukip-nathan-gill-migrant-workers_n_5444662.html?&ir=UK
0 -
Do we get a by-election programme tomorrow night on either the BBC or SKY?0
-
PredictionEasterross said:Evening all, so any last minute pearls of wisdom from Newark? Has Ed's reply today gobsmacked everyone into voting Labour tomorrow?
CON 40
UKIP 30
LAB 20
LD 5
0 -
O'Malley's pretty organised too. mate of mine is on his election committee, so hoping to get some scoop.Speedy said:
2 out of 3.Socrates said:
What do you think the chances are that it will be Biden if Clinton does not run?Speedy said:
Biden, he is getting very neocon and active on foreign policy, almost Dick Cheney levels.Socrates said:
O'Malley.TheScreamingEagles said:@SeaShantyIrish - If Hillary doesn't run, who will get the Democrat Party nomination?
Thanks for your reply (I really am getting on a train now and won't be able to reply for a bit)
However no Hillary no presidency for the democrats, every other candidate loses by any potencial republican asked in polls, it's the female novelty effect.
He is the most organised and the most well known, if Hillary wasn't there then I'd say he is already running for the nomination and the presidency.
Problem is, he is behind every republican except marginally Ted Cruz and Chris Christie.
0 -
ON the day Tesco got its come uppance for arrogance and utterly crap customer service, I tried to ring my bank. On hold for twenty minutes plus TWICE. without any human response. Time to tell them to F off as well. Will they never learn?0
-
BBC One for a 3-hour This Week special with Andrew Neil!Easterross said:Do we get a by-election programme tomorrow night on either the BBC or SKY?
0 -
If it's anything like the last 5 by-elections - "we" will get a choice between S/BBC or S/ITV. Murdoch can do what he wants.Easterross said:Do we get a by-election programme tomorrow night on either the BBC or SKY?
0 -
Huzzah for Rickie Lambert giving me a 75% return in less than 90 minutes.
What happened to Andy Murray in sets 3 and 4?0 -
Speedy, Harry Hill looks almost as much like Prince Harry than the lookalike!0
-
Set 3 - Too many frenchies supporting him. We weren't watching set 4TheScreamingEagles said:Huzzah for Rickie Lambert giving me a 75% return in less than 90 minutes.
What happened to Andy Murray in sets 3 and 4?
0 -
An interesting exchange between Dr Sox and Gasman. Not knowing hospital jargon, we have to guess the meaning of "the Gas Board".Charles said:
Must be a butcher, then. They're the only ones that use blow torches ;-)foxinsoxuk said:A smaller speciality, but one that needs help from the gas board at times!
Gasman said:
Yes. If you don't mind me asking, what is your specialty?foxinsoxuk said:Gasman?
Do you work for "the Gas Board"?
But you up for a convo at some point on the potential to extend current treatment modalities in interventional radiology? Wondering what the NE view is on that topic.
The obvious answer is an anaesthetist, but it could be the Ambulance Service. This would fit with Gasman's obvious knowledge of A&E destinations and transit times in the area (although local hospital consultants may have this level of knowledge anyway).
Dr. Sox's reply was also cryptic. Maybe hiding identity as he is local but it just as likely to be concealing his rank.
Dr. Sox is the quintessential gentleman.
Would be fascinating to get the real answers to this now public record of social interchange.
0 -
Charles/Speedy Hillary is going to run, he forthcoming book tour kicking off the campaign, and beats her Democratic rivals by about 40 points and her Republican ones by about 5-10. Biden and O'Malley won't run when she announces, although Bernie Sanders may run as a token leftie, and has hinted he will caucus as a Democrat to do so. The presidency is hers for the taking, although I still think a Christie-Rubio ticket could run her close0
-
No one knows O'Malley and he is the governor of one of the smallest states in america.Charles said:
O'Malley's pretty organised too. mate of mine is on his election committee, so hoping to get some scoop.Speedy said:
2 out of 3.Socrates said:
What do you think the chances are that it will be Biden if Clinton does not run?Speedy said:
Biden, he is getting very neocon and active on foreign policy, almost Dick Cheney levels.Socrates said:
O'Malley.TheScreamingEagles said:@SeaShantyIrish - If Hillary doesn't run, who will get the Democrat Party nomination?
Thanks for your reply (I really am getting on a train now and won't be able to reply for a bit)
However no Hillary no presidency for the democrats, every other candidate loses by any potencial republican asked in polls, it's the female novelty effect.
He is the most organised and the most well known, if Hillary wasn't there then I'd say he is already running for the nomination and the presidency.
