politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If reports of private polling are accurate then the Greens
Comments
-
Phil Woolas was not convicted as far as I am aware. He allowed wrong information about an opponent at the 2010 election to be published and a court ruled that this was against election rules. So Woolas lost his seat, they election was held again. Woolas was not appointed by Ed as far as I aware.DavidL said:
Woolas was the one I had immediately in mind. I would accept that the others such as McShane and Moran had their appointments before Ed became leader and the spin doctors who resigned were not actually prosecuted.hucks67 said:
When people make statements like David L, they should provide names, so others can check whether it is correct or not. All political parties have had their problems with MPs and SPADS.AveryLP said:
David is usually very sound on all matters, but the idea that Ed's Shadow Cabinet appointees would end up with any convictions at all is quite absurd.hucks67 said:
What usual suspects Ed appointed have been convicted ?DavidL said:
Plus all the usual suspects from the Labour party who were appointed by Ed and have ended up with convictions etc.
So your statement earlier was wrong, as I cannot think of anyone that Ed has appointed who has been convicted.
You could say that this is the problem with Ed. Lack of conviction !
0 -
He retained Phil Woolas as Shadow Immigration Minister.hucks67 said:
Phil Woolas was not convicted as far as I am aware. He allowed wrong information about an opponent at the 2010 election to be published and a court ruled that this was against election rules. So Woolas lost his seat, they election was held again. Woolas was not appointed by Ed as far as I aware.DavidL said:
Woolas was the one I had immediately in mind. I would accept that the others such as McShane and Moran had their appointments before Ed became leader and the spin doctors who resigned were not actually prosecuted.hucks67 said:
When people make statements like David L, they should provide names, so others can check whether it is correct or not. All political parties have had their problems with MPs and SPADS.AveryLP said:
David is usually very sound on all matters, but the idea that Ed's Shadow Cabinet appointees would end up with any convictions at all is quite absurd.hucks67 said:
What usual suspects Ed appointed have been convicted ?DavidL said:
Plus all the usual suspects from the Labour party who were appointed by Ed and have ended up with convictions etc.
So your statement earlier was wrong, as I cannot think of anyone that Ed has appointed who has been convicted.
You could say that this is the problem with Ed. Lack of conviction !
It's a terminology issue.
Declaring the May poll result void, Mr Justice Nigel Teare and Mr Justice Griffith Williams said Mr Woolas knew all three statements were untrue, and was therefore guilty of illegal practices under election law.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-116998880 -
It was very clear in the note Salmond sent , it said Cameron on July 16th and if not Darling in August. As ever BT do not like public debate they only want it if scripted by them. They will like BBC more given their well documented bias.john_zims said:@malcolmg
'I see after all his bluster that Darling and No Scotland campaign have chickened out of the debate with Alex Salmond.'
It was Salmond that chickened out,but why let facts get in the way.
'A Better Together insider said: “This is astonishing stuff. STV told us that they would not negotiate on the date of this debate. They were emphatic that the date would not change.
“That hard line stance lasted until Salmond decided that, even although he was free on that date, he didn’t fancy debating Alistair. STV have simply rolled over. It is not on.”
Mr Darling has accepted another invitation for a debate on the BBC on August 12 but it was not known whether the First Minister would participate.'0 -
Perhaps Strictly encourages people to take up ballroom dancing, with attendant health benefits. It's a public service in its own right.Anorak said:
Rather statist to decide which programs "benefit broader society".Socrates said:
Because individual enjoyment should be a matter for individuals and the private market. Public interest programs are those which have externalities that benefit broader society, such as improving the education of the nation.Anorak said:
Playing devil's advocate, if 80% of taxpayers would prefer to watch Strictly than a documentary about the gothic revival, why is paying for the latter in the "public interest"?Socrates said:
General taxation should fund the purely "public interest" programs, like news, documentaries etc. All the entertainment stuff the BBC should be able to raise its own revenue for, either via ads or subscriptions.JackW said:
I'd abolish the idiot box license, save the admin costs and fund a more streamlined Beeb from general taxation.Richard_Nabavi said:
Let's hope they go for TV Licensing (i.e. the BBC), who use much the same tactics.JackW said:Wonga fined £2.6M for sending fake legal letters to customers.
Hopefully the government will charge 2090% pa on the debt.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28015456
Sorted.
I had no idea of the difference between a salsa and a rumba prior to watching strictly, and have been educated as a result. I kid, of course, but you get my point that defining what is beneficial/educational, and what is not, can be a very fuzzy area.
