politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Remember when the Tories “won” England at GE2005: Ahead on
Britain’s leading political scientist, Professor John Curtice, has taken to describing the phenomenon of the 2010 LD to LAB switchers as Labour’s “crutch” for without this massive influx of support EdM’s party would be in a sorry state.
Comments
-
Good afternoon, everyone.
Two damned wasps got in today. Stripy bastards.
The bet sounds pretty sound, Mr. Smithson.0 -
Tories need to be well ahead in England to prevent a Labour majority.0
-
Ed lines up 100% behind Warsi.0
-
The irony of course is the AV referendum,one of 2 acts of Tory self-harm this parliament,the other being the failure to change constituency boundaries because of the spat with the LibDems over Lords Reform.Taken together, the Tories could have cost themselves a majority without anyone else's help.0
-
The boundaries card was played by Clegg because he had to play it, it was an existential threat to the Lib Dems. If they were on 8% or w/e at the moment they would be staring down the barrel at a far larger seat loss than they would be at the moment with the new boundaries and far weaker incumbency. The issue also carried quite conveniently almost no public saliency.volcanopete said:The irony of course is the AV referendum,one of 2 acts of Tory self-harm this parliament,the other being the failure to change constituency boundaries because of the spat with the LibDems over Lords Reform.Taken together, the Tories could have cost themselves a majority without anyone else's help.
In essence this was a pretty risk free "stab" on Cameron by Clegg in the context of the coalition relationship. Lords reform was a convenient fig leaf to hide the actions behind. Clegg did what he had to do on boundaries. And he did it pretty well.0 -
Yet now they are on 6% - a bit more national interest over LD interests and well he might be in double figures.Pulpstar said:
The boundaries card was played by Clegg because he had to play it, it was an existential threat to the Lib Dems. If they were on 8% or w/e at the moment they would be staring down the barrel at a far larger seat loss than they would be at the moment with the new boundaries and far weaker incumbency. The issue also carried quite conveniently almost no public saliency.volcanopete said:The irony of course is the AV referendum,one of 2 acts of Tory self-harm this parliament,the other being the failure to change constituency boundaries because of the spat with the LibDems over Lords Reform.Taken together, the Tories could have cost themselves a majority without anyone else's help.
In essence this was a pretty risk free "stab" on Cameron by Clegg in the context of the coalition relationship. Lords reform was a convenient fig leaf to hide the actions behind. Clegg did what he had to do on boundaries. And he did it pretty well.
0 -
Next May will show whether it was indeed a "risk free stab". If Ed Miliband has a majority of a handful of seats, there will be some LibDems ruing the day they were so clever - when they hand back their Ministerial cars and head off into the political wilderness again.... If the pundits are right that Ed Miliband will soon be a supremely unpopular PM, then don't expect the Tories to need the LibDems again anytime soon.Pulpstar said:
In essence this was a pretty risk free "stab" on Cameron by Clegg in the context of the coalition relationship. Lords reform was a convenient fig leaf to hide the actions behind. Clegg did what he had to do on boundaries. And he did it pretty well.
0 -
Mr Dancer, I will see your two wasps, and raise you four hornets....Morris_Dancer said:Good afternoon, everyone.
Two damned wasps got in today. Stripy bastards.
0 -
Yes, it was the boundaries that did for them.TGOHF said:
Yet now they are on 6% - a bit more national interest over LD interests and well he might be in double figures.Pulpstar said:
The boundaries card was played by Clegg because he had to play it, it was an existential threat to the Lib Dems. If they were on 8% or w/e at the moment they would be staring down the barrel at a far larger seat loss than they would be at the moment with the new boundaries and far weaker incumbency. The issue also carried quite conveniently almost no public saliency.volcanopete said:The irony of course is the AV referendum,one of 2 acts of Tory self-harm this parliament,the other being the failure to change constituency boundaries because of the spat with the LibDems over Lords Reform.Taken together, the Tories could have cost themselves a majority without anyone else's help.
In essence this was a pretty risk free "stab" on Cameron by Clegg in the context of the coalition relationship. Lords reform was a convenient fig leaf to hide the actions behind. Clegg did what he had to do on boundaries. And he did it pretty well.
0 -
@MarqueeMark; @TGOHF
Lib Dems aren't on 8% due to the boundary change shenanigans. I think they'd have been on 8% no matter, and they'd be looking at possibly ~ 10 seats rather than ~ 28 perhaps currently.
0 -
Cements the Red-Yellow anti-Iraq switching Muslim/peacenik vote firmly back into the red camp. Possibly at the expense of a few UKIP Lab - Con/UKIP switchers but a net positive for Miliband I think.SeanT said:
Like it or not, the politics of this are great for Miliband.taffys said:Ed lines up 100% behind Warsi.
0 -
FPT:
No, the debt is subject to negotiation - try getting into the EU or NATO if you are seen to renege on your debt. All that would happen is that your biggest (by orders of magnitude) trading partner would erect tariffs on Scottish imports until the debt had been paid off. Almost certainly with border controls. Whether Scotland would have been able to impose capital controls (remember the days of £50 to go abroad?) before capital flight happened should be giving you sleepless nights.....malcolmg said:
If that is correct then of course we also leave the debt as it is the UK's debt and as you say we have left the UK. I doubt the rUK will want that outcome. You cannot have your cake and eat it.CarlottaVance said:
The pound does not belong to Scotland. The statement “it’s as much Scotland’s currency as it is the rest of the UK’s” is false. The pound is the UK currency. It belongs neither to Scotland nor to England but to the UK. If Scotland votes Yes next month, Scotland will have voted to leave the UK. Leave the UK and you leave the UK’s public institutions, including the UK pound. This has been clear for months and months and months, yet still the Scottish Government are in denial about it. But you no longer have to take my or any other No campaigner’s word for it. Last month Lawyers for Yes wrote on their website that it is “true to say that the public institutions of the UK would become the public institutions of rUK” and that “the Bank of England is a UK body and the pound is the UK’s currency, and as ‘institutions’ of the UK they would stay with the UK”malcolmg said:
Even fools know that one , HMG lying does not hide the realityCarlottaVance said:
There is a difference between an 'open-minded' and 'empty head'.......Did the Scottish Govt one tell you what your currency would be (since the other one told you it wouldn't be the £?)malcolmg said:Just received the competing material from HMG and The Scottish Government. HMG one is amateurish and very poor. Keep the pound , lower bills , more public services and so just more lies and dire presentation.
