politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » There can be no getting round the fact that Tories are stil

JonnyJimmy said:

malcolmg said:

JonnyJimmy said:

malcolmg said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

SquareRoot said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

SquareRoot said:

For Nick Palmer (FPT)

I cannot remember why I chose it, and if I ask a question its because I would like an answer, rather churlish of you to suggest otherwise.
Its perfectly reasonable to ask how popular Ed is in the marginal constituencies, it might well be affecting the voting outcome.

Oh look, it's one of the passive-aggressive gang again!

Oh look its Innocent , minding someone else's business again...

Let's go through your options, shall we, SR? Then we can make a book - it's a betting site, after all.

(1) You continue to jibe, self-pity & generally behave in a tiresome way. (1-4)
(2) You ask Mike Smithson to ban me. (7-4)
(3) You suggest we both knock it on the head and try to behave like grown-ups (100-30)
(4) We both convert to Islam (200-1)

re points 1 & 2), he will need to go far to beat JackW in those areas.

Malclog, you should try 3. Knock yourself on the head and try to act like a grown-up.

LOL, I will copy you and see where that gets me ( dummy teat being ordered immediately ).
I think you want to look after yourself , leave the big boys to get on with their discussions.

Ok big boy, why don't you try backing up your peculiar insinuation about my identity(ies?) from yesterday? Or was that just further, typically pathetic, malclogging?

Go and stalk someone else fruitcake

MikeK said:

isam said:

MikeK said:

isam said:

My thoughts exactly

"This election is confusing and messy. People need to come to peace with that. I have. I am dealing with it. My models have been tweaked and tested, scrapped, tweaked and tested, re-calibrated, tested.....etc, etc.

So when I hear Labour make a statement saying that UKIP voters will put Ed into No. 10 I am staggered at how unprofessional it sounds. Labour are in the business of winning campaigns. Their voters, members and candidates want them to win elections. Any other raison d'etre would need to be explained to me. So we are in a situation where Labour is effectively choosing to ignore a party which is polling between 10 and 15 per cent nationally (UKIP). Does that strike anyone as the professional approach? Speaking as a cold fish, that is. Applying cold logic, does it strike anyone as the professional approach?

It's worse than that. Because [and I'm exasperated just having to explain this again] the impact from UKIP is not randomly distributed. It depends on where you live. So 10 per cent for UKIP nationally translates to between 25 and 38% in seats across the country, depending on the particular demographics and voter behaviours in each seat. Which brings me on to the 'irresponsible' part."

http://election-data.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/labour-and-ukip.html

Who is this guy writing this blog, isam; do you know?

I don't, but I think he has posted on here

It's not good to be writing a blog and remain nameless.

He's written a piece in the telegraph using his real name (with Robert Ford)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10872552/Newark-by-election-Can-David-Cameron-hold-back-Ukips-purple-tide.html

Experience from the continent shows in the long run its the left that is most damaged as the wwc are given a viable alternative.

MaxPB said:

I'm surprised that Labour are being so obvious about it all...

It is very poor strategy and tactics.

Life_ina_market_town said:

TOPPING said:

Trust the people.

What if the people themselves don't want to trust the people? Or is mob rule only appropriate in some areas?

Yes I hear the argument you are snippily making; we don't elect our politicians only for us to make all the decisions ourselves. But there is precedence with the EU, in that its nature has manifestly changed since 1975 but I hear your argument: you are saying that Labour's position is "in", and those who vote for them agree. I have no problem with that.

But Labour isn't so clear. In particular, they write:

"We will introduce a new law to stop powers transferring to Brussels without the British people having a say."

Which sounds pretty much to me like a referendum doesn't it? So Lab is in favour of "in" hence no in/out referendum pledge but would have a - presumably in/out - referendum under certain conditions.

Hmm.

As I said earlier, good luck to the population if they decide this is the party for them.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sheffield students: we can kick Clegg out of power

Breaking his tuition fees pledge could cost Nick Clegg his seat – if Sheffield Hallam students rally against him at the polls

http://www.theguardian.com/education/mortarboard/2014/jul/28/sheffield-hallam-students-vote-out-nick-clegg?CMP=twt_gu

I'd have thought the only area of Hallam stuffed with students would be Crookes - Can't imagine there being a massive Labour vote in Fulwood, Dore or Totley ?