0 -
There must be a hundred more cost efficient ways of improving public health than funding Strictly Come Dancing.John_M said:
Perhaps Strictly encourages people to take up ballroom dancing, with attendant health benefits. It's a public service in its own right.Anorak said:
Rather statist to decide which programs "benefit broader society".Socrates said:
Because individual enjoyment should be a matter for individuals and the private market. Public interest programs are those which have externalities that benefit broader society, such as improving the education of the nation.Anorak said:
Playing devil's advocate, if 80% of taxpayers would prefer to watch Strictly than a documentary about the gothic revival, why is paying for the latter in the "public interest"?Socrates said:
General taxation should fund the purely "public interest" programs, like news, documentaries etc. All the entertainment stuff the BBC should be able to raise its own revenue for, either via ads or subscriptions.JackW said:
I'd abolish the idiot box license, save the admin costs and fund a more streamlined Beeb from general taxation.Richard_Nabavi said:
Let's hope they go for TV Licensing (i.e. the BBC), who use much the same tactics.JackW said:Wonga fined £2.6M for sending fake legal letters to customers.
Hopefully the government will charge 2090% pa on the debt.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28015456
Sorted.
I had no idea of the difference between a salsa and a rumba prior to watching strictly, and have been educated as a result. I kid, of course, but you get my point that defining what is beneficial/educational, and what is not, can be a very fuzzy area.0 -
Yes, it is. But we're already implicitly choosing to define what is in the public interest by the BBC's editorial decisions. All I am recommending is making that fuzzy area less fuzzy, and that taxpayers' money is spent in an accountable way. If you don't want the state deciding these things, then privatise the whole damn channel.Anorak said:
Rather statist to decide which programs "benefit broader society".
I had no idea of the difference between a salsa and a rumba prior to watching strictly, and have been educated as a result. I kid, of course, but you get my point that defining what is beneficial/educational, and what is not, can be a very fuzzy area.0 -
Not on BBC but "Le Tour" will do miracles for bike salesSocrates said:
There must be a hundred more cost efficient ways of improving public health than funding Strictly Come Dancing.John_M said:
Perhaps Strictly encourages people to take up ballroom dancing, with attendant health benefits. It's a public service in its own right.Anorak said:
Rather statist to decide which programs "benefit broader society".Socrates said:
Because individual enjoyment should be a matter for individuals and the private market. Public interest programs are those which have externalities that benefit broader society, such as improving the education of the nation.Anorak said:
Playing devil's advocate, if 80% of taxpayers would prefer to watch Strictly than a documentary about the gothic revival, why is paying for the latter in the "public interest"?Socrates said:
General taxation should fund the purely "public interest" programs, like news, documentaries etc. All the entertainment stuff the BBC should be able to raise its own revenue for, either via ads or subscriptions.JackW said:
I'd abolish the idiot box license, save the admin costs and fund a more streamlined Beeb from general taxation.Richard_Nabavi said:
Let's hope they go for TV Licensing (i.e. the BBC), who use much the same tactics.JackW said:Wonga fined £2.6M for sending fake legal letters to customers.
Hopefully the government will charge 2090% pa on the debt.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28015456
Sorted.
I had no idea of the difference between a salsa and a rumba prior to watching strictly, and have been educated as a result. I kid, of course, but you get my point that defining what is beneficial/educational, and what is not, can be a very fuzzy area.0 -
He was convicted of 3, later reduced to 2 breaches of the Representation of the People Act 1983, something the section calls an "illegal practice".hucks67 said:
Phil Woolas was not convicted as far as I am aware. He allowed wrong information about an opponent at the 2010 election to be published and a court ruled that this was against election rules. So Woolas lost his seat, they election was held again. Woolas was not appointed by Ed as far as I aware.DavidL said:
Woolas was the one I had immediately in mind. I would accept that the others such as McShane and Moran had their appointments before Ed became leader and the spin doctors who resigned were not actually prosecuted.hucks67 said:
When people make statements like David L, they should provide names, so others can check whether it is correct or not. All political parties have had their problems with MPs and SPADS.AveryLP said:
David is usually very sound on all matters, but the idea that Ed's Shadow Cabinet appointees would end up with any convictions at all is quite absurd.hucks67 said:
What usual suspects Ed appointed have been convicted ?DavidL said:
Plus all the usual suspects from the Labour party who were appointed by Ed and have ended up with convictions etc.