Contrast with a professional one from Scottish Government that is positive , gives options and promotes Scotland and the people, it is no contest.
PS : just for you , it clearly states the published policy which is "We'll keep the pound"
There you have it. Lawyers for Yes admitting that what the UK Government have said is correct and that what the Scottish Government continue to say is wrong in law. In the law we have a word for what the SNP are doing. That word is misrepresentation.
http://notesfromnorthbritain.wordpress.com/2014/08/05/what-shall-we-call-it-now/
Naw! They're aw wrong and Eck is reet!
We can still use the pound as our currency though.
0 -
rUK will assume the debt - I'm sure they'll play nice in negotiations in order to get Scotland to pay its share.CarlottaVance said:No, the debt is subject to negotiation
0 -
Nick Clegg lied, and it has cost his party the support of tactical tory voters in Lib/Lab seats.Neil said:
Yes, it was the boundaries that did for them.TGOHF said:
Yet now they are on 6% - a bit more national interest over LD interests and well he might be in double figures.Pulpstar said:
The boundaries card was played by Clegg because he had to play it, it was an existential threat to the Lib Dems. If they were on 8% or w/e at the moment they would be staring down the barrel at a far larger seat loss than they would be at the moment with the new boundaries and far weaker incumbency. The issue also carried quite conveniently almost no public saliency.volcanopete said:The irony of course is the AV referendum,one of 2 acts of Tory self-harm this parliament,the other being the failure to change constituency boundaries because of the spat with the LibDems over Lords Reform.Taken together, the Tories could have cost themselves a majority without anyone else's help.
In essence this was a pretty risk free "stab" on Cameron by Clegg in the context of the coalition relationship. Lords reform was a convenient fig leaf to hide the actions behind. Clegg did what he had to do on boundaries. And he did it pretty well.
:Tory Eleanor Laing
“It is now being reported that the Liberal Democrat party … will not continue to support the boundaries legislation unless House of Lords reform is passed in the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Is that the case?”
Clegg responded:
“There is no formal link between the two.”
Pressed again by Laing to clarify, Clegg denied another two times:
“Of course, there is no reliance on our support for a Coalition Agreement commitment for progress on unrelated or other significant parallel constitutional formations. I have said that. There is no link; of course, there is no link.”
http://politicalscrapbook.net/2012/08/nick-clegg-lords-reform/
That's the reason why the Lib Dems are on six percent, down 17% from their GE score, whilst us Blues are only 1-2% down
The people will not forget or forgive the Lib Dem perfidy0 -
If Scotland gains independence from the UK, could they justly reclaim the ‘Stewart Sapphire’ presently set in the Imperial State Crown?0
-
The people speak of nothing else!TheScreamingEagles said:
Nick Clegg lied, and it has cost his party the support of tactical tory voters in Lib/Lab seats.
(Well, it's second only to a good debate on voting systems.)0 -
On topic, I'm more and more convinced we'll get a hung parliament, without a workable coalition, with Cons ahead on the votes, and Lab ahead on seats.
I'm not sure what happens next0 -
There's a reason why the Lib Dems vote has gone down and the Tories are on an upward tick.Neil said:
The people speak of nothing else!TheScreamingEagles said:
Nick Clegg lied, and it has cost his party the support of tactical tory voters in Lib/Lab seats.
(Well, it's second only to a good debate on voting systems.)0 -
@TheScreamingEagles
“There is no formal link between the two.”
“Of course, there is no reliance on our support for a Coalition Agreement commitment for progress on unrelated or other significant parallel constitutional formations. I have said that. There is no link; of course, there is no link.”
The ironic thing is that those statements by Clegg are entirely truthful - he was never going to vote the boundaries through no matter the Lords result. There never was a link.0 -
Junior coalition partners always get shellacked.TheScreamingEagles said:
There's a reason why the Lib Dems vote has gone down and the Tories are on an upward tick.Neil said:
The people speak of nothing else!TheScreamingEagles said:
Nick Clegg lied, and it has cost his party the support of tactical tory voters in Lib/Lab seats.
(Well, it's second only to a good debate on voting systems.)0 -
-
We get to make a heap of money on "Con Majority nailed on" at the ensuing General Election....TheScreamingEagles said:On topic, I'm more and more convinced we'll get a hung parliament, without a workable coalition, with Cons ahead on the votes, and Lab ahead on seats.
I'm not sure what happens next
0 -
The loss of the AV referendum likely sealed the boundaries fate.Pulpstar said:@TheScreamingEagles
“There is no formal link between the two.”
“Of course, there is no reliance on our support for a Coalition Agreement commitment for progress on unrelated or other significant parallel constitutional formations. I have said that. There is no link; of course, there is no link.”
The ironic thing is that those statements by Clegg are entirely truthful - he was never going to vote the boundaries through no matter the Lords result. There never was a link.
0 -
Doesn't Ashcroft's recent polling indicate Labour's swing in the marginals is trailing behind its national swing, though? Which would indicate there would be less disparity this time between voteshares and seats (though still some).0
-
Mr. Mark, you're still ahead but now up to three wasps.
Mr. T, I concur, but I'm baffled as to Warsi's resignation.0 -
That is not fully correct , the initial proposed boundary changes were very bad for the Lib Dems but by the time the proposals had been reviewed and revised they were much less so .Pulpstar said:
The boundaries card was played by Clegg because he had to play it, it was an existential threat to the Lib Dems. If they were on 8% or w/e at the moment they would be staring down the barrel at a far larger seat loss than they would be at the moment with the new boundaries and far weaker incumbency. The issue also carried quite conveniently almost no public saliency.volcanopete said:The irony of course is the AV referendum,one of 2 acts of Tory self-harm this parliament,the other being the failure to change constituency boundaries because of the spat with the LibDems over Lords Reform.Taken together, the Tories could have cost themselves a majority without anyone else's help.