Ecclesall maybe some - a mix perhaps..

Mr. Eagles, for once, you should emulate Caesar and show contempt for republicanism.

Monarchy's delightful. The alternative would be having godawful presidents, to paraphrase Francis Uqurthart.

TheScreamingEagles said:

As someone who does have Republican tendencies, pieces like this won't help the Republican cause

Look at the Queen pretending to be one of us. Don't be fooled

However much the royal family tries to update itself, it's inescapable that its days should be numbered

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/27/queen-photobombing-monarchy-republicanism?CMP=twt_gu

It's nowhere near as good as this classic (spoof, I hope!) from our dearly missed Snowflake5:

http://snowflake5.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/the-olympic-opening-ceremony-vs-jubilee.html

Referenda should be banned or Parliament dissolved for good.

If MP's are unwilling to decide issues what the hell are they doing there. Further MP's voting for any referendum should have their salary docked by at least 50% so as to encourage them in further thought.

The only exception being for nation forming such as the present Scottish referendum where clearly the sight of Wee Eck sucking lemons for most of late September is obviously worthy of a minor breach of principle.

Flightpath said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Perhaps if Labour viewed these switchers not as Con to UKIP but as Con to (Lab) to UKIP, we might see more policies and fewer bacon sandwiches.

The reason you are seeing bacon sandwiches and, bizarrely, speeches about bacon sandwiches is precisely because Labour doesn't want to talk about policies. That is because policies are about making choices, and if Ed makes choices he will put off a chunk of his precious 35% on each choice he makes.

Of course the flaw in this timid approach is that he will end having nothing much to say, and letting others define his position for him. It's also a guarantee of high unpopularity if he does become PM, when voters find that the choices have to be made after all.

yes true
However... Labour will make a lot of coded promises in the manifesto. It will fudge and promise the moon and sixpence - or rather lots of different moons and sixpences to different groups. It will of course pretend there is a magic porridge pot of money available to tax without any pain to anyone, except all those evil rich people, to pay for all its fanciful spending.
At times like this we should remember that the taxation of pension funds was not in its 1997 manifeto.

This is the same Labour party that wants the OBR to cost its manifesto? Just checking.

MaxPB said:

I'm surprised that Labour are being so obvious about it all...

I assume this is the Labour High Command's way of reassuring the troops that while the opinion polls are close and Ed is not viewed as PM material a Labour government is still odds on.

That they are having to be vocal about their master plan suggests there is alot more disquiet under the surface in the Labour party.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, I share your concerns over Charles.

Mr. Eagles (2), Miss Snowflake left before I arrived, but ColinW's Mum was amongst the very best posters to have offered contributions here.

Blushes modestly - two packs of mango flavoured angel delight (Col's all time favourite) are on their way.

Is this The Kipper Strategy?

@MrHarryCole: BBC R4 News Quiz absolutely brutal on Ed in USA: asks did Axelrod tell Obama he was meeting a dying child? Yikes: http://t.co/sn8OWShQ9T

TheScreamingEagles said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, for once, you should emulate Caesar and show contempt for republicanism.

Monarchy's delightful. The alternative would be having godawful presidents, to paraphrase Francis Uqurthart.

I like her Majesty.

But the Divine Rights of Kings. nah.

Terrible principle.

I really do worry about how terrible Prince Charles as Monarch will be.

However bad he might be it won't be anywhere near as awful as a republic. We did try one once, remember, it was not a success.

As for the Devine Right of Kings the English threw out that nasty imported idea (quite against the English tradition) when it threw out the Stuarts. Do try and keep, up Mr Eagles.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, I share your concerns over Charles.

Mr. Eagles (2), Miss Snowflake left before I arrived, but ColinW's Mum was amongst the very best posters to have offered contributions here.

Mr Dancer it’s often surprising how much agreement there is among people who otherwise seem to fundmentally disagree. Take your, and my, pride in being British, for example!

TheScreamingEagles said:

So the co-op could run our railways?

Let a thousand Flowers bloom.

GIN1138 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

GIN1138 said:

Is this The Kipper Strategy?

Yup,

Vote Silly, Get Milli.

You made me laugh on a Monday morning.

I believe it was Mr Flashman who originally came up wit that line.