So your statement earlier was wrong, as I cannot think of anyone that Ed has appointed who has been convicted.
You could say that this is the problem with Ed. Lack of conviction !
He had been reappointed to the immigration brief on the shadow front bench team by Ed after his win, somewhat surprisingly as he had been a strong supporter of David. The New Statesman said it was a "bizarre decision" as Woolas had "run one of the most disgraceful election campaigns in recent history". It was indeed. Poor judgement I would say.
0 -
With England now out of the World Cup, I have come to the conclusion that the England flags flying from my pubs upstairs windows make it look like an EDL gathering site. How sad.
In other news, on consideration, I think Miliband should probably hammer on Coulson and judgement. The Juncker aspect is tricky, it's difficult to tell what the polling impact will be - there is a premium to be gained from 'standing up to Europe' and even 'being twatted by Europe' - if Cameron is allowed to be seen as poor misunderstood and righteous Britains voice against the Eurocrats, he could well gain support from the Kipper mass and eurosctic undecideds despite losing out on the appointment. He knows this well.0 -
Don't diss Strictly Come Dancing.
In the past few years, they've shown the likes of Kimberly Walsh, Rachel Riley, Abby Clancy, Kara Tointon in very revealing outfits.
That does wonders for the nation's wellbeing.
Here's an example.
(it really kicks off in about 50 secs in)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8nO0tVyFds0 -
The betting implication from the Coulson verdict is on Osborne's chances of taking over from Cameron. It is Osborne's judgement that is most at fault because he had recommended Coulson and Osborne had an involvement in the vetting. When there is an election for Cameron's replacement this episode will be brought up by his opponents.0
-
Yup even the robin hood pub mentioned in http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-27777911 has take down the England flags overnight..dyedwoolie said:With England now out of the World Cup, I have come to the conclusion that the England flags flying from my pubs upstairs windows make it look like an EDL gathering site. How sad.
0 -
Not a conviction. It was found that illegal practices against electon law had been committed. When people use the word conviction is means that a criminal act would be recorded and be subject to the rehabilitation of offenders act. The illegal practices under election law would not have led to any conviction being noted.DavidL said:
He was convicted of 3, later reduced to 2 breaches of the Representation of the People Act 1983, something the section calls an "illegal practice".hucks67 said:
Phil Woolas was not convicted as far as I am aware. He allowed wrong information about an opponent at the 2010 election to be published and a court ruled that this was against election rules. So Woolas lost his seat, they election was held again. Woolas was not appointed by Ed as far as I aware.DavidL said:
Woolas was the one I had immediately in mind. I would accept that the others such as McShane and Moran had their appointments before Ed became leader and the spin doctors who resigned were not actually prosecuted.hucks67 said:
When people make statements like David L, they should provide names, so others can check whether it is correct or not. All political parties have had their problems with MPs and SPADS.AveryLP said:
David is usually very sound on all matters, but the idea that Ed's Shadow Cabinet appointees would end up with any convictions at all is quite absurd.hucks67 said:
What usual suspects Ed appointed have been convicted ?DavidL said:
Plus all the usual suspects from the Labour party who were appointed by Ed and have ended up with convictions etc.
So your statement earlier was wrong, as I cannot think of anyone that Ed has appointed who has been convicted.
You could say that this is the problem with Ed. Lack of conviction !
He had been reappointed to the immigration brief on the shadow front bench team by Ed after his win, somewhat surprisingly as he had been a strong supporter of David. The New Statesman said it was a "bizarre decision" as Woolas had "run one of the most disgraceful election campaigns in recent history". It was indeed. Poor judgement I would say.
Anyway, the point is that all parties have had their problems and no doubt Labour will use this current problem against Cameron/Tories, the same way as Cameron/Tories would use problems that Labour or Lib Dems had. It is part of the political game. You just have to accept the damage it will cause and try to move on. I don't think it would be wise for Ed and Labour to go overboard on this, given the problems they had with Damian McBride.
0 -
Fortunately George is the most popular UK wide politician.TCPoliticalBetting said:The betting implication from the Coulson verdict is on Osborne's chances of taking over from Cameron. It is Osborne's judgement that is most at fault because he had recommended Coulson and Osborne had an involvement in the vetting. When there is an election for Cameron's replacement this episode will be brought up by his opponents.
He has the numbers to take a hit.