In essence this was a pretty risk free "stab" on Cameron by Clegg in the context of the coalition relationship. Lords reform was a convenient fig leaf to hide the actions behind. Clegg did what he had to do on boundaries. And he did it pretty well.0 -
Lib Dems still better off with the existing boundaries though, surely ?MarkSenior said:
That is not fully correct , the initial proposed boundary changes were very bad for the Lib Dems but by the time the proposals had been reviewed and revised they were much less so .Pulpstar said:
The boundaries card was played by Clegg because he had to play it, it was an existential threat to the Lib Dems. If they were on 8% or w/e at the moment they would be staring down the barrel at a far larger seat loss than they would be at the moment with the new boundaries and far weaker incumbency. The issue also carried quite conveniently almost no public saliency.volcanopete said:The irony of course is the AV referendum,one of 2 acts of Tory self-harm this parliament,the other being the failure to change constituency boundaries because of the spat with the LibDems over Lords Reform.Taken together, the Tories could have cost themselves a majority without anyone else's help.
In essence this was a pretty risk free "stab" on Cameron by Clegg in the context of the coalition relationship. Lords reform was a convenient fig leaf to hide the actions behind. Clegg did what he had to do on boundaries. And he did it pretty well.0 -
Every time I go to a pub, people talk about nothing else. Not the Premiership, the World Cup, Test match, Commonwealth Games, Gaza being pulped into the Stone Age, literally.TGOHF said:
Yet now they are on 6% - a bit more national interest over LD interests and well he might be in double figures.Pulpstar said:
The boundaries card was played by Clegg because he had to play it, it was an existential threat to the Lib Dems. If they were on 8% or w/e at the moment they would be staring down the barrel at a far larger seat loss than they would be at the moment with the new boundaries and far weaker incumbency. The issue also carried quite conveniently almost no public saliency.volcanopete said:The irony of course is the AV referendum,one of 2 acts of Tory self-harm this parliament,the other being the failure to change constituency boundaries because of the spat with the LibDems over Lords Reform.Taken together, the Tories could have cost themselves a majority without anyone else's help.
In essence this was a pretty risk free "stab" on Cameron by Clegg in the context of the coalition relationship. Lords reform was a convenient fig leaf to hide the actions behind. Clegg did what he had to do on boundaries. And he did it pretty well.
No, they just talk about Clegg's masterful "reneging" on boundaries [ according to Tories ].0 -
Yet do I understand it that you will be voting for Clegg in Sheffield Hallam to keep LAB out?TheScreamingEagles said:
Nick Clegg lied, and it has cost his party the support of tactical tory voters in Lib/Lab seats.Neil said:
Yes, it was the boundaries that did for them.TGOHF said:
Yet now they are on 6% - a bit more national interest over LD interests and well he might be in double figures.Pulpstar said:
The boundaries card was played by Clegg because he had to play it, it was an existential threat to the Lib Dems. If they were on 8% or w/e at the moment they would be staring down the barrel at a far larger seat loss than they would be at the moment with the new boundaries and far weaker incumbency. The issue also carried quite conveniently almost no public saliency.volcanopete said:The irony of course is the AV referendum,one of 2 acts of Tory self-harm this parliament,the other being the failure to change constituency boundaries because of the spat with the LibDems over Lords Reform.Taken together, the Tories could have cost themselves a majority without anyone else's help.
In essence this was a pretty risk free "stab" on Cameron by Clegg in the context of the coalition relationship. Lords reform was a convenient fig leaf to hide the actions behind. Clegg did what he had to do on boundaries. And he did it pretty well.
:Tory Eleanor Laing
“It is now being reported that the Liberal Democrat party … will not continue to support the boundaries legislation unless House of Lords reform is passed in the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Is that the case?”
Clegg responded:
“There is no formal link between the two.”
Pressed again by Laing to clarify, Clegg denied another two times:
“Of course, there is no reliance on our support for a Coalition Agreement commitment for progress on unrelated or other significant parallel constitutional formations. I have said that. There is no link; of course, there is no link.”
http://politicalscrapbook.net/2012/08/nick-clegg-lords-reform/
That's the reason why the Lib Dems are on six percent, down 17% from their GE score, whilst us Blues are only 1-2% down
The people will not forget or forgive the Lib Dem perfidy
0 -
Up to 4, but it won't get any higher because I've shut the window completely.0
-
Mr Dancer, I have amended my avatar to show one of the pesky blighters. I was wondering if you might work on a genetic strain of highly irritable hornets, that would be released on impact with car bumpers - maybe with trials starting in the Morley area?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Mark, you're still ahead but now up to three wasps.
( I was amused by The Killers recently winning the weirdest lyric contest with "Are we human - or are we Dancer?" - the organisers obviously don't know this is the theme song for your genetic engineering work on the enormo-haddock...)0 -
Indeed - we can follow their polling in nice colourful graphs and the impact of the boundaries issue is .. (well, I know you know what it is).TheScreamingEagles said:
There's a reason why the Lib Dems vote has gone down and the Tories are on an upward tick.Neil said:
The people speak of nothing else!TheScreamingEagles said:
Nick Clegg lied, and it has cost his party the support of tactical tory voters in Lib/Lab seats.
(Well, it's second only to a good debate on voting systems.)
0 -
Check out the comments... An old friend!
Lord Ashcroft (@LordAshcroft)
05/08/2014 13:28
The resignation of @SayeedaWarsi is a loss to both the Government and the Conservative Party.
0 -
Shush. I'll get drummed out the PB Tory club.MikeSmithson said:
Yet do I understand it that you will be voting for Clegg in Sheffield Hallam to keep LAB out?TheScreamingEagles said:
Nick Clegg lied, and it has cost his party the support of tactical tory voters in Lib/Lab seats.Neil said:
Yes, it was the boundaries that did for them.TGOHF said:
Yet now they are on 6% - a bit more national interest over LD interests and well he might be in double figures.Pulpstar said:
The boundaries card was played by Clegg because he had to play it, it was an existential threat to the Lib Dems. If they were on 8% or w/e at the moment they would be staring down the barrel at a far larger seat loss than they would be at the moment with the new boundaries and far weaker incumbency. The issue also carried quite conveniently almost no public saliency.volcanopete said:The irony of course is the AV referendum,one of 2 acts of Tory self-harm this parliament,the other being the failure to change constituency boundaries because of the spat with the LibDems over Lords Reform.Taken together, the Tories could have cost themselves a majority without anyone else's help.