HurstLlama said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, for once, you should emulate Caesar and show contempt for republicanism.

Monarchy's delightful. The alternative would be having godawful presidents, to paraphrase Francis Uqurthart.

I like her Majesty.

But the Divine Rights of Kings. nah.

Terrible principle.

I really do worry about how terrible Prince Charles as Monarch will be.

However bad he might be it won't be anywhere near as awful as a republic. We did try one once, remember, it was not a success.

As for the Devine Right of Kings the English threw out that nasty imported idea (quite against the English tradition) when it threw out the Stuarts. Do try and keep, up Mr Eagles.

Our brief flirtation with a Republic was doomed because Olly Cromwell was a numpty.

TheScreamingEagles said:

HurstLlama said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, for once, you should emulate Caesar and show contempt for republicanism.

Monarchy's delightful. The alternative would be having godawful presidents, to paraphrase Francis Uqurthart.

I like her Majesty.

But the Divine Rights of Kings. nah.

Terrible principle.

I really do worry about how terrible Prince Charles as Monarch will be.

However bad he might be it won't be anywhere near as awful as a republic. We did try one once, remember, it was not a success.

As for the Devine Right of Kings the English threw out that nasty imported idea (quite against the English tradition) when it threw out the Stuarts. Do try and keep, up Mr Eagles.

Our brief flirtation with a Republic was doomed because Olly Cromwell was a numpty.

It was Richard that was the numpty. OC was a top chap.

John_M said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HurstLlama said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, for once, you should emulate Caesar and show contempt for republicanism.

Monarchy's delightful. The alternative would be having godawful presidents, to paraphrase Francis Uqurthart.

I like her Majesty.

But the Divine Rights of Kings. nah.

Terrible principle.

I really do worry about how terrible Prince Charles as Monarch will be.

However bad he might be it won't be anywhere near as awful as a republic. We did try one once, remember, it was not a success.

As for the Devine Right of Kings the English threw out that nasty imported idea (quite against the English tradition) when it threw out the Stuarts. Do try and keep, up Mr Eagles.

Our brief flirtation with a Republic was doomed because Olly Cromwell was a numpty.

It was Richard that was the numpty. OC was a top chap.

Yeah, see the hereditary principle never works.

John_M said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HurstLlama said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, for once, you should emulate Caesar and show contempt for republicanism.

Monarchy's delightful. The alternative would be having godawful presidents, to paraphrase Francis Uqurthart.

I like her Majesty.

But the Divine Rights of Kings. nah.

Terrible principle.

I really do worry about how terrible Prince Charles as Monarch will be.

However bad he might be it won't be anywhere near as awful as a republic. We did try one once, remember, it was not a success.

As for the Devine Right of Kings the English threw out that nasty imported idea (quite against the English tradition) when it threw out the Stuarts. Do try and keep, up Mr Eagles.

Our brief flirtation with a Republic was doomed because Olly Cromwell was a numpty.

It was Richard that was the numpty. OC was a top chap.

Trouble was no-one had really thought through the succession process for the Lord Protectorship. How did other republics at the time (and in my ignorance I can only think of Venice select their rulers?

Interesting note from Panelbase re their recent poll, I'm not sure about the first one, given the the turnout in the Euros and the anticipated turnout in the indyref

We have made two adjustments to our weighting process for this poll. First, we have rebalanced our sample to reflect voting patterns in the recent European elections. Although turnout was low among the general population, it was high among the respondents to this survey and it seems prudent to take account of this very recent voting ehaviour when seeking a politically balanced sample. The effect of this is to slightly increase the gap between Yes and No.

Second, having observed in several recent polls that people born in Scotland have quite different attitudes to independence from those born elsewhere, and that Scots-born tend to be somewhat underrepresented in samples, we have also weighted the data based on country of
birth. The effect of this is to slightly narrow the gap between Yes and No. In summary, the net effect of these two new weights is statistically insignificant, as indeed are the variations in referendum voting intention between our recent polls,

http://www.panelbase.com/media/polls/F4108w12.pdf

TheScreamingEagles said:

So the co-op could run our railways?

Labour will offer cooperatives and mutually-owned companies the chance to run Britain's rail services.