0 -
I broadly agree with you. I get's my goat that my license fee is bloated by crap such as Strictly (sorry, Strictly fans) which could survive quite happily on a commercial basis. And don't get me started on BBC3.Socrates said:
Yes, it is. But we're already implicitly choosing to define what is in the public interest by the BBC's editorial decisions. All I am recommending is making that fuzzy area less fuzzy, and that taxpayers' money is spent in an accountable way. If you don't want the state deciding these things, then privatise the whole damn channel.Anorak said:
Rather statist to decide which programs "benefit broader society".
I had no idea of the difference between a salsa and a rumba prior to watching strictly, and have been educated as a result. I kid, of course, but you get my point that defining what is beneficial/educational, and what is not, can be a very fuzzy area.
If I was in charge I'd retain a rolling news channel, BBC4, Radio 4, cbeebies and CBBC. All produce output which is largely non-commercial, and which I think benefits society. Trouble is, only a very small minority would agree with my list.
Anyway, the point remains that the BBC has drifted so far from it's original purpose they couldn't see it with a telescope. Privatizing Radio 1 & 2, and BBC3, is difficult to argue against if you take the view that a public broadcaster should stay outside of the purely commercial arena.0 -
Oh pish and tittle TSE, regardless of pretty girls (of whom there are many more, and far finer in the real world outside of the goggle box), strictly and it's brethren reality shows are the true opium of the masses. Mindless drivel watched by drooling morons who quickly forget that the world, the country and the establishment have let them down. It's why #revolutionnow and #activatepunk will never happen! and the likes of me are left voting Tory to stop the complete meltdown of everything under a Labour government whilst we wait for the nation to wake up and renew itself in a glorious mass movement of hope, change and rebirth.TheScreamingEagles said:Don't diss Strictly Come Dancing.
In the past few years, they've shown the likes of Kimberly Walsh, Rachel Riley, Abby Clancy, Kara Tointon in very revealing outfits.
That does wonders for the nation's wellbeing.
Here's an example.
(it really kicks off in about 50 secs in)
Or something0 -
Nick Clegg was most popular for about 2 weeks before May 2010. Popularity does not last in the political world.TheScreamingEagles said:
Fortunately George is the most popular UK wide politician.TCPoliticalBetting said:The betting implication from the Coulson verdict is on Osborne's chances of taking over from Cameron. It is Osborne's judgement that is most at fault because he had recommended Coulson and Osborne had an involvement in the vetting. When there is an election for Cameron's replacement this episode will be brought up by his opponents.
He has the numbers to take a hit.
0 -
Mine are fluttering, sadly, and a little provocatively. I can't be arsed to get the ladder out.eek said:
Yup even the robin hood pub mentioned in http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-27777911 has take down the England flags overnight..dyedwoolie said:With England now out of the World Cup, I have come to the conclusion that the England flags flying from my pubs upstairs windows make it look like an EDL gathering site. How sad.
0 -
George Osborne is no Nick Clegg.hucks67 said:
Nick Clegg was most popular for about 2 weeks before May 2010. Popularity does not last in the political world.TheScreamingEagles said:
Fortunately George is the most popular UK wide politician.TCPoliticalBetting said:The betting implication from the Coulson verdict is on Osborne's chances of taking over from Cameron. It is Osborne's judgement that is most at fault because he had recommended Coulson and Osborne had an involvement in the vetting. When there is an election for Cameron's replacement this episode will be brought up by his opponents.
He has the numbers to take a hit.
0 -
On topic, I am wary of placing bets on secondhand accounts of opinion polls where we have not seen the questions asked and when we do not know when exactly the poll was taken (Green polling in general has improved in the last couple of months).0
-
Legal arguments heard by Mr Justice Saunders this morning have delayed jury deliberations.
The Judge has restricted the media from reporting the substance of the legal arguments, but there is a high probability of them referring to media coverage of yesterday's verdicts and associated statements made by politicians.
In the circumstances, I think it highly unlikely that PMQs will refer to Coulson.0 -
George Osborne can walk on Watsoner.TheScreamingEagles said:
George Osborne is no Nick Clegg.hucks67 said:
Nick Clegg was most popular for about 2 weeks before May 2010. Popularity does not last in the political world.TheScreamingEagles said:
Fortunately George is the most popular UK wide politician.TCPoliticalBetting said:The betting implication from the Coulson verdict is on Osborne's chances of taking over from Cameron. It is Osborne's judgement that is most at fault because he had recommended Coulson and Osborne had an involvement in the vetting. When there is an election for Cameron's replacement this episode will be brought up by his opponents.