In essence this was a pretty risk free "stab" on Cameron by Clegg in the context of the coalition relationship. Lords reform was a convenient fig leaf to hide the actions behind. Clegg did what he had to do on boundaries. And he did it pretty well.
:Tory Eleanor Laing
“It is now being reported that the Liberal Democrat party … will not continue to support the boundaries legislation unless House of Lords reform is passed in the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Is that the case?”
Clegg responded:
“There is no formal link between the two.”
Pressed again by Laing to clarify, Clegg denied another two times:
“Of course, there is no reliance on our support for a Coalition Agreement commitment for progress on unrelated or other significant parallel constitutional formations. I have said that. There is no link; of course, there is no link.”
http://politicalscrapbook.net/2012/08/nick-clegg-lords-reform/
That's the reason why the Lib Dems are on six percent, down 17% from their GE score, whilst us Blues are only 1-2% down
The people will not forget or forgive the Lib Dem perfidy
It should be noted I've never voted for the winner in Sheffield Hallam. I've always ended up voting for the chap that finished second.
0 -
This article is relevant to the debate about Warsi, EdM etc.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/03/sorry-truth-virus-anti-semitism-has-infected-british-muslim-community
We are entitled and indeed should criticise Israel when it behaves badly. But I'm very worried by the failure of leaders in this country to challenge the growth of anti-Semitism, the way that often (not always) criticism of Israel is either motivated by anti-Semitism or is expressed in ways which are, let's put it kindly, careless of the impression that is given and the way that Jews in this country have been targeted and attacked (as has also happened in other countries in Europe).
Baroness Warsi was quick to talk about Islamophobia even though, as the recent Trojan Horse reports have said, too often that term was used to justify shutting down any criticism of Islam. She's been less quick to denounce anti-Semitism, particularly when so much of it in recent years has come from parts of the Muslim community. Just as we must not shut down criticism of Israel by claiming that any criticism of it is anti-Semitic nor must we be afraid to say that calling Jews "apes and pigs" is wrong and disgusting, that walking round London holding up placards saying that "Hitler was right" and shouting "Death to Jews" is wrong and disgusting.
The last century has seen some terrible wars with appalling acts committed on people because of hatred fostered by ideology with too many others looking the other way. I felt strongly at the time of the Bosnian wars that one reason why we needed to help the Bosnian Muslims was precisely because we needed to show minority communities that we had truly learned the lessons of WW2. We did not and Srebenica happened while we looked the other way. I do not want the Palestinians to be obliterated and I find it appalling that some people in Israel (of all places) should be uttering such views.
Our politicians can do little about the Middle East. But they can do something about what happens in our country. We do not need the same culture of hate of a people based on their race or religion to develop again this century in Europe. Muslims rightly do not want to be the focus of hatred based on their religion; equally they need to understand that they cannot be given a free pass and allowed to promulgate hate against others based on their religion or race.
And now having stirred the pot (sorry!) off to do some work.0 -
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/picture/2014/aug/05/lady-warsi-resignation-letter
Finally, she has done something as amatter of principle. What did she expect Cameron, the Israeli lover, to do ?0 -
It took me all of 2 seconds to google this:Cyclefree said:She's been less quick to denounce anti-Semitism
http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/58312/baroness-warsi-we-must-drain-poison-antisemitism0 -
She also condemned “secular fundamentalism” calling it one of the “biggest threats we face in faith communities. And I am absolutely committed to defeating it.”Neil said:
It took me all of 2 seconds to google this:Cyclefree said:She's been less quick to denounce anti-Semitism
http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/58312/baroness-warsi-we-must-drain-poison-antisemitism
Hmm...0 -
I really don't know who to vote for now Dave, quite sensibly, has sacked Gove. I was going to tactically vote LAB because of Gove. It is very hard to feel the same about Nicky Morgan.
I loathe the Greens even more than I dislike UKIP. The LDs will be squeezed to a possible loss of deposit here in Bedford LAB target #24 and I'm keen that my vote counts.0 -
You got to hand it to Crosby... he leaves no barnacle unscraped!MikeSmithson said:I was going to tactically vote LAB because of Gove. It is very hard to feel the same about Nicky Morgan.
0 -
Cyclefree writes good stuff here in PB. Except those with a soecial interest in Israel are totally blind about Israel's conduct. Israel can bomb Gaza until every human is dead and yet they will find some excuse to justify it.
I hear ad nauseum about Hamas' "terrorist" link. I have only one question.
When Menachem Begin and the Irgun blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem and killed 108 British soldiers. Was that an act of terrorism ?0 -
Well if a vote for the LD's saves them a deposit that's equivalent to a £500 donation to the party, so you could claim that that means it counts for something.MikeSmithson said:I really don't know who to vote for now Dave, quite sensibly, has sacked Gove. I was going to tactically vote LAB because of Gove. It is very hard to feel the same about Nicky Morgan.
I loathe the Greens even more than I dislike UKIP. The LDs will be squeezed to a possible loss of deposit here in Bedford LAB target #24 and I'm keen that my vote counts.0 -
Nothing like a good case of whataboutery in the afternoon.surbiton said:Cyclefree writes good stuff here in PB. Except those with a soecial interest in Israel are totally blind about Israel's conduct. Israel can bomb Gaza until every human is dead and yet they will find some excuse to justify it.
I hear ad nauseum about Hamas' "terrorist" link. I have only one question.
When Menachem Begin and the Irgun blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem and killed 108 British soldiers. Was that an act of terrorism ?
0 -
Yep. I suppose Hamas has been more active recently, given that was almost 70 years ago...surbiton said:Cyclefree writes good stuff here in PB. Except those with a soecial interest in Israel are totally blind about Israel's conduct. Israel can bomb Gaza until every human is dead and yet they will find some excuse to justify it.
I hear ad nauseum about Hamas' "terrorist" link. I have only one question.