Problem is, he is behind every republican except marginally Ted Cruz and Chris Christie.
But it's an indication of how shallow the bench of the democrats is, the republicans have a half dosen heavyweights in the race all of them losing to Hillary because she is a well known woman, but beating everyone else.
After Hillary the democrats have a severe lack of candidates.0 -
Firstly, what's your definition to get only 4 times? I have it as more.Speedy said:
The Alliance did it only once and against Labour.corporeal said:
Smaller swings than the SNP achieved early on to win, than the SDP/Liberals/Alliance achieved multiple times early on to win. Plaid had bigger swings but lost (they did win in Carmarthen but on a smaller swing). Respect won on a bigger swing.Speedy said:
I think Newark is too safe, they need one of the biggest swings in history to do it.corporeal said:
Go look at the history. Hamilton was never likely to be a SNP win, but it was. Same for Crosby, Croydon North West etc for the Alliance, and Carmarthen etc for Plaid Cymru.Richard_Tyndall said:TheScreamingEagles said:
Did you read my comment? His sense when it came to UKIP was back them to win 2 plus seats at the General Election at 8/1.Richard_Tyndall said:
Nope, just pointing out that however good a tipster Mike might be, when it comes to UKIP his deep seated hatred of the party means his sense goes right out of the window.TheScreamingEagles said:
.isam said:I get it.
The thread he has written here is a perfect example of that. It is the equivalent of saying the Tory party is finished if it can't win Bootle or the Rhondda.
Now you can only get 5/6.
We've seen safe seats fall at by-elections several times before. Indeed most significant parties we've seen emerge have won such seats early on in their progression.
That's not to say UKIP have to win or they're finished, but expecting them to pull off a by-election win is to expect them to do well as other parties have done while emerging.
In short, to claim the expectations as unreasonable is to ignore all the comparable precedents.
Some one else might had a go at the Labour tactical votes needed but not Helmer.
It's not so much Newark individually as it being a continuation of the trend of by-elections. So many other emerging parties managed it. It's not unreasonable to compare UKIP to their precedents.
The SNP again only once and against Labour, aided by the absence of a Liberal
Respect did it in Bradford West, but Galloway always appeals to the islamic voters.
And in Christchurch it was a 2 horse race with the LD.
Those things are very rare, only 4 of them have occured since 1945 and only on special circumstances.
Secondly, you've ticked off it happening to just about each emerging party of significance.
That's a pretty good strike rate (and again, as much about the UKIP by-elections as a group as Newark specificaly).0 -
I work with a Gooner. You don't beat Arsenal, you just score more goals than them.isam said:Mike's analysis of UKIP is becoming similar to that account [@enfieldspurs], which many people think is a spoof written by an Arsenal fan
A few of his "bons mots":
On Chelsea winning the Champions' League:"The true measure of an English team is where they finish in the Premiership."
On Chelsea winning the Europa League:"It's how far in the Champions' League you get that matters."
On Arsenal (finally) winning the FA Cup:"Chelsea have won nothing this season."0 -
Shame they have a bigger pool of voters then...Speedy said:
No one knows O'Malley and he is the governor of one of the smallest states in america.Charles said:
O'Malley's pretty organised too. mate of mine is on his election committee, so hoping to get some scoop.Speedy said:
2 out of 3.Socrates said:
What do you think the chances are that it will be Biden if Clinton does not run?Speedy said:
Biden, he is getting very neocon and active on foreign policy, almost Dick Cheney levels.Socrates said:
O'Malley.TheScreamingEagles said:@SeaShantyIrish - If Hillary doesn't run, who will get the Democrat Party nomination?
Thanks for your reply (I really am getting on a train now and won't be able to reply for a bit)
However no Hillary no presidency for the democrats, every other candidate loses by any potencial republican asked in polls, it's the female novelty effect.
He is the most organised and the most well known, if Hillary wasn't there then I'd say he is already running for the nomination and the presidency.
Problem is, he is behind every republican except marginally Ted Cruz and Chris Christie.
But it's an indication of how shallow the bench of the democrats is, the republicans have a half dosen heavyweights in the race all of them losing to Hillary because she is a well known woman, but beating everyone else.
After Hillary the democrats have a severe lack of candidates.0 -
Newsnight might be worth a watch for a change.Lib/Lab pact discussions going on.
Ian Katz @iankatz1000 5m
Also tonight…@bbclaurak reveals senior Labour and Lib Dem figures have met to discuss common ground ahead of possible coalition negotiations
0 -
Yeah, you go Avery!! It's the cyber-nhs!!!.