He has the numbers to take a hit.
0 -
I agree that George is not as good as Nick or as well educated or intelligent.TheScreamingEagles said:
George Osborne is no Nick Clegg.hucks67 said:
Nick Clegg was most popular for about 2 weeks before May 2010. Popularity does not last in the political world.TheScreamingEagles said:
Fortunately George is the most popular UK wide politician.TCPoliticalBetting said:The betting implication from the Coulson verdict is on Osborne's chances of taking over from Cameron. It is Osborne's judgement that is most at fault because he had recommended Coulson and Osborne had an involvement in the vetting. When there is an election for Cameron's replacement this episode will be brought up by his opponents.
He has the numbers to take a hit.
George only got the chancellors job for being Daves mate.
0 -
Wrong.hucks67 said:
I agree that George is not as good as Nick or as well educated or intelligent.TheScreamingEagles said:
George Osborne is no Nick Clegg.hucks67 said:
Nick Clegg was most popular for about 2 weeks before May 2010. Popularity does not last in the political world.TheScreamingEagles said:
Fortunately George is the most popular UK wide politician.TCPoliticalBetting said:The betting implication from the Coulson verdict is on Osborne's chances of taking over from Cameron. It is Osborne's judgement that is most at fault because he had recommended Coulson and Osborne had an involvement in the vetting. When there is an election for Cameron's replacement this episode will be brought up by his opponents.
He has the numbers to take a hit.
George only got the chancellors job for being Daves mate.
George Osborne was appointed Shadow Chancellor by Michael Howard.
0 -
That's true, Howard needs to take some responsibility for him as well.TheScreamingEagles said:
Wrong.hucks67 said:
I agree that George is not as good as Nick or as well educated or intelligent.TheScreamingEagles said:
George Osborne is no Nick Clegg.hucks67 said:
Nick Clegg was most popular for about 2 weeks before May 2010. Popularity does not last in the political world.TheScreamingEagles said:
Fortunately George is the most popular UK wide politician.TCPoliticalBetting said:The betting implication from the Coulson verdict is on Osborne's chances of taking over from Cameron. It is Osborne's judgement that is most at fault because he had recommended Coulson and Osborne had an involvement in the vetting. When there is an election for Cameron's replacement this episode will be brought up by his opponents.
He has the numbers to take a hit.
George only got the chancellors job for being Daves mate.
George Osborne was appointed Shadow Chancellor by Michael Howard.0 -
@Anorak
"I broadly agree with you. I get's my goat that my license fee is bloated by crap such as Strictly (sorry, Strictly fans) which could survive quite happily on a commercial basis. And don't get me started on BBC3.
If I was in charge I'd retain a rolling news channel, BBC4, Radio 4, cbeebies and CBBC. All produce output which is largely non-commercial, and which I think benefits society. Trouble is, only a very small minority would agree with my list.
Anyway, the point remains that the BBC has drifted so far from it's original purpose they couldn't see it with a telescope. Privatizing Radio 1 & 2, and BBC3, is difficult to argue against if you take the view that a public broadcaster should stay outside of the purely commercial arena"
The problem with reforming the BBC's funding arrangements is how to maintain the non-political bits of Radio 4, which, alas, these days includes most of its comedy output.
I haven't watched live TV of any shade for more than a decade, though I do make use of the IPlayer service for occasional science and history programmes and that sort of viewing can be comfortably funded by a subscription/pay per view service. Nonetheless I still would not want to see the licence fee abolished unless some other equal value for money method can be found to enable the "good" bits of Radio 4 to continue.
The licence fee costs a bit less than three quid a week for which I get to listen to some spiffing programmes. "In Our Time" on Thursday morning is worth £3 on its own, then add in all the other history, science, business programmes, plus some good drama from time to time and the very occasional good bit of political analysis (e.g. on the run-up to Hollande's election Radio 4 put out an excellent programme on who he was, where he had come from what he believed etc.). So for me the licence fee represents terrific value for money.
On an associated note, Jack W suggests the World Service needs to be beefed up. Not so much beefed up as returned to its original values, Mr. W.. I used to listen to it a lot, I don't bother at all now that it has slumped to a fairly bald propaganda station for so-called progressive values.