When Menachem Begin and the Irgun blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem and killed 108 British soldiers. Was that an act of terrorism ?0 -
I say this as someone who is sympathetic to Israel. I merely observe that it is Westminster village and Tory bubble-thinking to presume that the resignation over Tory policy on Israel by a Muslim minister won’t harm the Tory party's efforts to woo Muslim voters.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/03/sorry-truth-virus-anti-semitism-has-infected-british-muslim-community
0 -
Mr. Mark, they're damned foul things. Not sure if I've encountered a hornet, though.
Mr. Pulpstar, indeed. Not sure militant atheism is really a problem, certainly in comparison with militant theism.0 -
Vote Tory, didn't you tell me the Lab activists in Bedford used homophobic insults in a campaign.MikeSmithson said:I really don't know who to vote for now Dave, quite sensibly, has sacked Gove. I was going to tactically vote LAB because of Gove. It is very hard to feel the same about Nicky Morgan.
I loathe the Greens even more than I dislike UKIP. The LDs will be squeezed to a possible loss of deposit here in Bedford LAB target #24 and I'm keen that my vote counts.
Or you could move to a Lib Dem marginal. Sheffield Hallam is gorgeous or maybe Bermondsey
0 -
No fantastic news.MikeSmithson said:
Yet do I understand it that you will be voting for Clegg in Sheffield Hallam to keep LAB out?TheScreamingEagles said:
Nick Clegg lied, and it has cost his party the support of tactical tory voters in Lib/Lab seats.Neil said:
Yes, it was the boundaries that did for them.TGOHF said:
Yet now they are on 6% - a bit more national interest over LD interests and well he might be in double figures.Pulpstar said:
The boundaries card was played by Clegg because he had to play it, it was an existential threat to the Lib Dems. If they were on 8% or w/e at the moment they would be staring down the barrel at a far larger seat loss than they would be at the moment with the new boundaries and far weaker incumbency. The issue also carried quite conveniently almost no public saliency.volcanopete said:The irony of course is the AV referendum,one of 2 acts of Tory self-harm this parliament,the other being the failure to change constituency boundaries because of the spat with the LibDems over Lords Reform.Taken together, the Tories could have cost themselves a majority without anyone else's help.
In essence this was a pretty risk free "stab" on Cameron by Clegg in the context of the coalition relationship. Lords reform was a convenient fig leaf to hide the actions behind. Clegg did what he had to do on boundaries. And he did it pretty well.
:Tory Eleanor Laing
“It is now being reported that the Liberal Democrat party … will not continue to support the boundaries legislation unless House of Lords reform is passed in the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Is that the case?”
Clegg responded:
“There is no formal link between the two.”
Pressed again by Laing to clarify, Clegg denied another two times:
“Of course, there is no reliance on our support for a Coalition Agreement commitment for progress on unrelated or other significant parallel constitutional formations. I have said that. There is no link; of course, there is no link.”
http://politicalscrapbook.net/2012/08/nick-clegg-lords-reform/
That's the reason why the Lib Dems are on six percent, down 17% from their GE score, whilst us Blues are only 1-2% down
The people will not forget or forgive the Lib Dem perfidy
Wonders when will next bump into TSE the LD voter.
0 -
Very easily noticeable. You ducked the question !RobD said:
Yep. I suppose Hamas has been more active recently, given that was almost 70 years ago...surbiton said:Cyclefree writes good stuff here in PB. Except those with a soecial interest in Israel are totally blind about Israel's conduct. Israel can bomb Gaza until every human is dead and yet they will find some excuse to justify it.
I hear ad nauseum about Hamas' "terrorist" link. I have only one question.
When Menachem Begin and the Irgun blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem and killed 108 British soldiers. Was that an act of terrorism ?0 -
Warsi being the latest one...Neil said:
You got to hand it to Crosby... he leaves no barnacle unscraped!MikeSmithson said:I was going to tactically vote LAB because of Gove. It is very hard to feel the same about Nicky Morgan.
0 -
Good luck with that.TGOHF said:
Warsi being the latest one...Neil said:
You got to hand it to Crosby... he leaves no barnacle unscraped!MikeSmithson said:I was going to tactically vote LAB because of Gove. It is very hard to feel the same about Nicky Morgan.
0 -
What did she expect Cameron, the Israeli lover, to do ?
Cameron does not love Israel. He's understandably frit of throwing his weight behind a state run by Islamists. A state, I read today, that has not held an election since Hamas ousted Fatah in 2006.
Clearly Hamas does not want to allow public opinion to potentially get in the way of its stated aim of annihilating Israel.
0 -
Her storming off in the huff is less worse than firing her in the reshuffle IMHO.Neil said:
Good luck with that.TGOHF said:
Warsi being the latest one...Neil said:
You got to hand it to Crosby... he leaves no barnacle unscraped!MikeSmithson said:I was going to tactically vote LAB because of Gove. It is very hard to feel the same about Nicky Morgan.
What does she bring to the election campaign ? Answers on a postage stamp.0 -
Huh? I said yes at the start.surbiton said:
Very easily noticeable. You ducked the question !RobD said:
Yep. I suppose Hamas has been more active recently, given that was almost 70 years ago...surbiton said:Cyclefree writes good stuff here in PB. Except those with a soecial interest in Israel are totally blind about Israel's conduct. Israel can bomb Gaza until every human is dead and yet they will find some excuse to justify it.
I hear ad nauseum about Hamas' "terrorist" link. I have only one question.
When Menachem Begin and the Irgun blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem and killed 108 British soldiers. Was that an act of terrorism ?0 -
Considering the tory campaign to woo the muslim vote has been a complete failure anyway, I don;t see how the departure of Warsi makes a difference either way.
Who knows, it may bring a few kippers back.0 -
The Tories need to ruthlessly target non-Muslim immigrants for votes. Practising Muslims are never going to vote Tory.taffys said:Considering the tory campaign to woo the muslim vote has been a complete failure anyway, I don;t see how the departure of Warsi makes a difference either way.