Senior figures in Labour's transport team will suggest in Glasgow on Monday that employees and passengers could take a far greater role in running the railways, including bidding for specific franchises such as ScotRail.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jul/28/labour-co-operatives-mutuals-railway-franchises

Employees and passengers running the railways??

Whatever next? Citizens taking a greater role in deciding on membership of Europe?

@TOPPING
Think of it as being like the "Big Society" (except, without an investigation by the charities commission)

TheScreamingEagles said:

employees and passengers could take a far greater role in running the railways

I like the sound of this, I'd take the train more if they'd let me drive it.

@edmundintokyo
I would take the "plane" if they let you drive the train! :-)

edmundintokyo said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

employees and passengers could take a far greater role in running the railways

I like the sound of this, I'd take the train more if they'd let me drive it.

I bagsie the bit where you shout "All aboard!" and then blow a whistle. Good times.

TheScreamingEagles said:

edmundintokyo said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

employees and passengers could take a far greater role in running the railways

I like the sound of this, I'd take the train more if they'd let me drive it.

Heh.

I'd love to be able to deal with those jumped up bell ends that are called revenue protection officers

My local bath house charges extra for the sauna, which they enforce by giving people who paid a different-coloured locker key band, so if somebody without the band tries to go in the sauna they get badgered by the other customers. Have people stick their train tickets somewhere visible like they would with a ski lift pass and they could crowd-source the whole thing like that.

NickPalmer said:

By the way, for the China experts out there - I need to get from Beijing to Shanghai and later from Hangzhou to Beijing (the other legs of the trip are sorted). I'd like to avoid using donors' money unnecessarily, but also don't want to spend a day travelling when I could be doing something useful. Do you advise taking a plane or the bullet train?

You want to fly on a Chinese plane?

Populus @PopulusPolls · 1m

Latest Populus VI: Lab 37 (=), Con 33 (-2), LD 9 (=), UKIP 12 (+3) Oth 9 (-1). Tables here: http://popu.lu/s_vi140728

NickPalmer said:

By the way, for the China experts out there - I need to get from Beijing to Shanghai and later from Hangzhou to Beijing (the other legs of the trip are sorted). I'd like to avoid using donors' money unnecessarily, but also don't want to spend a day travelling when I could be doing something useful. Do you advise taking a plane or the bullet train?

Take the train - you will never have a better opportunity to speak to proper Chinese people.

@NickPalmer

"The commitment is that if a treaty transferred new powers to Brussels we'd have a referendum on whether to agree to it. If the result was "no" we'd veto the change and carry on as before"

Howls of derisive laughter, there Nick. The idea that after months, probably years of patient negotiations to produce the Treaty of Troyes (to pick a name), the UK government would or indeed could just veto it and try and carry on as before is just risible, as you well know.

On top of which, as you also well know, the Treaty of Lisbon was framed in such a way that further treaties involving the consent of member states are most unlikely as they are no longer needed. The position of Labour on this issue is fundamentally dishonest.

Flightpath said:

NickPalmer said:

By the way, for the China experts out there - I need to get from Beijing to Shanghai and later from Hangzhou to Beijing (the other legs of the trip are sorted). I'd like to avoid using donors' money unnecessarily, but also don't want to spend a day travelling when I could be doing something useful. Do you advise taking a plane or the bullet train?

You want to fly on a Chinese plane?

Going all the way by China Air anyway, it's cheaper. People don't donate to us so I can reduce my risk from 0.000001% to 0.00001%. Suppose I'd make the same choice if I was going at my own expense - the risky bit is crossing the road to get to the Tube to Heathrow...

DavidL said:

Start of England batting collapse?

Yet another duff decision that could have been fixed by DRS.

No Pitch is excellent for batting still, Root & Bell should be able to score here. THe question is - how many runs can we can get before over 170 so perhaps we can have a go at India this evening.

'So the co-op could run our railways?

Labour will offer cooperatives and mutually-owned companies the chance to run Britain's rail services.'

New career opportunity for Rev Flowers?

GIN1138 said:

Hmmmm... No #CrossOverMonday from Populus and continues the trend of having bigger Lab leads on Monday compared to Friday.

We await news from His Lordship.

#MegaPollingMonday

surbiton said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Populus @PopulusPolls · 1m

Latest Populus VI: Lab 37 (=), Con 33 (-2), LD 9 (=), UKIP 12 (+3) Oth 9 (-1). Tables here: http://popu.lu/s_vi140728

There is definitely a swingback......to Labour.