0 -
The UK economy is doing so well in comparison with its global competitors that everyone wants to take some responsibility for George's appointment.FrankBooth said:
That's true, Howard needs to take some responsibility for him as well.TheScreamingEagles said:
Wrong.hucks67 said:
I agree that George is not as good as Nick or as well educated or intelligent.TheScreamingEagles said:
George Osborne is no Nick Clegg.hucks67 said:
Nick Clegg was most popular for about 2 weeks before May 2010. Popularity does not last in the political world.TheScreamingEagles said:
Fortunately George is the most popular UK wide politician.TCPoliticalBetting said:The betting implication from the Coulson verdict is on Osborne's chances of taking over from Cameron. It is Osborne's judgement that is most at fault because he had recommended Coulson and Osborne had an involvement in the vetting. When there is an election for Cameron's replacement this episode will be brought up by his opponents.
He has the numbers to take a hit.
George only got the chancellors job for being Daves mate.
George Osborne was appointed Shadow Chancellor by Michael Howard.
It's the price he has to pay for his success.0 -
Cameron is the one associated with Coulson. Osborne, although he is in reality is not nearly as much in the perception.
I don't think it'll be a particular barrier should he go for the top job.0 -
-
Broadly agree. I hardly ever watch anything on BBC TV although I am now working my way through a box set of Sherlock which was simply brilliant in the early series. I also watch a bit of sport such as the football and the Olympics.HurstLlama said:@Anorak
"I broadly agree with you. I get's my goat that my license fee is bloated by crap such as Strictly (sorry, Strictly fans) which could survive quite happily on a commercial basis. And don't get me started on BBC3.
If I was in charge I'd retain a rolling news channel, BBC4, Radio 4, cbeebies and CBBC. All produce output which is largely non-commercial, and which I think benefits society. Trouble is, only a very small minority would agree with my list.
Anyway, the point remains that the BBC has drifted so far from it's original purpose they couldn't see it with a telescope. Privatizing Radio 1 & 2, and BBC3, is difficult to argue against if you take the view that a public broadcaster should stay outside of the purely commercial arena"
The problem with reforming the BBC's funding arrangements is how to maintain the non-political bits of Radio 4, which, alas, these days includes most of its comedy output.
I haven't watched live TV of any shade for more than a decade, though I do make use of the IPlayer service for occasional science and history programmes and that sort of viewing can be comfortably funded by a subscription/pay per view service. Nonetheless I still would not want to see the licence fee abolished unless some other equal value for money method can be found to enable the "good" bits of Radio 4 to continue.
The licence fee costs a bit less than three quid a week for which I get to listen to some spiffing programmes. "In Our Time" on Thursday morning is worth £3 on its own, then add in all the other history, science, business programmes, plus some good drama from time to time and the very occasional good bit of political analysis (e.g. on the run-up to Hollande's election Radio 4 put out an excellent programme on who he was, where he had come from what he believed etc.). So for me the licence fee represents terrific value for money.
On an associated note, Jack W suggests the World Service needs to be beefed up. Not so much beefed up as returned to its original values, Mr. W.. I used to listen to it a lot, I don't bother at all now that it has slumped to a fairly bald propaganda station for so-called progressive values.
But I would be quite happy to pay £3 a week for R4 and R5 live. I spend far too many hours in the car to do without them. "In our Time" is indeed a gem.
0 -
Damnit, I wish I had backed Coulson now.0
-
Confident Dave springs to his feet.0
-
Yes let's pause to think of Hugh Grant and Steve Coogan.0
-
Coulson backers are a winner.0
-
Ha. Miliband doesn't have anything else to go on; can't think on his feet.0
-
100/1 Suarez bet out the window.0
-
Mr. Topping, I'm sorry your long shot bet bit the dust.0
-
Ed shot down in flames in first salvo.0
-
Dare I say I had England to win vs Costa Rica 3-0....?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Topping, I'm sorry your long shot bet bit the dust.
0 -
Miliband: all tactics but no strategy.
Disappointing again.
0 -
OK now they're in the sludge of Leveson there was no knockout moment from EdM.
He had a limited opportunity and didn't nail it.0 -
Mr. Topping, everyone has bets that don't come off.
Which is a shame, because I'd quite like being unable to lose at betting. My wallet would certainly be weightier.0 -
A bit like Hannibalfoxinsoxuk said:Miliband: all tactics but no strategy.
Disappointing again.0 -
Perhaps Ed should cross the floor and bite Dave's back.TheScreamingEagles said:
A bit like Hannibalfoxinsoxuk said:Miliband: all tactics but no strategy.
Disappointing again.
A bit like Cannibal.