Who knows, it may bring a few kippers back.0 -
SeanT said:
I expect if you were to poll the country you would find that many people are fed up of both sides self indulgent and petty squabble over a few useless patches of desert when the world has bigger and more important problems to deal with, not forgetting the moronic propagandists who spout the same tired arguments to each other ad nauseum. Personally I mute/turn over the telly whenever Gaza comes on the news and I bet I'm not the only one!Morris_Dancer said:
I know I was. And Tory MPs know that much of the country feels the same way as me:0 -
If Scotland votes No, the Tories are doomed, DOOMED for the foreseeable future...0
-
A better answer would have been "Yes, it was an act of terrorism"RobD said:
Huh? I said yes at the start.surbiton said:
Very easily noticeable. You ducked the question !RobD said:
Yep. I suppose Hamas has been more active recently, given that was almost 70 years ago...surbiton said:Cyclefree writes good stuff here in PB. Except those with a soecial interest in Israel are totally blind about Israel's conduct. Israel can bomb Gaza until every human is dead and yet they will find some excuse to justify it.
I hear ad nauseum about Hamas' "terrorist" link. I have only one question.
When Menachem Begin and the Irgun blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem and killed 108 British soldiers. Was that an act of terrorism ?0 -
All the time.bigjohnowls said:
No fantastic news.MikeSmithson said:
Yet do I understand it that you will be voting for Clegg in Sheffield Hallam to keep LAB out?TheScreamingEagles said:
Nick Clegg lied, and it has cost his party the support of tactical tory voters in Lib/Lab seats.Neil said:
Yes, it was the boundaries that did for them.TGOHF said:
Yet now they are on 6% - a bit more national interest over LD interests and well he might be in double figures.Pulpstar said:
The boundaries card was played by Clegg because he had to play it, it was an existential threat to the Lib Dems. If they were on 8% or w/e at the moment they would be staring down the barrel at a far larger seat loss than they would be at the moment with the new boundaries and far weaker incumbency. The issue also carried quite conveniently almost no public saliency.volcanopete said:The irony of course is the AV referendum,one of 2 acts of Tory self-harm this parliament,the other being the failure to change constituency boundaries because of the spat with the LibDems over Lords Reform.Taken together, the Tories could have cost themselves a majority without anyone else's help.
In essence this was a pretty risk free "stab" on Cameron by Clegg in the context of the coalition relationship. Lords reform was a convenient fig leaf to hide the actions behind. Clegg did what he had to do on boundaries. And he did it pretty well.
:Tory Eleanor Laing
“It is now being reported that the Liberal Democrat party … will not continue to support the boundaries legislation unless House of Lords reform is passed in the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Is that the case?”
Clegg responded:
“There is no formal link between the two.”
Pressed again by Laing to clarify, Clegg denied another two times:
“Of course, there is no reliance on our support for a Coalition Agreement commitment for progress on unrelated or other significant parallel constitutional formations. I have said that. There is no link; of course, there is no link.”
http://politicalscrapbook.net/2012/08/nick-clegg-lords-reform/
That's the reason why the Lib Dems are on six percent, down 17% from their GE score, whilst us Blues are only 1-2% down
The people will not forget or forgive the Lib Dem perfidy
Wonders when will next bump into TSE the LD voter.
You remind me of the Lab supporters who thought Fulwood was nailed on Lab gain
0 -
Indyref NO@1.3 watch.
Still at 1.23/1.24
Bring out the Eck - lets break the 1.3 ceiling..0 -
Not really. The constituency polls are probably most useful if you take the "bearing in mind your constituency and the candidates" bottom line. e.g. Lab swing in Broxtowe is down from 8% (first Ashcroft poll) to 6% (latest) vs 6% nationally at time of last poll to 4.5% nationally in current one (Lab+7 Con -2 compared to 2010). You get slightly different results if you take the question ignoring candidates, don't tweak for turnout, etc., but it's all MOE.Danny565 said:Doesn't Ashcroft's recent polling indicate Labour's swing in the marginals is trailing behind its national swing, though? Which would indicate there would be less disparity this time between voteshares and seats (though still some).
0 -
The whole "anti-semitism" thing strikes me as an example of curious ideological cross-dressing. It gives some on the left the opportunity to denounce, albeit indirectly, a religious and racial minority, yet mitigate the charge of racism with the cover that the minority concerned - Jews - is associated with wealth, power and "oppression". Those on the right who are apologists for Israel have at the same time the rare opportunity to denounce the former group for their "anti-semitism" and "racism". Thus the consciences of both are salved.0
-
But Gove's legacy lives on in the unresolved issues those in teaching still face,the pension dispute,the safety at work issues of workload,stress and the pace of change, and the overall 20% loss of income from the pay freeze,shared by all in the public sector, and the reductions of pension income from the change from RPI to CPI which will amount to around £40,000 in the life-time of every teacher.The teaching assistants have borne their brunt of it as well.MikeSmithson said:I really don't know who to vote for now Dave, quite sensibly, has sacked Gove. I was going to tactically vote LAB because of Gove. It is very hard to feel the same about Nicky Morgan.
I loathe the Greens even more than I dislike UKIP. The LDs will be squeezed to a possible loss of deposit here in Bedford LAB target #24 and I'm keen that my vote counts.
Labour needs to end the yes-but-no-but policies on education and indicate a willingness to resolve the pension disputes,inc the fire service,accept the pay freeze is incompatible with the cost of living argument and address the safety arguments.Not just teachers,many public servants feel under-valued.Local government workers have,in fact,been the hardest hit.
0 -
Sorry I wasn't clear enough for you, jeez.surbiton said:
A better answer would have been "Yes, it was an act of terrorism"RobD said:
Huh? I said yes at the start.surbiton said:
Very easily noticeable. You ducked the question !RobD said:
Yep. I suppose Hamas has been more active recently, given that was almost 70 years ago...surbiton said:Cyclefree writes good stuff here in PB. Except those with a soecial interest in Israel are totally blind about Israel's conduct. Israel can bomb Gaza until every human is dead and yet they will find some excuse to justify it.
I hear ad nauseum about Hamas' "terrorist" link. I have only one question.