No swingback to Labour and no crossover.

surbiton said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Populus @PopulusPolls · 1m

Latest Populus VI: Lab 37 (=), Con 33 (-2), LD 9 (=), UKIP 12 (+3) Oth 9 (-1). Tables here: http://popu.lu/s_vi140728

There is definitely a swingback......to Labour.

Looks more like Con to UKIP!

HurstLlama said:

@NickPalmer

"The commitment is that if a treaty transferred new powers to Brussels we'd have a referendum on whether to agree to it. If the result was "no" we'd veto the change and carry on as before"

Howls of derisive laughter, there Nick. The idea that after months, probably years of patient negotiations to produce the Treaty of Troyes (to pick a name), the UK government would or indeed could just veto it and try and carry on as before is just risible, as you well know.

On top of which, as you also well know, the Treaty of Lisbon was framed in such a way that further treaties involving the consent of member states are most unlikely as they are no longer needed. The position of Labour on this issue is fundamentally dishonest.

Well, I don't think there will be a Treaty of Troyes - nobody really wants to bother, and I don't think there's any great interest in moving fresh powers over either, with or without a treaty. But the Conservative position is to have a referendum in 2017 on this supposed treaty (which won't be ready yet) anticipating giving Britain various powers back (which won't happen to any significant degree) based on a British Government wish-list (which the Government declines to disclose). Asked if they'd have another referendum if a treaty actually emerges, perhaps with quite different terms, they decline to comment. How would you describe that?

By contrast to the Tories, UKIP's position is fairly straightforward. I disagree with it, but it's not weaselly, except arguably on the EEA/non-EEA position.

Populus: bouncy as usual, though Pulpstar's analysis is curious - why exactly do the weighted figures differ? Mildly interesting is that they've asked for preference by public/private sector. The difference is modest - Lab leads by 57-24 in the public sector, 43-30 in the private sector (the balance being that we lose among retired people). Do the Conservatives worry at all that they're so unpopular with people who are actually working?

NickPalmer said:

HurstLlama said:

@NickPalmer

"The commitment is that if a treaty transferred new powers to Brussels we'd have a referendum on whether to agree to it. If the result was "no" we'd veto the change and carry on as before"

Howls of derisive laughter, there Nick. The idea that after months, probably years of patient negotiations to produce the Treaty of Troyes (to pick a name), the UK government would or indeed could just veto it and try and carry on as before is just risible, as you well know.

On top of which, as you also well know, the Treaty of Lisbon was framed in such a way that further treaties involving the consent of member states are most unlikely as they are no longer needed. The position of Labour on this issue is fundamentally dishonest.

Well, I don't think there will be a Treaty of Troyes - nobody really wants to bother, and I don't think there's any great interest in moving fresh powers over either, with or without a treaty. But the Conservative position is to have a referendum in 2017 on this supposed treaty (which won't be ready yet) anticipating giving Britain various powers back (which won't happen to any significant degree) based on a British Government wish-list (which the Government declines to disclose). Asked if they'd have another referendum if a treaty actually emerges, perhaps with quite different terms, they decline to comment. How would you describe that?

By contrast to the Tories, UKIP's position is fairly straightforward. I disagree with it, but it's not weaselly, except arguably on the EEA/non-EEA position.

Populus: bouncy as usual, though Pulpstar's analysis is curious - why exactly do the weighted figures differ? Mildly interesting is that they've asked for preference by public/private sector. The difference is modest - Lab leads by 57-24 in the public sector, 43-30 in the private sector (the balance being that we lose among retired people). Do the Conservatives worry at all that they're so unpopular with people who are actually working?

Nick, Nick, Nick, the proper reaction of an honest man accused of supporting a dishonest position is not to say, "Well, that chap over there, he is being dishonest too". The fact that someone else is not telling the whole truth does not give oneself permission of excuse to be knowingly misleading, even if you are a politician.

NickPalmer said:

TOPPING said:

But Labour isn't so clear. In particular, they write:

"We will introduce a new law to stop powers transferring to Brussels without the British people having a say."

Which sounds pretty much to me like a referendum doesn't it? So Lab is in favour of "in" hence no in/out referendum pledge but would have a - presumably in/out - referendum under certain conditions.