0 -
Smart move by the Tories getting a friendly question in first on Coulson.0
-
Open goal missed by Ed.0
-
He's really not very good.foxinsoxuk said:Miliband: all tactics but no strategy.
Disappointing again.0 -
Oliver Cooper @OliverCooper 56s
BREAKING: Miliband to demand an independent public inquiry into why an independent public inquiry didn't say what Miliband wanted. #PMQs0 -
Mr. Eagles, he spent over a decade marauding around Italy, undefeated. Trying to get some work done, so I'm afraid I don't have the time necessary to point out the mountain of wrongness you're busy climbing.0
-
Vetting? Stupid tack.
I'm sure he was vetted to within an inch of his life.0 -
Ed should call for an enquiry into his performance today0
-
He lost the second Punic War.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, he spent over a decade marauding around Italy, undefeated. Trying to get some work done, so I'm afraid I don't have the time necessary to point out the mountain of wrongness you're busy climbing.
0 -
OK heading out - Cam playing the straightest of straight bats and has done enough.
Ed's measured tone is self-defeating and his attack is blunt.0 -
Then why doesn't it? Why didn't Sky or ITV think of it? In any case, the BBC makes a boatload of cash selling the format to foreign commercial stations.HurstLlama said:@Anorak
"I broadly agree with you. I get's my goat that my license fee is bloated by crap such as Strictly (sorry, Strictly fans) which could survive quite happily on a commercial basis.
The BBC has always has entertainment as part of its Reithian brief. More objectionable perhaps are programmes like The Voice which look suspiciously like the BBC's me-too versions of ITV hits.
0 -
Even Kinnock and Foot would have managed a single goal in these circumstances.TheWatcher said:
He's really not very good.foxinsoxuk said:Miliband: all tactics but no strategy.
Disappointing again.
Time for the Labour Party to substitute their striker.0 -
Mr. Eagles, the Hanno Party lost the war. It's a curious thing to blame the best of Carthage for its defeat. By that logic you should claim Varro won it for Rome.0
-
What the blazes has Osborne done with his barnet?0
-
Miliband doesn't know how DV works. Muppet.TOPPING said:Vetting? Stupid tack.
I'm sure he was vetted to within an inch of his life.
Cameron hasn't lost his temper either. Interesting.0 -
Don't know if this photo thing will work but I think it worth a try, from Twitter:
twitter.com/Jamin2g/status/481754402492260352/photo/1
I wonder if Miliband apologised fro those photos of him with the Sun.
0 -
Christ,miliband reading from a script.0
-
As a general observation, it is hard for a LOTO to score when the subject matter is so predictable. The PM (whoever it is) will inevitably have slick answers prepared.0
-
Extrodinary performance from Ed to lose PMQs this week.0
-
This is from the Pol Ed of the New Statesman, and one of Ed's biggest supporters
George Eaton @georgeeaton 1m
Cameron thumped that one into an open goal. #PMQs0 -
Kevin Maguire @Kevin_Maguire 45s
Think we're about to find Labour MPs will be more dangerous than Miliband for Cameron over Coulson #pmqs0 -
So it's just not PB Tories who think Ed sucked more than a hooker that swallowed a Dyson.0
-
Well that was pathetic.
I always thought Leveson was another appalling waste of money but Cameron may not agree after today!0 -
Why, because they'll give Cameron an excuse to bring up McBride, Moore and Campbell? Oh, wait...TheScreamingEagles said:Kevin Maguire @Kevin_Maguire 45s
Think we're about to find Labour MPs will be more dangerous than Miliband for Cameron over Coulson #pmqs
0 -
Jim Pickard @PickardJE 34s
I'm not saying Cameron has hacked Miliband's phone....but he did uncannily anticipate all the questions. #pmqs
David Roe @DavidRoe92 54s
Ed Miliband takes penalties like Chris Waddle.0 -
I couldn't watch PMQs today - like England in a penalty shoot out, I knew my side was going to lose....0
-
Isn't it therefore wise for the LOTO to be unpredictable in his lines of attack?Richard_Nabavi said:As a general observation, it is hard for a LOTO to score when the subject matter is so predictable. The PM (whoever it is) will inevitably have slick answers prepared.
0 -
Well he didn't exactly need a clairvoyant to do that.TheScreamingEagles said:Jim Pickard @PickardJE 34s
I'm not saying Cameron has hacked Miliband's phone....but he did uncannily anticipate all the questions. #pmqs.0 -
Quite. I've not watched it but I predicted a few days back that this site would be all over "Ed missing an open goal". I don't think PMQs is neither here nor there today, the front page of the Daily Mail is perhaps the most narrative forming piece today, and not brilliant for Cameron.Richard_Nabavi said:As a general observation, it is hard for a LOTO to score when the subject matter is so predictable. The PM (whoever it is) will have slick answers prepared.