When Menachem Begin and the Irgun blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem and killed 108 British soldiers. Was that an act of terrorism ?0 -
Is it not true that the Arabs also speak a Semitic language?PeterC said:The whole "anti-semitism" thing strikes me as an example of curious ideological cross-dressing. It gives some on the left the opportunity to denounce, albeit indirectly, a religious and racial minority, yet mitigate the charge of racism with the cover that the minority concerned - Jews - is associated with wealth, power and "oppression". Those on the right who are apologists for Israel have at the same time the rare opportunity to denounce the former group for their "anti-semitism" and "racism". Thus the consciences of both are salved.
0 -
There's never a never, even when you're losing a demographic it helps to lose them by less.MaxPB said:
The Tories need to ruthlessly target non-Muslim immigrants for votes. Practising Muslims are never going to vote Tory.taffys said:Considering the tory campaign to woo the muslim vote has been a complete failure anyway, I don;t see how the departure of Warsi makes a difference either way.
Who knows, it may bring a few kippers back.0 -
She should aim higher than that - she should be aiming to beat the season ticket renewals at Rangers FC this summer.TGOHF said:
0 -
Screaming anti-Semitism when the Israelis are criticised is the same as screaming racism when immigration is criticised.PeterC said:The whole "anti-semitism" thing strikes me as an example of curious ideological cross-dressing. It gives some on the left the opportunity to denounce, albeit indirectly, a religious and racial minority, yet mitigate the charge of racism with the cover that the minority concerned - Jews - is associated with wealth, power and "oppression". Those on the right who are apologists for Israel have at the same time the rare opportunity to denounce the former group for their "anti-semitism" and "racism". Thus the consciences of both are salved.
Both are devices designed to shutdown debate.
0 -
For the reasons I have set out on here on several occasions I do not agree that there will be a discrepancy on the scale we saw in 2010, let alone 2005 in 2015. That does not mean, of course, that this will not be a very considerable advantage to Labour. Clearly it will.
My optimism that the result may bear a better relationship with the votes cast is increased, somewhat ironically, by the relative continuing strength of UKIP. I think that 36% will be worth considerably more to the tories where it matters than it did in 2010 as a result.
My expectation is also that many of the red liberal votes that we talk about so endlessly will be wasted votes, increasing the Labour share but, if anything, increasing the tory seats. This will particularly be the case in the south west.
How much of a lead will the tories need to be the largest party? I am not sure but my guess is about 4%. 36:32 will probably just give the tories the edge. At the moment that is looking like a difficult but not impossible ask. If Labour stays up in the mid 30s they will be the largest party and probably have a majority.0 -
@Sunil_Prasannan
The genetic difference between Palistinians and middle east Jews is negligible according to one report. Which the publisher asked the readers of the magazine to rip out and throw away, after having been inundated with complaints from the "chosen people".
0 -
Arabs are indeed Semites, as I understand it. However "anti-semitic" in common parlance is generally take to mean aversion to Jews, would you agree?Sunil_Prasannan said:
Is it not true that the Arabs also speak a Semitic language?PeterC said:The whole "anti-semitism" thing strikes me as an example of curious ideological cross-dressing. It gives some on the left the opportunity to denounce, albeit indirectly, a religious and racial minority, yet mitigate the charge of racism with the cover that the minority concerned - Jews - is associated with wealth, power and "oppression". Those on the right who are apologists for Israel have at the same time the rare opportunity to denounce the former group for their "anti-semitism" and "racism". Thus the consciences of both are salved.
0 -
But of the 5 issues you list above 3 (ie (1), (4) and (5) ) are wholeheartedly supported by the Lib Dems (through Danny Alexander) and were nothing to do with Gove in the first place anyway.volcanopete said:
But Gove's legacy lives on in the unresolved issues those in teaching still face,(1) the pension dispute,(2) the safety at work issues of workload,(3) stress and the pace of change, and the (4) overall 20% loss of income from the pay freeze,shared by all in the public sector, and (5) the reductions of pension income from the change from RPI to CPI which will amount to around £40,000 in the life-time of every teacher.MikeSmithson said:I really don't know who to vote for now Dave, quite sensibly, has sacked Gove. I was going to tactically vote LAB because of Gove. It is very hard to feel the same about Nicky Morgan.
I loathe the Greens even more than I dislike UKIP. The LDs will be squeezed to a possible loss of deposit here in Bedford LAB target #24 and I'm keen that my vote counts.0 -
But is it not true that Jews are only a minority of the world's Semitic population?PeterC said:
Arabs are indeed Semites, as I understand it. However "anti-semitic" in common parlance is generally take to mean aversion to Jews, would you agree?Sunil_Prasannan said:
Is it not true that the Arabs also speak a Semitic language?PeterC said:The whole "anti-semitism" thing strikes me as an example of curious ideological cross-dressing. It gives some on the left the opportunity to denounce, albeit indirectly, a religious and racial minority, yet mitigate the charge of racism with the cover that the minority concerned - Jews - is associated with wealth, power and "oppression". Those on the right who are apologists for Israel have at the same time the rare opportunity to denounce the former group for their "anti-semitism" and "racism". Thus the consciences of both are salved.
A bit like using the term "Asian" to refer to the Indian Subcontinent, when Asia proper stretches from Turkey to the Bering Strait.0 -
I also wonder about the effect of the Greens. If they continue to poll well - they are likely to get reasonable vote shares in safe Labour seats (particularly in London if the locals are anything to go by). Clearly this has no effect on the seat totals, but could have the effect of making Labour's vote even more efficient (and thus counteracting to some degree your UKIP effect)DavidL said:For the reasons I have set out on here on several occasions I do not agree that there will be a discrepancy on the scale we saw in 2010, let alone 2005 in 2015. That does not mean, of course, that this will not be a very considerable advantage to Labour. Clearly it will.
My optimism that the result may bear a better relationship with the votes cast is increased, somewhat ironically, by the relative continuing strength of UKIP. I think that 36% will be worth considerably more to the tories where it matters than it did in 2010 as a result.
My expectation is also that many of the red liberal votes that we talk about so endlessly will be wasted votes, increasing the Labour share but, if anything, increasing the tory seats. This will particularly be the case in the south west.