I am scared.0 -
Boris Johnson: 'Welcome migrants or fall like Sparta’
Mayor of London Boris Johnson says that politicians including David Cameron have made a 'policy failure' by trying to control immigration
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10876533/Boris-Johnson-Welcome-migrants-or-fall-like-Sparta.html0 -
UKIP are going nowhere regardless of how the by election goes. The political establishment simply cannot come to terms with the fact that for increasing numbers of voters the economy just doesn't work for them any more the way they think it should. The Tories won't admit it because they want to defend their 4 year asset strip for their mates. Labour are trying not to admit it because it basically admits their 13 years was fiddling whilst Rome burnt. The LibDems darent admit it because although many of them used to say it tthey're now wedded to the status quo.
Ed Milliband talks like he gets it but I don't think much of my party wants him to rubbish the new Labour years even though much of it was rubbish. So the three parties create a vacuum and in sucks UKIP. attack them for reactive candidates being reactive, but when people are mad as hell that's what they want to hear. Do I think UKIP can change anything? Hell no, they are as establishment as anyone else.
But here's the point. Tory. Labour. Coalition. Ruling party changes, the problems remain. The state is overly dictating, has utterly failed to provide long term strategic planning for basics like energy generation or housing or transport infrastructure. Or setting out the structural framework for how our economy should function such as encourage women to work by providing viable childcare so that migrant labour doesn't fill the void. Work doesn't pay not because benefits offer more cash but because work no longer covers the bills. That's not a party political failure its a long term structural failure. UKIP may not have a solution. But they tell people that the problem exists and offer a silver bullet solution. The notion that people will suddenly abruptly comprehensively change this perspective and "go home" to Tory or Labour is a joke.
All they might be persuaded to do is abstain en masse. Another drop in numbers voting is not a successful result for the other parties.0 -
Laura K is tainted! She worked for a non-bbc-governmental-organisation. There is a possibility she is human. She cannot be trusted.volcanopete said:Newsnight might be worth a watch for a change.Lib/Lab pact discussions going on.
Ian Katz @iankatz1000 5m
Also tonight…@bbclaurak reveals senior Labour and Lib Dem figures have met to discuss common ground ahead of possible coalition negotiations
0 -
[ The political establishment simply cannot come to terms with the fact that for increasing numbers of voters the economy just doesn't work for them any more the way they think it should.]
Yeah Rochdale - except you should see my Zero Hour Contract - 24 hours internet and 1L & 25G whenever I feel the need. Suck on that Workaholics!!!!!0 -
Madness? This is UKIP!!!TheScreamingEagles said:Boris Johnson: 'Welcome migrants or fall like Sparta’
Mayor of London Boris Johnson says that politicians including David Cameron have made a 'policy failure' by trying to control immigration
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10876533/Boris-Johnson-Welcome-migrants-or-fall-like-Sparta.html
[throws Boris down inverted pyramid of piffle]0 -
Blow for George Osborne as Tory council chiefs oppose fracking in Chancellor’s constituency | via @Telegraph http://fw.to/u9Ldzdl0
-
Played like a Scot.TheScreamingEagles said:Huzzah for Rickie Lambert giving me a 75% return in less than 90 minutes.
What happened to Andy Murray in sets 3 and 4?
Or more accurately Monfils played like a kipper: big purple patch when it wasn't needed and abject failure (in the fifth) when it counted.
0 -
An example of work doesn't pay. My wife and many of her friends no longer works. Their professional "middle class" jobs don't pay enough and offer enough flexibility to make them viable - in short its working to pay childcare costs and little else. So they don't work and become economically inactive.
In her case the workplace's loss has been the voluntary sector's gain, but as more and more women get forced into the same position the more the labour pool shrinks and the more migrant labour floods into to fill the jobs that still need doing but British people can't afford to take.
Soon the majority of people in essential service or public sector jobs will be migrant Labour. With a small kitchen with a double !mattress squeezed in now costing £170 a week in Kings Cross, no one else will be able to afford to take the jobs. Migration is a massive strategic structural issue. Not because migrants take all the jobs. Because wages are so low and costs so high that migrants are all that can afford to take them. Immigration under Labour suppressed wages, so my lot don't want to talk about it. Migration under the Tories continues unthrottled and wage deflation speeds up vs rising costs, so although they talk about it people know its exactly the same.
So we have UKIP. They may very well be bonkers. But when the mainstream propagate insanity they have growing appeal.....0