It will all be chip wrappers soon anyway - but like Ed's Sun mishap you don't want to many of these poor narrative pieces... that goes for both Ed & Dave.
0 -
Indeed so.AveryLP said:
Isn't it therefore wise for the LOTO to be unpredictable in his lines of attack?Richard_Nabavi said:As a general observation, it is hard for a LOTO to score when the subject matter is so predictable. The PM (whoever it is) will inevitably have slick answers prepared.
0 -
Cameron pulls Chris Bryant's pants down in PMQs
Oo-err0 -
Today's PMQs scores
David Cameron: Scipio Africanus
Ed Miliband = Hannibal0 -
Phillip Davies being very helpful to Dave.0
-
Cracking question.0
-
Mr. Eagles, it seems unlike Cameron will state that Miliband had the better tactics.0
-
@peterjukes: BREAKING; #hackingtrial jury not able to bring in a verdict on Coulson Goodman Counts 2 & 3 - jury discharged: decision about retrial Monday0
-
'John Rentoul, Independent on Sunday tweets "Harold Wilson would have finished Cameron today." Discuss. #PMQs'
Says it all.0 -
One thing though - Isn't Ed Miliband being poor at PMQs totally priced in.
Hague regularly battered Blair but a fat lot of good it did him at the General Election....0 -
Tykejohnno said:
Christ,miliband reading from a script.
What were we saying on here yesterday about the qualities needed by leaders? Would you really want to follow a man who cannot even remember the words of a question?0 -
Plant question from own side ? Never seen that trick before !TheScreamingEagles said:Phillip Davies being very helpful to Dave.
"Would the prime minister agree that our side's shit smells of roses..." sorry got bored of that ages ago. As did 99% of the rest of the general populace.0 -
No verdict possible in remaining charges0
-
I thought it couldn't get much worse for Ed at PMQ's ....
Then he scores six own goals. The glum faces on the opposition benches says it all.0 -
Jury discharged by Mr Justice Saunders after reporting it had been unable to reach a majority verdict on the remaining four charges against Goodman and Coulson.
Now up to CPS whether to go for a retrial.0 -
Labour can't land a punch today - Cameron has clearly been preparing for a long time for this day and handled things with confidence. Miliband should have done better - but, yet again, he has failed on the big occasion. That will have been noted.
Cameron is not going to be able to put this fully behind him - but when he is up against such a LOTO, he isn't going to suffer as much as he could have done.0 -
But he's part of the awkward squad and usually not very helpful to DavePulpstar said:
Plant question from own side. Never seen that trick before !TheScreamingEagles said:Phillip Davies being very helpful to Dave.
0 -
Miliband needs to develop a vicious streak.
It's all well and good to win the argument over detail in PMQ (snd it's debatable as to whether he did that) but he needs to win the headlines. He should've repeatedly demanded that Cameron resign, with proper anger. It would've rallied the backbenchers and made the news headlines.
He was shite today.0 -
Jury discharged - no verdicts.0
-
That is a fair point. And very few watch PMQs anyway. Of those that do very few do so with open minds. Present company excepted of course!Pulpstar said:One thing though - Isn't Ed Miliband being poor at PMQs totally priced in.
Hague regularly battered Blair but a fat lot of good it did him at the General Election....
0 -
Matt, has the genius to take two unrelated stories and hilariously combine them. - tis a gift!RobD said:Matt on-form, as ever.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/0 -
It will be dragged up in the internal Leadership campaign. All a question of judgement.Pulpstar said:Cameron is the one associated with Coulson. Osborne, although he is in reality is not nearly as much in the perception.
I don't think it'll be a particular barrier should he go for the top job.
0 -
Can't think on his feet, and completely failed to make any attack on EU shenanigans.JackW said:I thought it couldn't get much worse for Ed at PMQ's ....
Then he scores six own goals. The glum faces on the opposition benches says it all.
Milliband's a plum.0 -
No retrial I'd say, Miliband and the press have prejudiced any chance of a fair trial0
-
Yasmin Qureshi - A quite awful speaking manner.
Amazing for a barrister. Pity the folk she represented.0 -
Lol Has Game of Thrones been mentioned ?0