How much of a lead will the tories need to be the largest party? I am not sure but my guess is about 4%. 36:32 will probably just give the tories the edge. At the moment that is looking like a difficult but not impossible ask. If Labour stays up in the mid 30s they will be the largest party and probably have a majority.
0 -
If you look at turnouts in constituencies with large Moslem populations you'll see that a large number of them don't bother voting at all. But I bet Baroness Warsi will still plump for the Tories, so there's one vote they can count on.MaxPB said:
The Tories need to ruthlessly target non-Muslim immigrants for votes. Practising Muslims are never going to vote Tory.taffys said:Considering the tory campaign to woo the muslim vote has been a complete failure anyway, I don;t see how the departure of Warsi makes a difference either way.
Who knows, it may bring a few kippers back.
0 -
If you say so Neil - who do you support ? Legia Warsaw ?Neil said:0 -
Sunil_Prasannan said:
But is it not true that Jews are only a minority of the world's Semitic population?PeterC said:
Arabs are indeed Semites, as I understand it. However "anti-semitic" in common parlance is generally take to mean aversion to Jews, would you agree?Sunil_Prasannan said:
Is it not true that the Arabs also speak a Semitic language?PeterC said:The whole "anti-semitism" thing strikes me as an example of curious ideological cross-dressing. It gives some on the left the opportunity to denounce, albeit indirectly, a religious and racial minority, yet mitigate the charge of racism with the cover that the minority concerned - Jews - is associated with wealth, power and "oppression". Those on the right who are apologists for Israel have at the same time the rare opportunity to denounce the former group for their "anti-semitism" and "racism". Thus the consciences of both are salved.
A bit like using the term "Asian" to refer to the Indian Subcontinent, when Asia proper stretches from Turkey to the Bering Strait.
Point taken. So perhaps we should stop saying "anti-semitic" and just say "anti-Jewish" instead, when that is actually what is meant. But that would be a little close to the bone wouldn't it?0 -
Never had that much interest in the Polish league. Mind you it cant be less predictable than the Scottish Premiership will be this season. The Championship is where it's at this year for sure!TGOHF said:
If you say so Neil - who do you support ? Legia Warsaw ?Neil said:
0 -
The genetic difference between Palestinian Arabs and Shephardi Jews is negligible. Ashkenazi Jews are not quite the same. After all they have been in the diaspora for over a millenia and been through many unfortunate events.Smarmeron said:@Sunil_Prasannan
The genetic difference between Palistinians and middle east Jews is negligible according to one report. Which the publisher asked the readers of the magazine to rip out and throw away, after having been inundated with complaints from the "chosen people".0 -
Private Frasernnan? ;-)Sunil_Prasannan said:If Scotland votes No, the Tories are doomed, DOOMED for the foreseeable future...
0 -
Agreed - but unfortunately I believe it is the stated aim of Hamas to destroy Israel and this is no better a good starting point that the refusal by Israel to dismantle the illegal settlements. With better leadership on both sides a 2 state solution would be possible.SouthamObserver said:
Screaming anti-Semitism when the Israelis are criticised is the same as screaming racism when immigration is criticised.PeterC said:The whole "anti-semitism" thing strikes me as an example of curious ideological cross-dressing. It gives some on the left the opportunity to denounce, albeit indirectly, a religious and racial minority, yet mitigate the charge of racism with the cover that the minority concerned - Jews - is associated with wealth, power and "oppression". Those on the right who are apologists for Israel have at the same time the rare opportunity to denounce the former group for their "anti-semitism" and "racism". Thus the consciences of both are salved.
Both are devices designed to shutdown debate.0 -
One would imagine not as it is part of the regalia of QE2 who will still be Queen of Scotland. Unless they decide to become a republic at some stage.....SimonStClare said:If Scotland gains independence from the UK, could they justly reclaim the ‘Stewart Sapphire’ presently set in the Imperial State Crown?
0 -
I don't think either is any closer to any particular bone - anti-Semitic clearly means the same as anti-Jewish (even if it shouldn't), and is equally pejorative. Wikipedia seems to think it anti-Semitic was originally used over anti-Jewish because it sounded more scientific, but now it's just the general technical term:PeterC said:Sunil_Prasannan said:
But is it not true that Jews are only a minority of the world's Semitic population?PeterC said:
Arabs are indeed Semites, as I understand it. However "anti-semitic" in common parlance is generally take to mean aversion to Jews, would you agree?Sunil_Prasannan said:
Is it not true that the Arabs also speak a Semitic language?PeterC said:The whole "anti-semitism" thing strikes me as an example of curious ideological cross-dressing. It gives some on the left the opportunity to denounce, albeit indirectly, a religious and racial minority, yet mitigate the charge of racism with the cover that the minority concerned - Jews - is associated with wealth, power and "oppression". Those on the right who are apologists for Israel have at the same time the rare opportunity to denounce the former group for their "anti-semitism" and "racism". Thus the consciences of both are salved.
A bit like using the term "Asian" to refer to the Indian Subcontinent, when Asia proper stretches from Turkey to the Bering Strait.
Point taken. So perhaps we should stop saying "anti-semitic" and just say "anti-Jewish" instead, when that is actually what is meant. But that would be a little close to the bone wouldn't it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism#Etymology
I think anti-Jewish is simpler and clearer, but since the English language didn't choose it it's missing some forms. It works as an adjective, but what's the noun? Anti-Jewism?0 -
Response by Cameron to Warsi.
I realise that this must not have been an easy decision for you to make and very much regret that we were not able to speak about your decision beforehand.
I understand your strength of feeling on the current crisis in the Middle East – the situation in Gaza is intolerable. Our policy has always been consistently clear: we support a negotiated two state solution as the only way to resolve this conflict once and for all and to allow Israelis and Palestinians to live safely in peace.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/pm-letter-to-baroness-warsi/david-camerons-letter-to-baroness-warsi
0 -
Cameron to Warsi:
Thank you for your letter today, in which you set out your reasons for resigning from the Government. I was sorry to receive this.
I realise that this must not have been an easy decision for you to make and very much regret that we were not able to speak about your decision beforehand.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/pm-letter-to-baroness-warsi/david-camerons-letter-to-baroness-warsi0