Hmm.

As I said earlier, good luck to the population if they decide this is the party for them.

Not sure why you feel it's not clear, or that it would be an in/out referendum? The commitment is that if a treaty transferred new powers to Brussels we'd have a referendum on whether to agree to it. If the result was "no" we'd veto the change and carry on as before.

But as you say in other posts, we aren't offering an in/out referendum.

That's not Labour party policy, Nick!

Labour party policy is to offer an in / out referendum when there are any proposals to transfer powers to the EU.

JonathanD said:

MaxPB said:

I'm surprised that Labour are being so obvious about it all...

I assume this is the Labour High Command's way of reassuring the troops that while the opinion polls are close and Ed is not viewed as PM material a Labour government is still odds on.

That they are having to be vocal about their master plan suggests there is alot more disquiet under the surface in the Labour party.

If that's the case then it is doubly stupid.

It's one thing for the blues to say vote UKIP get Ed, it is in their best interests to push that as a possibly outcome and I think it falls on deaf ears because UKIP really loathe Cameron. However, with Labour saying it I think it will concentrate the minds of small c conservatives who are thinking of voting UKIP. The Tories have everything they need to win back UKIP supporters, a referendum and Labour saying that a vote for UKIP is a vote for Ed as PM.

NickPalmer said:

TOPPING said:

But Labour isn't so clear. In particular, they write:

"We will introduce a new law to stop powers transferring to Brussels without the British people having a say."

Which sounds pretty much to me like a referendum doesn't it? So Lab is in favour of "in" hence no in/out referendum pledge but would have a - presumably in/out - referendum under certain conditions.

Hmm.

As I said earlier, good luck to the population if they decide this is the party for them.

Not sure why you feel it's not clear, or that it would be an in/out referendum? The commitment is that if a treaty transferred new powers to Brussels we'd have a referendum on whether to agree to it. If the result was "no" we'd veto the change and carry on as before.

But as you say in other posts, we aren't offering an in/out referendum. It's irresponsible to offer referendums where the government thinks that one of the two options would be ruinous - that's why we don't have California-style referendums on e.g. abolishing local taxation or doubling schools expenditure - popular maybe, a good idea no.

If you disagree, fair enough. If it's crucial for you and you DON'T think that withdrawal would be ruinous and would like it offered with a government recommendation, you might wish to vote UKIP. If you would like an in/out referendum to vote in 2017 on a treaty whose terms you don't yet know, you might wish to vote Tory.

"The law will guarantee that no power can be transferred from Britain to the EU without an in/out referendum"

labour.org.uk/our-position-on-europe-in-five-bullet-points

fool that I am I didn't even look at the very next point (I quoted no.3 above).

Nick? Disingenuousness much?

Seriously surprised.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

JackW said:

HurstLlama said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, for once, you should emulate Caesar and show contempt for republicanism.

Monarchy's delightful. The alternative would be having godawful presidents, to paraphrase Francis Uqurthart.

I like her Majesty.

But the Divine Rights of Kings. nah.

Terrible principle.

I really do worry about how terrible Prince Charles as Monarch will be.

However bad he might be it won't be anywhere near as awful as a republic. We did try one once, remember, it was not a success.

As for the Devine Right of Kings the English threw out that nasty imported idea (quite against the English tradition) when it threw out the Stuarts. Do try and keep, up Mr Eagles.

The demise of the Divine Right of Kings was effectively signalled by Charles I having the misfortune to mislay his head in 1649 and then for his granddaughter Mary to treacherously usurp her father in 1688.

The Stuarts continued to rule for many years to come despite the inter family spat.

Anne was the last Stuart monarch, reigning as recently as 1714. In fact she died almost exactly 300 years ago.

De Jure the last Stuart monarch was King Henry IX who died in 1807. He was the last surviving grandson of James VII/II of Scotland/England.

@Neil

'That's not Labour party policy, Nick!

Labour party policy is to offer an in / out referendum when there are any proposals to transfer powers to the EU.'

It's either very confusing being a Labour PPC with all the policy U-turns or that's what Mr Palmer would like voters to think Labour's policy is on the EU.

Populus LAB 347 CON 256 LD 21 Other 26 (ukpr)

Ed is crap is PM. As with every poll this weekend EICIPM